Talk:Occupation (Battlestar Galactica)

thank you, Matthew Fenton
I just noticed the templates in the main page, in the criticisms section. Thank you. I think this is a very good way for us to move forward.

I see that you've ignored all of the Wikipedia guidlines that I've referenced and deleted the section again.

I note that *you* added the "controversial topic" template. Please read the words in the template:

Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

You again deleted a large block of information with no discussion or call for opinions ahead of time.

Matthew, please stop vandalizing wikipedia.

Please stop ignoring wikipedia guidlines wholesale.

Tjic 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

reminder of wikipedia editing policy
Let me quote from the Editing_policy page:

With large proposed deletions...it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments.

So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include:
 * duplication or redundancy
 * irrelevancy
 * patent nonsense
 * copyright violations
 * inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion)

Alternatives include:
 * rephrasing
 * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
 * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
 * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
 * requesting a citation by adding the fact tag

If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents...

reminder of reversion policy
Help:Revert

Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism.

Reflection of current events in Iraq?
Problem statement / history


 * 1) TJIC added a criticisms section, which is typical in Wikipedia for novels, movies, etc.
 * 2) MatthewFenton deleted it without discussion
 * 3) TJIC restored it.
 * 4) MatthewFenton deleted it and specified that
 * 5) * it did not match NPOV
 * 6) * had weasel words, and
 * 7) * did not cite sources.
 * 1) * did not cite sources.

weasel words
With regard to weasel words, make sure to read the Avoid_weasel_words paragraph:


 * As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions that may need calling out:


 * When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. For example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth."
 * When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."

Note that in this case:
 * 1) the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion
 * 2) the holders of the opinion are too numerous to qualify (see the fact that Google has over 1 million hits on the term "Battlestar iraq"

NPOV

 * "POV comparison"? Does that mean that it described actual opinions that people have?  That's not invalid in Wikipedia; explaining people's positions is entirely legitimate.  Look through many many many entries on books, movies, and TV shows, and note that many of them have "controversies" sections discussing reactions to a piece of art.
 * If you have a problem with a particular word or sentence, edit it, do not delete it.

did not cite sources
semi-fair point. I've cited three from each side to document that the Iraq/BSG connection is well commented on in the blogosphere.

reversion

 * "I know how to revert" is not a valid response to my pointing out that you're vandalizing the page and breaking Wikipedia custom. 209.6.167.39 11:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "The episode draws massive and obvious parallels with the US led coalition's occupation of Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, with the former Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, etc.) <- POV - Some may believe it doesnt at all..
 * some may not believe that men landed on the moon, but to the vast majority of viewers, the parallels are obvious, and the producers of the show have stated in interviews their intention to draw parallels. If you find the wording awkward not sufficiently NPOV, then there are  accepted ways of dealing with that, other than vandalism. Tjic 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The human refugees of Galactica are drawn to strongly resemble Middle Eastern populations, <- Uncited and again POV and fan guesswork
 * hardly POV; creators of the show stated as much in interviews; opinion is near universal on this topic (I've not actually found a single source that disagrees). Tjic 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * the Cylons are drawn to strongly resemble the US/coalition/Israeli forces, etc. Tyrol, for example, has white hair, a white beard, an eye patch, and wears a kufi, etc. <- again "
 * "Many commentors on both the left and the right have acknowledged the strong analogy." <- Weasel words; read WP:WEASEL.


 * Uncited criticism.
 * cited now. The article section is now far more verbose than it really needs to be, given that the criticisms should only be a minor section. Tjic 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The above is not even patently salvagable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "patently salvagable" means, but it sounds like you're trying to justify breaking Wikipedia editing policy (which is a  Wikipedia major policy, btw.
 * With regards to the "take it to the BSG wiki" argument: I'm a wikipedian. I've never been to the BSG wiki, I'm not a fan, and I have no interest in doing work on that wiki. Tjic 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

-

In my honest opinion of all this, I was kinda shocked by how much I felt this episode and the next few so far have echoed the Iraq war. It seems like the humans are portrayed as the Iraqis and the Cylons the US Military. Saul's headwrap and beard looks to me like he's a pseudo-Bin Laden. The webisodes - they hid weapons in the temple (just like the Iraqi insurgence), The New Caprica Police - hiding their identities (I can't really give a citation, but I have two friends over in Iraq, one works with their police and he's said some of the Iraqi Police wear masks to avoid retaliation by their fellow countrymen), and then there are the suicide bombings - people willing to die for their beliefs. There is really no denial that current events have influenced the start of this season. I'm not saying however that it should or shouldn't be mentioned under trivia, I really could care less. I can understand that there are some people, being sick of the war in real life, don't wanna be reminded of it by their television programs, or feel that the Battlestar series has no relivance to real life since its a science-fiction show and of another reality. Cyberia23 21:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While it does seem pretty clear and obvious, its inclusion is inappropriate for other reasons. Words like "obviously" and "clearly" generally indicate original research, no matter how obvious it is. Even sourced opinion is still opinion. Wikipedia is concerned with presenting fact. The fact that several columnists compare the episode to the Iraq war is not being debated. The place of those columnists' analysis in the article is, however. I don't think it belongs. It's not the notability of the blog that matters, either. It's the factuality of the content. Now, if an official source (e.g. Ronald D. Moore) is available that specifically discusses the intent of the writers/producers, that's a different story. --Fru1tbat 23:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kara
Uhm... I watched this episode and saw no Starbuck with a child, and you didn't even mention the suicide bombings. What's up with that? Daniel Berglund 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Who are you specifically asking? A few people have has a hand in this article so far. Someone did mention the suicide bombings. I added details about Kara and her child. However, since SciFi ran both "Occupation" and "Precipice" back-to-back I may have errored in which episode had Kacey in it. Honest mistake, however I thought she was revealed in "Occupation". I'm probably wrong since I didn't memorize ever detail. I'll have to watch it in re-run to be sure. I'm thinking the hospital scene may have even been in "Exodus (Battlestar Galactica)|Exodus, Part 1" now come to think of it. If someone can verify it then please change it. Cyberia23 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was wrong. According to SciFi she is in the second episode. Cyberia23 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

again..
Matthew Fenton,


 * You have deleted a section four or more times now, in violation of Wikipedia policy.


 * You have leveled an accusation of weasel words, but failed to read the exceptions to the weasel words policy, which this sections falls under.


 * You made an accusation of NPOV, with out reading the exceptions to the NPOV policy.


 * You complained that I did not cite sources about "many left wing and right wing"...so I came up with three from each side, from highly read blogs and websites.

I imagine that you feel somewhat territorial about the BSG pages; it seems that you wrote many of them. However, the fact of the matter is that you are acting against Wikipedia policy in a big way.

Do not tell me that if the change does not live up to your perfect expectations in every way that it is my duty to tweak it over and over and over to make it perfect, so that it matches your editorial policies and then you will allow me to post it here. That's not the wikipedia way.

I posted something entirely valid, and I provided footnotes.

It's your duty to either tweak it so that it's a better entry in wikipedia (while retaining information), or to leave it alone.

You can play this childish revert game for as long as you want; I'll keep adding the info back in, because it's useful and interesting.

So: knowing that, instead of spending six hours over the next month deleting the section over and over, why don't you spend 15 minutes tweaking it so that it suits you better?

Tjic 11:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would i edit it? Why would i waste my time attempting to cite purely POV? You've provided 0 footnotes, you havent removed the POV either, write it better and post it here and i will work with you but to bring it to a decent standard. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

the "criticisms" section: original discussion
It has long been a common opinion that the reimagined Battlestar Galactica makes many references to modern culture. '''<- Whos opinion, yours? - Uncited'''

52278 Alpha 771 11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * uncited? Did you try clicking the link?
 * You ahve to cite the opinion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you have to, if that's how you want the page to look. Would you kindly read up on Wikipedia norms?  I've provided several links to Wikipedia policy, and you have entirely ignored them.
 * Not my job at all, if your to lazy to do things correctly then im well within rights t remove junk. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark
 * Actually, no. I've provided several links to Wikipedia policy above; please read them. Tjic 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This particular episode draws massive and obvious parallels with the US led coalition's occupation of Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, with the former Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, etc.) The human refugees of Galactica are drawn to strongly resemble Middle Eastern populations, '''<- Uncited.. - Some may believe they resemble something else.''' the Cylons are drawn to strongly resemble the US/coalition/Israeli forces, etc. Tyrol, for example, has white hair, a white beard, an eye patch, and wears a kufi, etc. Many commentors on both the left and the right have acknowledged the strong analogy (as of 18 October, Technorati lists over 1,200 hits on the phrase "battlestar iraq, and google lists 1,360,000 hits).

Some left of center opinions on season 3 and this particular episode:


 * http://www.slate.com/id/2151425


 * It starts with a suicide bombing at the first graduation ceremony for the new security forces...
 * If this sounds like Iraq, it should. But it's the season premiere of Battlestar: Galactica...
 * There is little end to BSG's Iraq parallels.

and


 * http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/06/fear-of-a-monotheistic-cyborg-planet/


 * If the humans were originally us and the Cylons were Al Qaeda, how did the Cylons become America while we became the Iraqis?

and


 * http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/10/battlestar_iraq/


 * It's pretty bold of them to have gone down the path of offering up such a straightforward Iraq analogy.
 * In particular, they've done what really nobody's been willing to do in American politics which is try to cast a sympathetic eye on the insurgency.

Some right of center opinions on season 3 and this particular episode:


 * http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjEyOWI4NzkxOTE1ZjQ3MjM0MTU5MTc5Zjg3OTE1OGM=


 * BSG... webisodes ... draw complimentary parallels between the jihadi "insurgents" and the human resistance forces on New Caprica.

and


 * http://www.postwatchblog.com/2006/10/battlestar_gala.html


 * They're calling the humans--the heros of BSG--insurgents. They have cutely called the Cylon force the Cylon Occupational Authority or something along those lines to mimic the American Coaliton Provisional Authority that first administered Iraq. The former human president, in narration, bemoans the recruitment of local, that is to say, human police, the direct parallel to the American recruitment of Iraqi police. One of the Cylon heavies jokes about the disappointment of not being welcomed when they first invaded. The opening background music was Arab, or faux Arab. I get it.


 * This is a disgrace.

and


 * http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/21248/


 * Battlestar Galactic... have switched roles with the humans (good guys?) as the muslims and cyclons (bad guys?) as America

Criticism in the blogosphere centers around two points:
 * 1) The writing and analogies are unsubtle and awkward. The entire series clearly has drawn inspiration from ongoing geopolitical events, but this episode makes the analogy much too obvious. <- Uncited..


 * Did you read the six above citations? Did you click through to any of the 1 million plus google hits?
 * Why would i click through a bunch of blog links that: a) have not been formated properly and b) make no sense. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to click a bunch of blog links? Because the criticisms section mentions reaction in the blogosphere, and you asked for references.  The references were provided to you, and then you (1) deleted them; (2) asked for references.
 * Blogs from non notable people are not notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but provided links to "name brand" (i.e. quite notable) blogs. National Review, Matthew Yglesias, etc.  Note that these have Wikipedia pages discussing them.  Note that the first line of Matthew Yglesias article is "Yglesias ... is a popular American political blogger and a prominent voice on the liberal blogosphere."   I cited very good evidence; you refused to read it.  Tjic 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The analogy likens US troops and politicians to a robotic menace that has committed genocide on a grand scale (tens of billions of humans killed; the race almost entirely destroyed).

Cite it and tidy it up and post it here, use footnotes as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Webisodes necessary viewing?
Are the "webisodes" necessary to understand season 3? S0301 feels a little unfamiliar. Pgr94 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just went back and watched them and it fills in a lot of holes. Would recommend watching the webisodes first. Pgr94 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are there references to the blogosphere?
What is with the last section of the article and the mention of the blogosphere? It doesn't look very professional and seems rather trite to place what almost seems to be POV remarks on a plot summary article. --LifeStar 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read up.. I tried to remove it before.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again.. He'll need to get a consensus to add as two people dispute it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was "weasel words" at best; there were an equal number in "the blogosphere" praising this episode. At least 14% of all people know that.

Request for Comment: The "Criticism" or "Controversy" section
This is a dispute about whether there should be a "Controversy" section in the article, citing opinions - expressed in the blogosphere and elsewhere - that the episode was culturally important political commentary relating to the Iraq War.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute:


 * Many wikipedia articles about books, movies, and television shows have "Controversy" sections, which often touch on politics. This particular episode gained a lot of attention in the blogosphere, from well known voices on both the left (Slate (magazine), Matthew Yglesias, Crooked Timber) and right (National Review, Protein Wisdom, etc.).  Therefore, a controversy section in this article is relevant and correct. 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: reliable sources - Entirely agreed! That's why I cited representative opinions from sources that have already met the Notability policy (as evidenced by articles about them in Wikipedia) (Wikilinks edited in above). Note in the "reliable sources" policy "When a ... well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."  The examples above of articles from writers publishde in Slate (magazine), Crooked Timber, National Review,  etc. meet this standard hadilly - these sources have all been publishing on the intersection of politics and culture for years, and are all famous sources.  209.6.167.39 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability of sources wasn't meant to cover opinion pieces, though. Note that WP:V emphasizes "fact-checking" for reliable sources. The problem with the comparisons to the Iraq war is that until an official source from the show confirms them, they're opinion. The opinion of a famous source is no more factual than the opinion of a non-famous source (see my reply above to Cyberia23 at the end of the section). As for noting that some columnists have compared the episode/arc to the war in Iraq, I would support that (per the exceptions mentioned at WP:WEASEL), as long as the details of the comparison are at no point listed as fact. --Fru1tbat 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "The problem with the comparisons to the Iraq war is that until an official source from the show confirms them, they're opinion". The point of the controversy section, though, is not to document the intent of the writers of the show, but to document the controversy the episode caused in popular culture.  See, for example Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy - it's not relevant whether the "wardrobe malfunction" was planned, or unplanned, and affidavits from the folks involved don't change anything.  The news is that the event created discussion, editorials, etc., etc., etc.  See also The_Lion_King, Borat (which begins "A number of commentators have argued that the film's portrayal of the people of Kazakhstan is unfair and unjustified..."),  South_Park:_Bigger,_Longer_&_Uncut, The_Passion_of_the_Christ (which begins "This movie is considered controversial by some Jewish and Christian groups...."), etc.  Googling shows hundreds of examples of movies, books, and television show articles in Wikipedia which have signficant controversy sections, and the documenting of sources in the Occupation BSG article is superior to all of the ones I've checked.  Tjic 03:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but pretty much all of the examples I saw in the above discussion were problematic. "The episode draws massive and obvious parallels ..." comments more on the episode than the controversy. It appears to state as fact what hasn't been established as such. The next one ("The human refugees of Galactica are drawn to strongly resemble Middle Eastern populations.") has the same problem. Granted, I'm taking them from the above discussion, which may be out of context, but they seem pretty clear in their intent. Any section on the controversy should comment solely on the controversy (which can include the opinions of those involved, but not stated as fact). Something that follows the examples you mention above more closely might be ok. The removed content, though, now that I check the edit history, appears to read more like a thesis supported by a collection of quotes. I also don't think Google hits are particularly notable, however overwhelming they are (either way, it's uncomfortably close to an ad populum argument).
 * If anything, it needs to be rewritten and summarized, something like "The episode generated controversy for its depiction of the human resistance against the Cylons, which has been likened to and seen by some as sympathetic to the Iraqi insurgency against the U.S." The rest of the deleted section makes me uncomfortable. There are distinct differences between what was added here and what's present in the other controversy sections/articles you cited. The Superbowl controversy article discusses extensive factual details of the fallout from the incident. The Lion King article notes similarities with works that the filmmakers actually admitted the story had been based on. Some of the other examples have similarities to the case here, but even so, the presentation is much different. --Fru1tbat 04:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even rewritten, it doesn't seem like it should be in the article. The Superbowl controversy generated a reaction from notable sources; I'm not so sure that "the blogosphere" is considered a notable source.  —ShadowHalo 05:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should not be statements of the form "the episode DOES say X, Y, Z". The statements should be of the form "many people (footnote, footnote, footnote) saw in the episode political position X; responding to this, others say political position Z", etc.  I'd caustion that arguments above in the Talk section aren't necessarilly descriptive of what I'd like to see in the article - I wrote some of that in anger after another editor reverted edits on five seperate occassions, often with no - or minimal and curt - edits.  My goal now is to put the emotions away and get consensus on what a well written "controversies" section would look like, in keeping with the standard that's seen at other Wikipedia pages.    As you acknowledge, some of the comparisons above are comparable to the controversy here, but you indicate that the tone is different.  Any further suggestions on how to make the tone of the controversy section appropriate?  Thanks. 209.6.167.39 05:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Outside Comments


 * From my understanding, reception, reviews, and interpretations all need to come with reliable sources. Individual bloggers do not constitute reliable sources, so the section does not belong unless one or more can be found.  That an interpretation comes from the blogosphere is not enough to make it verifiable.  This applies to Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining), which is completely unreferenced and, as it stands, appears to be original research.  —ShadowHalo 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The section is worthwhile if it can be written in a narrow way to state what notable bloggers are concluding about the show, and "official" comments from the writers, etc. From a quick google, I see that one of the writers has mentioned within an interview about some of the parallels to Iraq.  best regards, guyzero | talk 06:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From this Slate.com article about the show's writers' meeting podcasts, it seems that the writers are not just thinking of Iraq when discussing the show, but also about Israel, Second World War, South Africa etc. I think a brief mention (one or two lines) about the suggested Iraq connection (referenced from Slate etc (which is a mainstream online magazine) and writers' interviews and podcasts BUT NOT BLOGS) would be fine. Any more would be undue weight. All OR or OR-seeming lines such as the above mentioned "The human refugees of Galactica are drawn to strongly resemble Middle Eastern populations" should be cut out entirely. Also, I have seen nothing to convincingly suggest that the supposed parallels with the Iraq situation in BSG are "culturally important political commentary" - this is a huge claim which doesnt seem to stand up Bwithh 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues

 * Lead
 * Five links in a 20 word sentence? Is that normal?  Do we really need drama and television program linked here? I would say no, but I'm curious what others think.
 * "re-imagined" is used twice in the first two sentences. Not necessary.
 * "where the majority of the human population are residing" is redundant and not needed. We already know that when we're told that it's a military occupation on New Caprica.
 * The sentence "Admiral William Adama continues his plan to rescue everybody there" should be shortened to something like "Admiral William Adama continues planning a rescue." Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The story behind the episode was inspired by several wars and occupations in the past" could be shortened to "The episode was inspired by several historical wars and occupations."
 * "more predominantly" doesn't sound right at all.
 * No need to say "In addition" or "of the episode". Simply, "Moore's writing was nominated for an Emmy and a Writers Guild of America award" should suffice. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)