Talk:Brotherhood of Nod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brotherhood of Nod article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, 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 assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Command & Conquer task force.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Literal meaning of Kane's "al-Quayym" alias

In Arabic, Amir means prince and al-Quayym is a corruption of al-Qiyama. al-Qiyama is a synonym for Yasmut Deen, which means Judgement Day. The writer learned this personally from a certain professor with the given name of Fahti, who at the time was working for a summer program run by the Newton, Massachusetts Community Education program. The lessons took place at Hosmer Elementary School.

So to summarize; you are saying that Kane's Middle-Eastern alias of Amir al-Quayym essentially is translated to "The Prince of Judgement Day" in Arabic language? That's fascinating to say the least if correct, because this is implying a dirrect connection between Kane and the Mahdi figure of Islamic eschatology in some way. Kalamrir (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kane's speech

Who wrote the Kane speech? I've never seen it in any C&C literature and I suspect that it may have been invented by an author of this article.84.69.25.238 12:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The speech was in the opening of the official stategy guide by Brady Games.

I removed the speech, its way to long winded to be published in its entirety here. There is also an issue of copyright status for the speach. TomStar81 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brotherhood of Nod's ideology according to the game creators

I find myself repeatedly having to re-add various sections of the Brotherhood of Nod's ideology section. For the sake of clarity I will give a direct quotation from the original 1995 manual of Command & Conquer, which I still have in my possession:

Taken literally from page 2, 'The Brotherhood of Nod':

Ideology: To unite third-world nations under a pseudo-religious political platform with imperialist tendencies. In actuality it is an aggressive and popular neo-fascist, anti-West movement vying for total domination of the world's peoples and resources. Operates under the popular mantra, "Brotherhood, unity, peace". 81.240.51.39 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I guess the bias goes deep on this one : ). Regardless, the "Nod is anything but peaceful" phrase stays out, unless it is also official. --Chodorkovskiy 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I can not quite imagine why you are so bend on making these biased statements yourself, to be honest. Regardless of the nature of your personal views on any groups and individuals who arguably resemble the Brotherhood of Nod in actions, words and perspectives on life in the real world, the storyline of this game is intellectual property and thus needs to be quoted correctly, and it is also an article on a video-game and not at all on a real-life movement or organization. Frankly I do not see any problem here besides the one you appear to be creating.  :-)
Because of this, I would like to hear why the 'Nod is anything but peaceful' part should be removed from the article, as this is an objective observation that any person who has played this game and who has thus seen the actions of this fictional group within the game's storyline would reach. Describing the real-life national-socialist party of past Germany as 'racist' isn't something I would call 'biased' any more than I would consider describing the fictional Brotherhood of Nod as a highly violent and aggressive militant movement in these games as being biased. Indeed, as their mantra itself states: 'Peace Through Power'. You would consider such a peaceful or a non-violent movement?
Either way, until this explanation is given, I will re-add this line as well. I'm quite looking forward to hear your views on this. 81.240.51.39 16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not compare Nod to any real-life organization. The situation, however, is quite real: I consider myself a (rather) reasonable and good-natured person, but "Peace Trough Power" is one of my life mottos. Indeed, "if a country does not feed its army, it will feed a foreign one". I understand completely that we may disagree on this and I may be wrong, but that's the point: we disagree. Therefore, while it may be true that Nod does not really strive to peace, or does so immorally (in fact - it is true), I personally find saying so more of an analysis than statement of fact. As policy dictates, Wikipedia is not a place for original research: "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." --Chodorkovskiy 18:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, this seems to be something we disagree upon. I also understand that I do not live in a country where the threat of terrorism or of terrorist acts is rather high however, so I will not judge you over this as we simply have too different backgrounds - had I seen what you have seen or experienced what you have experienced I might well see things your way, then again I still might not. Basically, there's no way to know. But more on the topic at hand, the parts I've had to re-add (not only from your edits but from others as well for that matter) are part of the official canon of these games their storylines. No original research is involved in this at all, instead they are a direct quotation from the original manual of the game which I happen to still own even after all these years so they have every reason to remain fully intact in the article. Command & Conquer's creators also have, by their own admittion, always intended to have these games be a somewhat classic 'good guys vs bad guys' type of story, and thus they designed the two factions of Nod and GDI accordingly both in gameplay and storyline. In a sense, that too is official canon though less pronounced, which is why I reacted with scepticism when you stated that you consider the remark about 'anything but peaceful' to be deeply biased. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. 81.240.51.39 19:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the creators pf the game did probably mean "Brotherhood, unity, peace" as irony. So no, it's not original research and not bias. Alright then. And don't worry about me messing the article up: I'll discuss any other changes on the talk page before making them. --Chodorkovskiy 06:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion: why not describe Nod passively using the manual as a source? It's hard to describe what I mean so I'll just use an example of where I've done a similar thing: the first part of the storyline section in the Tiberian series article.  -- Run!  10:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the manual is copyrighted. However, I agree that describing the Nod passively is the best way to go. --Chodorkovskiy 10:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In the words o one revewer "Nod the bad guy Communist/Nazi/Terrerists delete at your preference. Jamhaw 15:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

[edit] 'Questionable and vague statements'

To user Chodorkovskiy: The 'questionable' and 'vague' statement that you removed in line 53 is, rather obviously, a reference to the typical tactics used by a player who chose the Brotherhood of Nod as his faction in a multiplayer match of Command & Conquer, Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun and its expansion pack Firestorm. This is simply due to the fact that in all three of these games the units and technology tree of the Brotherhood of Nod are designed for more guerrillia style tactics there where the units and technology tree of the Global Defense Initiative are more designed towards conventional and open forms of warfare. (Please see: Infantry units of the Global Defense Initiative, Armoured units of the Global Defense Initiative, Aerial units of the Global Defense Initiative, Infantry units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Armoured units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Aerial units of the Brotherhood of Nod and Structures of the Global Defense Initiative and Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod for details.)

Since you were not able to deduce this yourself however and since you also described the statement as being 'vague' and 'questionable' against such a background, I feel I should ask you this question; Have you ever played any of these three games?

This removed line in itself isn't any big deal obviously, yet it would be rather undesirable in my opinion if this article was being vigorously edited by someone who has little to no first hand experience with neither the storyline, nor the gameplay of these videogames. Though on a positive note - I fully agree with your removal of the 'lethal sting' part from the article's intro. Please understand that I only have the quality of the article in mind in this. 81.240.51.39 17:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, I have played Tiberian Sun. Yes, Nod units are rather weak head-on. Yes, mass-titans-and-wreck-the-enemy-base doesn't work with them. I agree that something of the sort has to be mentioned in the article. My problem is with the line itself, not with what it stands for. See for yourself:
"For example, they would sooner locate a weak area of a base's perimeter, tear through it and invade from there, rather than attempt a direct assault which runs the risk of incurring heavy losses at the hands of fortified defences."
Is that not true of any army in any RTS? Yeah, GDI doesn't have to resort to it, but a skilled player will always try to avoid heavy defenses on his way to the target base (don't tell me that's not true either, I may be a noob at the Tiberian series, but I'm not new to RTS). I just think that a better example of what a Nod player would do is in order. And here is where you come in: it has been several years since I last saw anything Tiberian outside Renegade, and I am in no condition to comment on multiplayer (which is where the real combat takes place). You, on the other hand, seem to have sufficient insight into the matter to comment professionally. Perhaps an underground engineer rush? I don't know, what are the tactics the Nod resorts to? Just not "Nod avoids heavy losses".
Please understand, I am also driven by the desire to make the article better, and the last thing I want is to drive you away from contributing to it. Also, I would suggest you get a user name yourself - it makes the job tonns easier. --Chodorkovskiy 18:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Concerning online play, I used to play Tiberian Sun a fair bit, and I can say that pretty much every "sneak" tactic employed by Nod can be thwarted very easily. The best way to play with Nod is to build a shit-load of tanks/planes and win through brute force. Unless, of course, the opponent happens to let slip when defending against certain sneak tactics. Then it can be a good idea to exploit the 'security hole'.  -- Run!  19:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amounts of tiberium

I believe it was amount of land held by both sides Jamhaw 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Odd, the video seems to clearly state world supply. CABAL 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Say wha'?

Where does it say that Nod's got bioweapons in any of the games?

In Tiberian Dawn, Nod players had access to a high-tech infantry unit called the "Chem Warrior" in multiplayer games. In Tiberian Sun, Nod manufactured chemical missiles which produced Tiberium vapor clouds harmful to structures and vehicles alike, and which could instantly kill infantry units -- often turning them into Visceroids as well. These Tiberium-based missiles also played a major role in the ending sequence of Tiberian Sun's Nod campaign. Tiberium Wars seems set to continue this tradition, with the Black Hand shock troops being able to be upgraded from flamethrowers to chemical weaponry according to the community leaders that got a first preview of the game in December of 2006. DieOfGoodLuck 07:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomads of Destruction?

This is the first time I recall hearing of this aliasw. Can anyone else confirm this? --Eldarone 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical references.

In case any of the editors here have an Islamic background, I was wondering, isn't the story of Cain and Able mentioned in the Quran as well? If so, we should probably reword the section to " Biblical/Quranic references " and add the versions of the Quran along with those of the Bible. There seems to be a broad consensus on Nod being an Abrahamic society that actually managed to unite radicals and fundamentalists of all three monotheistic religions into a single order. Any further thoughts or opinions on this? 84.192.125.204 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, isn't the Cain & Able story mentioned in Jewish religious literature as well, come to think of it? If so, it would make this term of "Abrahamic" highly correct whenever one uses it in relation to the Brotherhood of Nod. 84.192.125.204 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The story of Cain and Abel is in the Qur'an, also. The only thing is that names aren't mentioned, but 99% of the Islamic Scholars say that the story is of Cain and Abel. It is nearly identical with the Biblical story. 209.6.243.42 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Then we should add this information to the article. Given the Brotherhood of Nod's background as portrayed in these games it is certainly relevant. 84.192.113.201 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for editors who are Christian or Muslim

I'v been working on the "Biblical and Qu'ranic references" section of this article in an attempt to improve its informative quality, however since I am neither Christian nor Muslim I do not have the knowledge to add the precise and most relevant quotes from the Bible or the Qu'ran, which in my opinion could stand to be done. Also, could any Christian or Muslim check the content of this section in general for errors and inaccuracies? Thank you. 84.192.113.201 12:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't anybody bothered to check the Cain and Abel article? Anyways, I don't remember the particulars, but the story of Cain and Abel in the Qur'an (where they are named "Qabil" and "Habil", respectively), although similar to the one in the Bible, has significant differences, such as: God/Allah did not speak to Cain, Cain had immediately felt regret for murdering his brother - albeit too late - as the anger that blocked all reason from his mind left him, and instead of banishment to "the Land of Nod", Cain wandered the earth for an unmentioned period of time until he finally met his demise. MARQ 22:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll add that information to the appropriete section of the article later on if no other editors will already have done so by that time. 84.192.113.201 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patriarch

Patriarch: "Originally a patriarch was a man who exercised autocratic authority as a pater familias over an extended family. The system of such rule of families by senior males is called patriarchy. This is a Greek word, a composition of πατήρ (pater) meaning "father" and ἄρχων (archon) meaning "leader", "chief", "ruler", "king", etc."

Kane does not fit this description. Any attempt to fit it around Kane is pure bred original research. He is the highest religious and military leader, true, but that doesn't justify calling him a patriarch. If it is, then we might as well call him the pope of Nod. Mikael GRizzly 08:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As you quoted, the original meaning of the world patriarch is "a man who exercised autocratic authority as a pater familias over an extended family". Extended family -- Brotherhood of Nod. Then there is the pater familias part of the term's definition -- Kane frequently referring to Nod's followers as "my children" and to the player as "my son". In addition, Kane can certainly be considered as an autocratic authority within the Brotherhood, as he is a self-proclaimed prophet, and his authority is based on the ardent belief of Nod loyalists that his claim of being a living prophet is actually genuine.
I get the impression that you are linking the term of patriarch too closely to the title of the head of the orthodox church, which has adopted it for their own use at one point in history. The term itself, however, is actually far older than that branch of Christianity and indeed Christianity as a whole itself, making that comparison of "pope of Nod" not really justified or correct. The title of pope is used exclusively in context of the head of the catholic church, while the term of patriarch is not used exclusively to designate the head of the orthodix church. That said though, I'm willing to skip using it in the article, if it proves to be confusing to more people than just yourself. 84.192.113.201 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bottom of the page

In the References section there is a very interesting fragment that basically concludes that Kane practically fully healed after being impaled through the chest. Where did this come from? Is it canon? If so, it should be included in the article.Preda 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Tib Sun Campaign, it is considered GDI's ending is Canon. Mike McNeil stabbed Kane through the Chest with a metal girder or pipe and escaped with Umagon. Kane wasn't seen in Firestorm except the end where we see the bodies in the statis cells. In C&C 3, we see a fully healed Kane either giving us a clone or his ability to heal himself at a high rate. Havoc1310 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy and ideology of Nod

The poem included in this section appears to be largely orginial research. The editor makes a tenative link by interpreting a poem that has no connection to the game. Unless there can be a direct reference that the poem is directly linked to the article, then it should not be here. --Eldarone 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This comment frankly makes me wonder if you have played through the Nod campaign of Tiberium Wars. As I have, in vain apparently, been trying to make clear to you through providing numerous references, there exist two substantial connections between the poem and the portrayal of the Brotherhood of Nod in each of the games, which are by no means original research in their nature;
1) The interview referenced to features the following quote by Joe Kucan; "The Brotherhood of Nod" was an invention of original C&C designer Eydie Laramore. She and I spent hours discussing biblical metaphor and imagined backstory." This verifies to us that the various real-life interpretations of the "Cain and Able" parable have played a part in Eydie Laramore forming Nod's background and overall identity as a faction. Even if chance has it that this particular poem wasn't used by her in her work, there nonetheless remains a distinct correlation at any rate since all of these metaphors deal with the same source material - namely, the "Cain and Abel" parable. Also, what is very telling is that the final two passages of the poem describe Kane's ultimate objectives in the storyline of Tiberium Wars with an unerring accuracy. Personally, I don't believe in coincidences.
2) There exist numerous and explicit similarities between the "Race of Cain" mentioned in the poem and the nature of Nod's military as portrayed in the games, with this military consisting primarily out of third world militias and disenfranchised, dissilusioned militants/partisans coming from various cultural, social or ideological backgrounds. This we can verify both through Kane's dialogue and Nod's rethoric as it is presented to us throughout the Tiberium games. Two prominent examples, one from Tiberian Dawn and the other from Tiberium Wars, respectively, would be; "The Brotherhood springs from the lowest of places, offering strength and sanctity to otherwise abused and neglected nations." - "Righteousness has only one allegiance, and that is to the oppressed". Again, note how much of the terminology of the Official Strategy Guide - which was written by Westwood Studios/Eydie Laramore and as such is considered canon material - is in complete accordance with the interpretation of the "Race of Cain" which the poem speaks of. Specific examples are the words "downtrodden", "oppressed" and the words "brotherhood" and "unity" from Nod's mantra.
With the inner correlations between Nod's identity and background as a faction, the content of the Strategy Guide, and the passages of this poem being not only so explicit but also verifiable through the games themselves to such a large extent, I don't see why this addition should be considered as original research. Take note that I clearly marked this poem as an example, exactly to meet concerns such as your own. 84.192.126.227 21:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You just proved my point. This is original research, as discribed as "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." see: Wikipedia:No original research. This is wholesome orignal theory based on your anaylsis of the game and poem. Per wikipedia polkicy, it's not allowed. I'm sorry, it's interesting, but Wikipedia is not meant for new theories. --Eldarone 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your above interpretation of Wikipedia policy is flawed in that you consider the analysis to be my own, and that it supposedly is also original in nature. It is neither of these things. The analysis is verified by the game's content itself as it is quoted from it often literally word per word, as each of the references show in due detail, which is something that would and could not apply to a piece of genuine original research. As such, you continue to revert this content for unjust reasons.
The problem is that the peom have any connection to the game or universe of the game is unverfiable. see: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Unless you can provide a verifable source, then it does not belong here. --Eldarone 23:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, that assumption is incorrect for the following reasons; the poem is 1) based entirely on and 2) deals exclusively in the precise same source material of which we have verifiable proof that Eydie Laramore used it in creating the ideology of the Brotherhood of Nod - namely, the "Cain and Able" parable. As such, the source is established and verifiable, rendering the link between the poem and her work substantial enough to warrant inclusion as an example at the very least. At no point is there a case of original research in this section, as the connection between this poem and the official outlook of the game creators on Nod's ideology stems from they themselves as the script writers, and not from me as an editor, as you continue to wrongfully claim.
My question to you, Eldarone, thus must be this; exactly how do you intent to make the case that I supposedly sucked this entire section out of my right thumb, when I have worked to quote over 85% of it directly from official documentation, in-game dialogue and FMV cutscenes, and also, while numerous elements of this poem are explicitely present in every game the Brotherhood of Nod is portrayed in? The final two passages describe Kane's objectives in Tiberium Wars with a 100% accuracy no less. I'm sure that against this background, you can understand why I remain skeptical of your own point of view in this issue. 84.192.126.227 10:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
But it could just be a concidence, and I have found nothing that directly links the poem you have provided to the game, or having ever influenced the game designers. All you have is speculation and a tentative link at best. --Eldarone 23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. The very content of the games, themselves, verifies step by step that the connection is genuine, and the section makes this clear in no uncertain terms through the myriad of reference to canon content and official documentation which it provides. In a case of genuine original research, such could not be possible in the first place exactly because the connection is too tentative and unverifiable in these cases. As such, there is no speculation involved in this, instead there are sourced, verifiable connections, all of which have been provided in due detail. I thus maintain that your allegations of original research are unwarranted. 84.192.126.227 12:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This is threatening the integrety of the article. According to Wikipedia Policy: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." See WP:SYN. You have provided no verifiable resources that connects the poem to the games. All it is expressing your opinion. There are no verfiable facts to show that. --Eldarone 16:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This frankly is borderlining on the intentional spreading of misinformation about an another editor's actions and good will. And this seems to be further exemplified by the fact that the "ideology" section - as it existed prior to my recent rewrites and additions - was significantly less well sourced and also considerably more subjected to genuine cases of original research, however you apparently never saw the necessity to scrutinize that content of the section at any point in time over a period of months, as you are now doing with this fully sourced material. I am going to tell you up front that I am beginning to hold your actions as increasingly suspicious in the light of this. As an ironic sidenote, the only part of that former "ideology" revision, which you oddly enough never had issues with despite its chronic lack of references, to have ever known the benefit of being sourced was due to the efforts of this editor.
I am going to be as forthcoming as I can be in this, and explain to you yet again in the most simple terminology I know how to employ as to how and why this section constitutes verifiable and relevant source material from A to Z, and secondly, how your interpretation of Wikipedia policy has been flawed and thus irrelevant across the entire scope of this dispute.
"This characterization of Cain casts him as the representant and messiah of all the downtrodden people of the world, called the "Race of Cain", who in time will rise up in unity and brotherhood to overthrow their oppressors."
This sentence is part of what you have been continiously removing from this article, under the premise of original research. Yet, this passage is directly quoting the content of the game dialogue itself word per word. The Proof: 1) the term of "messiah" is used to refer to the character of Kane throughout the installments of the series, 2) the words "unity" and "brotherhood" constitute two-third of Nod's mantra created by Westwood Studios' script writers, 3) the words "downtrodden" and "oppressors" are taken directly from Westwood Studios' Official Strategy Guide for the original C&C title, and 4) the entire notion of the passage is directly enforced by Nod's design and appearance throughout all of the games. As such, you repeatedly remove content based entirely on official documentation of the game creators time and again, and I am tempted to begin treating these reversals as vandalism in the near future.
Moreover, this effectively limits your case to the removal of strictly the poem itself. Yet you yourself have explicitely referred to that above passage as an analysis to the poem, supposedly wrought by this editor, when it has in fact been a quotation from sourced content. The reason why I do not copy & paste it in full is because of this warning given on each Wikipedia editing page; Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted. Inadvertently, with this you have also underscored the poem's explicit connections to the canon content of every game featuring the Brotherhood of Nod yourself, thus demonstrating its relevance and the merit of its inclusion. The content of this poem is verified by the official storylines step per step, and as such it is not warranted to mark it as original research. Or should I perhaps say, at least far less so than the previous content of this section, which you have left undisturbed for months on end. 84.192.126.227 09:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Kane having links to the Biobical Kane I have no problem with. The REAL problem is that the poem "Charles Baudelaire - Les Fleurs du Mal (The Flowers of Evil); Abel and Cain" provided has NOTHING to do with the games. There is no metntion of the word's mnessiah, Brotherhood, Unity, Opressors, Downmtrodden, or whatever key phrase in the poem. In fact, the section with the poem is based more on your intrepretation of the poem than providing verifiable evidence that the poem is dfirectly relevant to the game. Also, cease blanking the dispute tag. It can be coinsidered vandalism. --Eldarone 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have explained the why behind your invalid reasoning regarding this poem's status several times in due detail now, and it has been enough. And I will say this as well -- the rationale you provide for labelling this poem as "original research" can be used to indiscriminately mark over 80% of this article's current content as unsourced material and original research just the same. As such, if you remove this poem again, I will expect that you equally mark the following sections for original research or unsourced content at the same time; "Background", "Command & Conquer", "Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun", "Tiberian Sun: Firestorm", "Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars", "Known hierarchy and branches" and "Technological level". If you remove the poem without also marking any of these aforementioned sections, I will take this as confirmation that you are acting on an ulterior motive (see my previous post) and I will begin to treat your edits to the "ideology" section as cases of vandalism. Thank you. 84.192.126.227 07:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That's because those sections are:

1. Are from verifiable primary sources, such as game mauals, blogs from the game's producers, or even the CNC novel. 2. Are not synthesized to present another agenda, namely adding in the poem in question with added interpretation. see: WP:SYN If you have a problem with the edits, then contact an administrator. I'm done playing games over this. --Eldarone 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect, on both counts. These sections are unsourced to a high degree, and as such it is technically warranted to include an "Unreferenced" tag at any time according to Wikipedia guidelines. Also, by your own admission, this renders the content of these sections the synthesis of the personal perspectives of the editors, rather than of official documentation. Because of this, these sections stand in stark contrast to the "ideology" section under its current revision in terms of referencing and thus their informative quality. Secondly, what you refer to as "interpretation" is in fact quotation from official documents and in-game dialogue. Your comments appear to exemplify a work ethic consisting of double standards as well as a generally poor grasp on Wikipedia guidelines, which may explain the origins of this dispute.
In closure, I will note that I have offered you a compromise in the form of placing an in-line tag making mention of your allegations of improper synthesis, as your current actions strangely label the most referenced and well-sourced section of the article as "original research" in its entirity. You nonetheless continue to re-add the OR tag, often without providing any argument or rationale, and as such your behavior seems to be disruptive and your actions arbitrary. Both are undesirable traits for a Wikipedia editor. 84.192.126.227 07:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

I agree with Eldarone that the section seems to constitute synthesis as described in the original research guideline. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia exists to compile published information, or, as WP:NOT#OR makes explicit, "the consensus of experts". While this section may make an excellent essay, Wikipedia "is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge". This constitutes an analysis of the usage of the material in two primary sources—the game in question and the poem—and lacks secondary sources tying the two together. In further substantiation of this interpretation, note that verifiability policy indicates that articles should fairly represent "all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view". If this viewpoint has been published in a RS, it should be attributed and cited. That the Brotherhood of Nod is an inspiration is not in question. The quote from the manual is not inappropriate. I believe that tying the poem to the game, however, is. --Moonriddengirl 12:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for those kind words in describing my additions as "excellent". It is nice to hear a bit of appreciation for the time I've been putting into this, especially in the light of the recent behavior of certain other editors of this article. However, I am a bit puzzled as to why you would consider the connection between the poem and the storylines of the game as a "personal opinion", when I have demonstrated through various reference that the content of the poem and the content of the various games, official documentation and in-game dialogue are caussaly linked?
I will explain what I mean through a brief and related example which also pertains to this article; you may have noticed that the term "Abrahamic" is used several times throughout the article's sections. This term came to be used through consensus of editors of this article in the past, due to the fact that the "Cain and Able" parable exists in the Qur'an and also because the storylines of the relevant games made clear beyond interpretation that the Brotherhood of Nod has historically had a powerbase in the Islamic world. As such, we felt that is was necessary to add the term of "Abrahamic" to underscore the Brotherhood of Nod's overarching Abrahamic nature in relation to the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, following user Eldarone's logic, each and every reference to the term "Abrahamic" should be removed from this article, because the term "Abrahamic" is never used in official documentation. That would essentially force us to use the term "Biblical" exclusively, which ironically would significantly detract from the informative quality of the article due to the reasons stated above. The connection between the poem and the other quoted content provided is much the same as the connection between the terms "Biblical" and "Abrahamic" is in this.
Also, I will again stress that following user Eldaron's logic also entails the marking of over 80% of this article's current content as either unreferenced material, or as original research, lest we would be applying double standards to the various sections. As such, by following user Eldarone's reasoning a precedent could be set that could potentially have negative repercussions on the informative quality of this article to a very large extent, and for reasons which in themselves are quite debatable in nature as the above dispute signifies. This is the main reason behind my opposition of his point of view, as these repurcussions are about to become the result of one single editor showing an inability to make a case-by-case evaluation. I hope you and your peers thus will carefully consider this a bit further.
I propose a compromise in that I will conscent to have the poem marked as potentially improper synthesis through the appropriate tag, but that in return the OR tag from the section is allowed to be removed, as the poem is the only part of this section which is in dispute. 84.192.126.227 13:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that it's unsettling to have your work questioned, but I'm not the only one who praised the content. :) The other editor also noted that your material was very interesting. It's well done. I'm just not sure if it's appropriate for the article. I regard the assertion of a connection between the two as personal opinion because Wikipedia is a compendium of previously published knowledge. It may be perfectly evident to you that these are linked, but for usage purposes in Wikipedia somebody else has to have said so and published it somewhere. And, respectfully, precedent is probably not the best argument in this case. To borrow from "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions", the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the other material has no bearing on this particular question. If this is OR, it should be removed. If there are other instances of OR in the article, they should be removed as well, but that's not what this particular discussion is about. I do not believe that the usage of the poem is essential to the article and would strongly advise recrafting that section so that it doesn't have original research. We may wish to wait for Eldarone to weigh in on recent discussion. If you feel very strongly that the material is proper, it may be appropriate to invite wider community input. --Moonriddengirl 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the time I am investing in both the article and in this dispute should make it quite clear as to how strongly I feel that the material is proper. As such, I would welcome a wider community input. That said, if user Eldarone is sanctioned in his ways, I will remove the "Abrahamic" references from the article and mark the majority of its content as unreferenced material and potentially original research based on his rationale. This will effectively destroy months worth of joint effort into attempting to make this article appealing and informative for the (many) other fans of this series, but I cannot condone double standards being upheld in this manner. If it is the ruination of all this work that user Eldarone desires, he'll have it. 84.192.126.227 13:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Moonriddengirl that it would be best to recraft the article to remove any OR. As interesting and well writen as it is, OR does not help the article. Since 84.192.126.227 has put so much time into his work, I would suggest to 84.192.126.227 to save the synthesis and posting in on another approrate website. --Eldarone 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That's very nice, Eldarone. But here is the catch to what you have set in motion here; Westwood Studios (the original creators of the franchise) and Electronic Arts (the current owners of it) have historically released very little factual material as to what the Brotherhood of Nod actually is supposed to be, how it operates exactly, and what it is really planning to accomplish. This is left up to the personal interpretation of the players as they proceed through the storylines of the games to a very large degree. In fact, the closest that Westwood Studios ever came to officially defining the nature of Nod was, and I quote them directly: "an ideology". What this means is that we are effectively limited to a few pages of the manuals and a handful of relevant excerpts from the official strategy guide and the Intel Database files as our legitimate sources, according to Wikipedia guidelines. If we were to have actually based this article strictly on these sources, as you are now inadvertently demanding by means of this dispute, we would have ended up with an article the size of a glorified stub, and that is by no means an exaggeration on my part.
As such, we determined long ago when this article was still in its infancy that as far as Wikipedia guidelines went we were going to follow them to the spirit, but not to the letter, and virtually the entire content of this article as it now exists was written on this philosophy. By putting that practice openly into question, Eldarone, you have put the make-up of the entire article into question, and if the consensus rules in your favor this article will literally be set back for months and months worth of edits through the subsequent snowball effect. Congratulations buddy.
And I'll tell you now, that if they do rule in your favor, I'll carry your wishes out to the letter myself, and you can enjoy along with the rest of us the state this article will be left in when it is all said and done. 84.192.126.227 17:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of Information on the Brotherhood of Nod from the game developer blogs, game manuals, FMV and actions from the game, interviews and the like. That's plenty of information, and much of it already is in the article. --Eldarone 18:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Odd. Following the logic that you have championed in this dispute, the majority of the article's current content is not directly sourced, and as such any connections between it and the official documentation available to us may be just a coincidence and thus constitute improper synthesis used to further the editor's agenda. Also, no official summary of the storyline of any of the three games has ever been published. That means that any editor who writes and adds a summary of the story behind the Brotherhood of Nod to the article is inevitably basing him or herself on personal interpretations, and as such that may also constitute cases of improper synthesis, if not original research, as the perspective they express through the summary is not directly verifiable through a published source. Which, as I understand it, is the same issue that you have with the poem.
Most of The primary sources used to support this article come from the creators and game developers. If that's not offical, then how do you define offical? The problem is that the synthesis is largely used to support your own opinion, and not that of the game's information. --Eldarone 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You are avoiding the issue at hand. As I stated, there has never been an official summary of the game storylines published, and according to your logic that may mean the connection between the storyline summaries on this page and the official documentation may be coincidential, largely supporting the opinions and interpretations of the editors who added the summaries. You apparently attempt to now assert that this is not the case by pointing out that these summaries have direct connections to in-game content. But so does the poem, as the "ideology" section points out by referring to the relevant Intel Database excerpts that meet and support the poem's content. If we are to follow your rationale, than either both the poem and all the storyline summaries must be removed from this article due to original research, or neither.84.192.126.227 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, I have gone over the sum of official sources providing information on the Brotherhood of Nod a second time. What we have available to us is the following; One page in the manual to the first game citing statistics (with the exception of one paragraph), a single paragraph in the manual of Tiberium Wars which is redundant with the paragraph of the previously mentioned manual, a developer entry of Mike Verdu in an IGN article containing two brief paragraphs directly relevant to this article's subject, two excerpts from the "Intel Database" of C&C 3, and one FMV cutscene which dedicates precisely three sentences to content that could be considered as relevant. Together, this results in enough sourced material to roughly write one section that will conform to your proposed standards, which will deal exclusively in Nod's identity. 84.192.126.227 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
On contrary, there is enough evidence from the game, and other primary sources, to form an artilce that conforms to Wikipedia policy. The problem is not Verifiability for most of the content of the page. Most of the information can be dierectly traced from the games, game manuals, interviews, promotional material, and articles from legitimate source. there are faar more sources han you have pointed out. The problem with the article is that you're using a source (the poem) that has nothing to do with the games, and interpretation it to fit into the article. There is no mention of the poem in any of the game resources at all, nor by any of the creators. --Eldarone 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please list these sources here one by one. Be specific. Also, you are contradicting yourself - much of the content of this article is NOT based directly from game manuals, promotional material and related articles, etc, but are the direct result of editor interpretation and creativity. This stands in contrast to the poem, which is supported by in-game content in the form of Intel Database files. Again, either all of these must be removed along with the poem, or both are to remain. You are consistently applying double standards throughout this dispute. 84.192.126.227 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That's an either/or logical fallacy. You're trying to keep OR within by claiming that much of the material falls under OR. However, the material and it's implication has been previously published, largely by the game creators themselves. Because no consensus can be made, an RFC is needed. --Eldarone 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sig).
You are indeed aware that I have been using your own argumentation against you all this time, yes? Only, aimed at another part of this article to which it can be applied just the same under your logic. I am glad you are finally acknowledging the absurdity of it.
To summarize the dispute:
You claim that the poem is original research, because without means of direct verification, the links I have established between it and the in-game content and the official documentation could just be coincidential, and thus meant to further my own perspective on the subject. You state that there are no means of verification because you can not directly find the poem in any official documentation. I apply this reasoning of yours to the storyline summaries of the article to demonstrate what repurcussions your stance will have for the article in general - following your logic, I can "claim" that the storyline summaries are original research, because without means of direct verification the links their writers have established between the summaries and the in-game content and official documentation could be coincidential, and thus meant to further their own perspectives on these storylines. Taking the second step in your logic, I thus claim that there exist no means of direct verification because no official storyline summary has ever been published, and thus the summaries can not be directly linked to any official documentation except through a tenuous link to excerpts from the games, made by the editors themselves. Your reasoning is holding equally true for both the poem and the summaries. According to your own argumentation in this dispute, either both must remain, or both must be removed entirely. Given the repurcussions this will have for the informative quality of the article, solely on the grounds of your inability to judge on a case-by-case basis and to understand the meaning of "following rules to the spirit", it should not at all be a surprise that I am opposing you to the best of my abilities. 84.192.126.227 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>I'll leave it to the two of you to decide if consensus is possible here or if we should pursue an RFC. --Moonriddengirl 23:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If 84.192.126.227 agrees, then the article should remove any OR. If not, then an RFC is advisable to resolve any disputes. --Eldarone 23:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
All right, then. Let's see where we go from here. --Moonriddengirl 00:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My position will depend on user Eldarone's responses to my above post, to a large degree. 84.192.126.227 14:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset indent>It's getting a bit difficult to follow your conversation. :) Interspersing comments can be rough on third (or more) parties. Might I suggest, particularly if there is a chance that this conversation might require additional members, that you try to keep your threads together and clearly signed? --Moonriddengirl 19:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody give me a brief overview of just what is going on here? The way I see it, there's a big clash of opinion over a poem that has no relevance to the games, as it's not even *mentioned*. Presently, it seems that the IP poster tries to throw the entire article into the garbage showing it off as "unsourced" while Eldarone defends it. The poem is good, but you really need to get first confirmation from the devs of the original C&Cs that indeed they were using it as inspiration Mikael GRizzly 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I can only pray that you understand I have merely been applying Eldarone's own logic against him in this debate, in an attempt to show him how his reasoning can equally be used against nearly 80% of this article's current content, and how vast the consequences of his actions are about to become for the informative quality of this article. That you would refer to him as the defender of this article, of all people, is the height of irony.
Confirmation of the poem's link to the games is already provided in the article, with sourced reference;
1) Source: http://www.imperium-ww.pl/articles.php?article_id=33 - read Joe Kucan's response to question 18, and then understand that this poem deals with the precise same source material. In fact, excerpts from the game establish that it essentially is part of the source material.
2) The "Intel Database" files of the Nod campaign in Tiberium Wars, and indeed the very sum of Kane's goals in the storyline of the game itself, make a direct reference to the last two sentences of this poem. I will write both the sentences and the ID entries here for your convenience;
  • The poem: " Race of Cain, climb up the sky, And to the earth hurl down the Lord. ”
  • The game ID files: " This Tower is our gateway to the stars. It is the Key to the Future. Ascension: That is the reward that awaits us. " 84.192.126.227 08:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Just because Kucan said the story of Cain and Able influenced the developmenty of Nod, does not mean the poem does. That's just interpretation. No where in that last line of the peom is there a reference to gateway, stars, or reward. --Eldarone 12:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have the basics, as I understand them. :) I was invited in through the third opinion board to discuss whether or not the usage of that poem constituted original research. I am of the opinion that it does. The editor who incorporated that information seems to feel that much of the rest of the article does, too. It is his opinion that if references to the poem are removed, everything else in the article that he believes is original research should also be removed. It looks as though the matter is about to be opened up to WP:RFC. --Moonriddengirl 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a misconception here. I do not feel that much of the article constitutes original research. However, Eldarone inadvertently does. I have been working to demonstrate this, by applying his line of reasoning to other parts of this article. Let it be clear right here and now; my goal is to keep the current content of this article fully intact, including the poem. However, I can not condone double standards being applied. If Eldarone's argumentation is sanctioned, then that will inevitably mean that a great deal of this article's content must be removed for the precise same reasons under which the poem is removed. I am doing what I can to prevent this from happening, by deconstructing the validity of Eldarone's argumentation.
I will also bring it to your attention that I have, several times in fact, requested of Eldarone that he would provide some specific examples of official documentation which could confirm that the storyline summaries were based directly on those publications. Yet, whenever this request is made Eldarone consistently ignores it, and directs the debate away from these requests. I find it a bit disturbing that this behavior is receiving very little scrutiny from the outside mediators, and that it appears to be raising no questions with them about the validity of Eldarone's argumentation. 84.192.126.227 08:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently I have misunderstood your position. :) I thought I understood you to say that you believed that most of the article was outside of policy, back when you indicated that "we determined long ago when this article was still in its infancy that as far as Wikipedia guidelines went we were going to follow them to the spirit, but not to the letter, and virtually the entire content of this article as it now exists was written on this philosophy". If you didn't mean "original research" with that, I guess you were just talking about in the matter of sourcing? But with the larger question, the subject of this discussion has been whether or not the usage of the poem constitutes original research. I'm afraid that I don't see that the sourcing of the rest of the material has any bearing on the validity of Eldarone's arguments about that. If the matter is opened to RFC, the article may be truncated if it is, as you suggest, lacking sources overall. --Moonriddengirl 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
We can provide a tag on the page asking for citation, but the article does not lack for resources as 84.192.126.227 suggests. Also, I do not consider most of the article OR, just the poem and 84.192.126.227 synthesis. --Eldarone 12:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I have placed the RFC below, but neutralized it. Since I monitor 3Os I provide until the situation resolves, I would like to resolve this one. :) If you endorse my summary of the situation as neutral, please edit out the "nowiki"s before and after the template. If you would like to suggest revising it, let's talk about it so we can find a brief, neutral summary and get this settled. --Moonriddengirl 12:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I find the summary is neutral and acceptable. But, I don't know what a "nowiki"s is :( --Eldarone 17:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been a couple of weeks now, and still no feedback. I believe that the changes to the Brotherhood of Nod be made. --Eldarone 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, RFC rather dropped the ball on this one. :) If further disagreement arises, we may wish to raise the question at the talk page of WP:OR. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Question regarding whether the usage of a poem in the section Brotherhood_of_Nod#Philosophy_and_ideology_of_Nod constitutes original research. Please see the conversation above, beginning at Talk:Brotherhood_of_Nod#Philosophy_and_ideology_of_Nod, for variant opinions and arguments. --17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

This page looks pretty much done. Do we need any other major edits? And if so, shouldn't this be removed from the projects page? --Ultimate_Chuck 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There may be other major edits, depending on the results of the very slow-moving RFC process. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Hand in the Third Tiberium War

The Black Hand Wears capes not cloaks everyone. Just look in the Ranks or something.(TougHHead 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC))


  To do with this topic, is the Black Hand not just the actual units in-game, but the special ops group of Nod?
  As such, should any references to the Black Hand refer to them as separate from the in-game units?
  The members of the Black Hand would hardly go around wearing capes on a day-to-day basis, and a flamethrower
   is quite would be an awkward weapon for co-ordinated surgical strikes.

  If I can borrow a remark from Orson Scott Card, in "The Abyss", he says the marines are all gung-ho about taking
  out an enemy base, but nobody remembers the Seal team going in at four am in the morning to take out their radar
  just as the first american ships came over the horizon.
  I imagine the Black Hand would function in a similar way.

  --Elearen 11:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction?

The beggining of the article describes the bro'hood as fiction, it needs to state on every section that it's a fictional organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuineR (talk • contribs) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this regarding the in-universe tag at the top of the article? If so, the problem is that the article doesn't contain very much out-of-universe, or real-world, information. It focuses too heavily on the organization within the game—its technology, its fictional history, etc. The article needs information about the organization in real life—how the developers of the game came up with the concept; how it evolved during production; what their influences were; how the Brotherhood influenced other video games, books, or other media; merchandise related to the Brotherhood; how critics judged the concept; etc. See Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Reception and criticism and Master Chief (Halo)#Character design for a couple of examples. Pagrashtak 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone help me out here?

I'm having a hard time (playing C&C 3) seeing why NOD is "Abrahamic". As far as I can tell from 3, they seem to be more of a pantheon of multiple (including non-Abrahamic) religions, but center their belief around Tiberium. Everytime Kane speaks its about Tiberium being a "key" or something or other. While Biblical references are abound, there is so much more here than just the Abrahamic religions. What points to NOD being significantly Abrahamic exactly? Just asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladin Hammer (talk • contribs) 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Doesn't the "Abrahamic references" section describe in detail why Nod is identified as Abrahamic? You're right Nod's beliefs are centered around Tiberium, but things are more complicated than this. Nod is basically proclaiming that Tiberium's a gift from God, through which the "Kingdom of Heaven" can be brought to humanity or through which humanity can be brought to the "Kingdom of Heaven". This Kingdom of Heaven is a concept which exists but in three religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three of these share a direct, significant connection with each other through the founding figure of Abraham in their scriptures; hence the term "Abrahamic religion" in real-life, and its link to this fictional cult. But I don't see how Nod's religious identity would include elements from non-Abrahamic faiths. Could you be more specific? Kalamrir (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcophagus in Renegade

During one of the last missions in Renegade, you can find a hidden excavation site, where Nod uncovered a sarcophagus, with two scorpion symbol statues nearby. It's not mentioned in the article, aparently. Any reason for that, or has it simply been forgotten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberman TM (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I'm sorry, but this article needs a large amount of references considering its large size. I found a quotebox and fixed it, but there are so many other wikitemplates in this article that need re-formatting as well. I haven't gotten around to check the prose yet, but the above 2 problems already mean that I cannot promote this article to B class. Sorry. --haha169 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this sudden assessment is coming from, but there isn't really anything to feel sorry about. Most of us that work or have worked on this article are doing it exclusively out of love for the C&C games and/or out of great interest in this article's subject. The "class" of this article, as Wiki apparently would define it, tends to be of little significance in the light of this.
Don't misunderstand me either; I will always work to ensure that this article does not violate any standing Wikipedia policies, and if it does, to correct these issues as soon as possible. But that also is the full extent of it, to be honest. I'm a hardcore fan of Command & Conquer. I am not a Wikipedian, as such. Kalamrir (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably from here. Pagrashtak 11:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, this article isn't violating any policies. All images are fine, and nearly everything else is trivial if you don't care for upping the article's rating. Have fun editing! --haha169 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)