User talk:Burnside65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Thematic Motifs of Lost

Howdy! So you've asked "could you possibly explain - concisely" what's been going on... Well, I haven't had a good record as far as being "concise" as of yet, but I'll do my best :)

Here's the basic recap. A new anonymous user (User:70.189.74.49) stared deleting entries in the article wholesale, saying that they had no sources and were thus violations of WP:No Original Research. Ursasapien and I defended the entries and argued that they had a source - a primary source - the show itself, and that articles based on primary research are not the same as articles based on original research (See here for full argument.) User:70.189.74.49's argument (if you could call it that) was "Shut up - you're wrong." So we had an edit war for a while, and eventually User:70.189.74.49 was blocked for violations of the Three Revert Rule by an Administrator, Kafziel.

Then Kafziel and I had a pretty detailed (and quite pleasant) discussion about the entire controversy (you can read it all here on my Talk Page if you're interested). He offered a critique of my argument - and he did point out a few weaknesses in it, but I don't agree with everything he said. Even though I still think I have a real and valid point somewhere in that overly-long debate, I have accepted that my argument has a few flaws. Furthermore, if push ever comes to shove, I'm not sure that those with the final say-so would side with my position.

But to get back to the heart of your question as to what you should do with your "Canada" entry; ultimately it depends on how much time and energy you want to sink into this article, and how important this issue really is for you. I get the feeling that my position and your position are in the minority and, sooner or later, there will be another user who disagrees with us and is willing to fight a long and hard battle. If you want to pursue this further, or contact an Administrator, that's ultimately your choice. All I can say for certain is what I'm doing - which is taking a break from the Thematic motifs of Lost for a while and heading for greener pastures. Good luck with whatever you decide and feel free to contact me if I can do anything to help you in the future! --Qwerty7412369 02:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Coredesat has put the article Thematic motifs of Lost and it's history here. I have asked that he move the discussion and its history here. I think the next step is to open a discussion regarding how and if we can bring this article to the point of recreation. I am considering whether it would be good to open a RfC about this article. You're invited to help improve this article. Ursasapien (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I left you a reply on my talk page. Ursasapien (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found a little bit of evidence to support your claim about lying when alluding to Canada, but with the amount of misdirection in the show, could you really consider that to be a theme? Try asking the keepers of the Lost podcast for answers, and meanwhile, lay out your argument in the discussion pages. MMetro (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a theme or a motif or whatever, but that doesn't really matter as much now because the paragraph is titled "Recurring Elements" now. To have 6 separate Canada-lies in the show seems a little too specific to be unintentional - there's only one non-lie Canada reference that I know of, when Hurley's accountant mentions his shoe factory in Canada burning down. Also, I actually have a source for my theory this time since an author noticed these links and commented on them in a recent book. Burnside65 (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's not a "silly made up theory", all right? It's clearly an intentional recurrence that the writers put in there. I've been debating for months with people on whether or not to have that section in this article. Back when there was a separate article for Thematic Motifs of Lost, it kept getting deleted, one because it might not be considered an actual motif, and two because I didn't have an actual source. I was willing to concede both those points. But, now the section is a smaller paragraph in the main article, entitled Recurring Elements, and I actually have a source from a published book this time - an author out there who noticed the same Canada-lies as me and published her thoughts. That said, please stop deleting and denouncing my article. Burnside65 (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Yes, it is your silly made up theory;

2) it's "clearly an intentional recurrence" only in your mind;

3) no Lost writer has ever said, "When we use 'Canada' in the story, that means someone's lying"-- which is what would be necessary to establish your theory as an intentional element;

4) even if a fan book mentions it, it still doesn't make it so-- because the idea likely came from your repeated reinsertion of your theory into the Wikipedia article, which many other places copy info from;

5) it's also not a recurring element, any more than any number of million other things that get repeated on Lost: crashes (airplanes, cars, boats, helicopters), drowning, shootings, leg injuries, growing beards, etc. etc. Just because something happens more than once does not instantly make it a recurring element worth mentioning.

6) You admit that you originated the theory, and that it didn't come from a reliable source outside of your mind:

"Recently I tried adding a paragraph to the article on the thematic motifs of LOST. It was on how whenever someone mentions Canada on the show, it means they're lying. However, I couldn't back it up with a source, (even though I know the writers mean to do this, say what you will)..."

That's the exact definition of Original research: "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

7) You seem to have take on ownership of the claim, which is also against Wikipedia. Let it go, man. Just because you really want to see it in the article doesn't mean it should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.77.194 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Try bringing up the issue on the podcast, if the writer's strike hasn't nixed it. An affirmative from a reliable secondary source should verify your claim. MMetro (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burnside... Sandbaggers?

just wondering what your user-name is from. I thought, perhaps, it was from the show Sandbaggers. Jeffrywith1e (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to The Simpsons WikiProject

Hello, thank you for becoming a member of The Simpsons WikiProject. The Project has been around for over a year and has seen many Simpsons related articles improved exponentially. The members of the Project have achieved many successes, including getting two entire seasons of The Simpsons promoted to Featured topic status as well as getting many articles promoted to Featured article and Good article status. For a full list of Project accomplishments, see this page. There are currently several drives within the project, including a drive to improve the episodes of season 4 and a drive to improve the core articles of the project. If you would like to work on a page and need help, please see our guide to sources or the style guide. If you require any further assistance, please leave a message on the project talk page, or ask myself or Scorpion0422. Once again, thank you for joining the project, and happy editing. Gran² 20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)