Talk:Fandalorian/Archive1

NPOV? Come on. None of this is untrue, and Razzy1319 knows it. One glance at TFN will confirm it, and most if not all Fandalorians would happily agree with all of this. Kuralyov 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC) As one of the posters in TFN said, we couldnt believe that an admin at Wookieepedia would place such bias ahead of his/her occupation here. --Razzy1319 19:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Overzealous might be a bit much. -- SFH 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They speak to each other in Mandoa, elect themselves Mandalore, and ignore canon so they won't have to deal with the fact their heroes are genocidal thugs. Kuralyov 19:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, over zealous is a bit of an understatement then. -- SFH 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.. You're bias towards this topic might not be well known here, but it doesnt belong here either. I don't speak Man'doa, I share my likes and dislikes of both Jedi and Mandalorians, and I accept the brand of Fandalorian but somehow this article not only demeans the said group but also a valuable part of the Star Wars Community. If I had lowered my standards to accomodate yours, I would have created an article called Jedi Idolism], and called those under it "Jedi Butt huggers" or "Space Hippies" who wear Jedi Robes in public and people snigger while they pass by. Dont get me started on Lightsaber duels in public. Then link it in every other authors who ever wrote Jedi.
 * Except there's no recognisable fan group known as "Jedi Butt Huggers", since you just made it up. There are "Fandalorians" - they self identify themselves as such and exhibit the behaviour known in the article.QuentinGeorge 20:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said I liked Jedi? And your point about descriibng Jedi fans as "Space Hippies" illustrates my point - since it was Traviss who came up with that term and made it popular around Fandalorians. Kuralyov 03:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where's the bias? If this article has errors, point them out. QuentinGeorge 20:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Like QG said. Wheer's the bias? This article's been up for 12 hours now and no one has removed anything, despite the number of Fandalorians who've posted here. If you see something inaccurate, then change it; if there's nothing inaccurate, then continue not changing it. And by the way, the fact that several people have done nothing but critise me over an article that, by the fact that even they didn't change anything, apparently is accurate says a lot. Kuralyov 03:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. are Criticisms part really needed? it a point of view taken from one side... --Razzy1319 20:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, 'Jedi Butt Huggers' made me laugh. 'Fandalorian' is quite creative also. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This looks pretty good so far, everything here seems pretty NPOV. Maybe we should put in some counter-criticisms, like about how they claim Karen's retcons are logical, minor, or non-existent? Her only retcon was overriding "Jango is the last Mandalorian," right? I don't remember how explicit that statement ever was. Remember, the article is NPOV when you can't tell the opinion of the person who wrote it. I'd say we're pretty close.-LtNOWIS 20:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with LTNOWIS that a section "Defense of term" or something with counter claims would help this article. Anyone up for it? QuentinGeorge 05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Last Mandalorian Retcon, wasnt actually done by Traviss, if I remember correctly. Open Seasons showed there were survivors. Dont know if it was a fan retcon or an official retcon, the title "Last True Mandalorian" was given because he was the last of the surviving and most visible member of that particular group. Was that in Abel's article? And then there is the nonsense about the GAR having mandalorian culture being invented by Traviss, which we have known before the RepCom games and book. Traviss merely fleshed it out. Thanks for your quick response to this though. --Razzy1319 22:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, on TOS, karen calls us fandalorians too...--Xilentshadow900 22:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Open Seasons shows no "True Mandalorian" survivors except for Jango and Silas. (and Montross, but he wasn't at the battle). QuentinGeorge 05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's the Bias? Easy
That you mention the criticism at all. Folks, I'd love to see Wookieepedia take off and be a viable resource, but if you're going to opt to include information that has no bearing on anyone but TFN or yourselves, and therefore exclude the broader audience, WHILE injecting opinion solely by your choice of information to include, factual or not (of which I notice there are no checks and balance) then you're going to generate the wrong kind of attention. Forget "Supershadowisms", hello "Wookieepedantics". You're doing little else but irking folks and distancing yourself from licensed authors. Not a good idea.

Once again, a real encyclopedia doesn't editorialize. You're not going to be taken seriously. I can already see the erosion in credibility occurring.

Dark Moose


 * This whole article really isn't meant to be taken seriously you know... and this is a community of star wars fans. We like to have fun too.--Xilentshadow900 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia first and a community second. Fun ain't an excuse to be be unprofessional or unencyclopedic. jSarek 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that's my main point, JSarek. I may have a different set of standards, and I won't work too hard to impress them upon you guys. This much is true, however: It may be a community, but its a community portraying itself as an encyclopedia, and as such, it has an implied responsibility to objectivity and fact, because it implies its delivering objectivity and fact.  Otherwise, it needs to made clear that its not an encylopedia - its just a hobby.  So though I may see the point that its all for fun, it still has reprocussions.  I mean- if its a blog, call it a blog.  I honestly think it was meant to be something else, and people expected it to be something else.  I think it still could be...anyhoo - there ya go.  I'm just a moose with another opinion.  DM out
 * We have articles on Lucas bashing, Fan criticism of George Lucas, and Star Trek versus Star Wars. Please tell me how this is any different. Kuralyov 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, if Fan criticism of George Lucas is valid and Supershadow is valid, then this article is valid. Surely any aspect of Star Wars culture is fair game for this. QuentinGeorge 05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fair game, so long as it is written only to include facts. The current page, for example, is quite good. In fact, more could be added, so long as it is stated in non-inflammatory terms, and always so that it is clear that neither stance is the stance of Wookieepedia.--Erl 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

TMI
This article is a perfectly valid topic for Wookieepedia. We're an encyclopedia about the canon and about the community. But I think any conflict could be solved by simply avoiding putting too much information in the article. Take a look at Trekkie on Memory Alpha. That should be the model for this page. No "opposing views," just facts. Dark Moose is right, anything else is just a topic for TF.n boards or somebody's blog. &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  00:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a real topic, with real significance to the community, and we can and should cover it in a serious, professional, NPOV way. There are some very vocal bashers, and they have some real (but not neccesarily well-founded) criticisms, and we would be less complete to ignore that just because it makes some people feel icky. We shouldn't shy away from controversial issues, just as Wikipedia should keep its Race and intelligence article. Of course, if we had this, we'd have to have "Saxtonite" too. But if anyone wants to VfD this, feel free. That's as good a place for a discussion as any.-LtNOWIS 02:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point about Saxtonism, although since I don't care about that issue I doubt I'll be able to expand it any more. Kuralyov 03:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this would probably qualify as original research on Wikipedia. -LtNOWIS 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the articles on here would qualify as "original research" on Wikipedia. Hence why I'm glad we aren't bound by their narrow dogmatic views. :) Kuralyov 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Those "narrow dogmatic views" wouldn't happen to be the constrictive nature of unbiased, factual, objective fact reporting, would they? Because that's unfortunate that you ignore the value they have to an encyclopedic venture.  DM out
 * As has been said numerous times, if anything in the article is not "unbiased, factual, objective fact" then you are free to change it or nominate it for VfD - things that no Fandalorian has done yet, despite all their whining on this page. Kuralyov 05:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Therefore adding yet another opinion to the mix. What I'm talking about is a core set of standards for the information, something better than what you've got.  Not this supremacy of information by "survival of the fittest" or "debate by attrition".  It has to do with the prospect of objectivity going IN to the endeavor, not the idea of hoping it will "evolve" into something resembling a useful and objective fact.  But if that's the way it is...well.. good luck.  DM out
 * Christ. There are standards; it must be objective. And consensus on this article is that it is objective. And if you think that disputes on objectivity shouldn't be settled by consensus when they do arive, I don't think the problem is on our side. Kuralyov 05:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Christ aside, I think the very idea that you arrive at a semblance of a fact by concensus is exactly the nature of the problem going in. Its a systemic problem, so as you're apparently part of the system, I certainly wouldn't expect you to a) understand or b) agree.  Encyclopedic standards outstrip even journalistic standards.  What's being atttempted here doesn't even qualify for a 9th grader's xerogrqaphed newsletter.  But - I know you don't understand, and I know you don't agree.  So hey - have a cold one on me, and good luck being taken seriously.  I don't envy your task here.  DM out
 * Rather than insults, perhaps you would like to point out what specific part of the article you find subjective? Please? QuentinGeorge 05:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then perhaps that means you'll stop bothering us, then? Kuralyov 05:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Worse, it means I'll stop referring to you, or referring other people to you, or offering any kind of endorsement of any kind. In fact, quite the opposite.  As far as what fails to be objective, it truly should be obvious.  The community at large will fail to hold your hand on these things.  DM out
 * I think you are mistaken Moose. We already have a great part of the community at large, especially because of our early mando'a support. If it wasn't for me and Corran_fett writing down all the available words here, nobody would have had a mando'a word resource. Even though they do now, we still have some of that crowd.--Xilentshadow900 11:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh noes! No more referrals from the great DM?! Not even the endorsement of TFN, Abel Pena, and navicomputer can make up for this tragic loss...We should have known better than to disparage Mandalorians! Kuralyov 05:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. And your friend was trying to make a point about insults ;0)  so sad, when a lack of objectivity fails even itself.  Long and short, all boo-hooing and teeth gnashing taken in turn, yep.  That's exactly what that means.  DM out
 * If I could just interrupt this pointless argument. I'm asking again: In what way is this article not neutral? QuentinGeorge 05:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There!! Now stop being rude to each other ---Razzy1319 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See your talk page, Razzy. QuentinGeorge 05:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's common procedure to register before you have a conversation on one of our pages DM. And honestly, I don't see how having this page messes up any of our other pages, or makes them less reliable. This is no reason to criticize the entire wookiepedia. And honestly, by now we don't need endorsements. If we're a bit mixed up on the "Facts" about a certain type on fan, so be it, it'll resolve itself eventually. I'm tired of fending off wookiepedia from the critics. It's fine, there's nothing wrong with this site, you can go about your business, move along.--Xilentshadow900 11:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I had considered it in the past, I'm not sure there's a point to me registering, contributing, or supporting in any way now, xilentshadow900. I'll do my commenting mostly from without from now on.  But thanks for the tip.  DM out
 * "Although I had considered it in the past, I'm not sure there's a point to me registering, contributing, or supporting in any way now, xilentshadow900." why not? You apparently know what's good for us.--Xilentshadow900 20:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fact is not being arrived at by consensus, it is the standards of impartiality that are being arrived at by consensus. Every single element ever stated in that article was factual. There was, however, concern in the community that the facts were presented in such a fashion as to so as to slant the opinion of a reader who had yet to develop ideas on the subject (a contention with which I agree--as I was a reader who had yet to develop ideas on this subject before I read the article). Thus, the slanting affect of selective reporting was discussed, the slanted areas deleted, and review begun so that the article can be expanded impartially. Finally, because this article covers, and is clearly labeled as covering, a community topic, not a canon topic, there is no authoritative, official view that can be adopted. So discussion occurs, so that Wookieepedia may continue its valuable service of informing Star Wars fans about Star Wars related topics of interest to them. Finally, DM is of course entitled to his opinion, ideas, and to comment, and other people are of course entitled to think he is being rude or wrong, and the site as a whole will remain impartial. Overall, the system is imperfect, but no system is, and especially considering this is a community-related article, I think we're doing a pretty good job--but anyone who objects has the total right to change the page! And that is the beauty of wikis. Sorry if I ran long--Erl 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Although perhaps DM raises a good point. Perhaps we should develop a tag for all fan activities articles, saying that "This article refers to a Fan Activity topic. Events, opinions, and individuals described in this arcticle are neither present in any authorized source or claimed to occur in the Star Wars universe. These articles are provided by Wookieepedia as a convenience in understanding the nature of events and materials throughout the Star Wars community. As with any fan activity, the subjects of this article are liable to be hotly debated and fluid at any given moment."--Erl 01:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And one last thing because this drives me crazy: DM, fact is always originally established by consensus. That's the nature of peer review. The "No Original Research" policy of Wikipedia requires that research be published in a respected journal first. Wookieepedia standards require that all IU articles be based on authorized source material, and all OOU articles pertaining to official subjects (e.g. articles describing specific books) use only authorized information and no more. However, Lucasfilm continuity team holds no rights to or information on fan created terms and groups. Furthermore, no peer reviewed journal exists in this capacity. Thus in Fan Activities articles, Wookieepedia serves not as an encyclopedia but as a peer reviewed journal. It violates the No Original Research policy, but it requires the most stringent test that can be applied: a guantlet of dedicated fans representing all ends of the spectrum. It may not be an encyclopedia article, but if CUSWE lifted one of our articles on, say, Fandalorians, for itself, it would qualify. Why then is this inadequate?--Erl 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge with TheForce.Net?
Even wikipedia has articles on certain cite's forum users. For example, the 4chan article has a sub-article on their forum users in /b/. Why don't we follow their example and merge this with the theforce.net article?--Xilentshadow900 12:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be that this fan subset is not just a TheForce.net phenomena. I don't know, I'm not really a big forum user. QuentinGeorge 12:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that Karen Traviss (who eschews TFN) uses this phrase on her blog in relation to people who've never been to TFN means, I think, that it deserves its own article. Kuralyov 18:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed criticisms and rebuttal

 * For what it's worth, I just deleted the criticisms and rebuttal portion. Personally, I don't think that having opposing viewpoints on the page will average out to NPOV. The two sections in question are 100% opinion. The upper section explains what a Fandalorian is, and franky, if someone wants to know how Fandalorians act as a group, he/she should watch them firsthand and form his/her own opinions, instead of checking on a Wiki. That kind of information just doesn't belong, IMHO. Now I fully expect one of you to go and put everything back. Be my guest. I've made my point, I'm out. Ywingempress 19:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right that the criticism and rebuttal are 100% opinion. But that's what they were presented as. I don't know that Fandalorians dislike Jedi. I do know that there's accusations that they do, and that's all the article said. QuentinGeorge 19:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I repeat. Ignoring the controversy does not make an article NPOV. Read some of the articles on Wikipedia - they present both sides of controversial topics and then allow the reader to "make up his own mind". QuentinGeorge 20:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be deleted. The term has no notability whatsoever. Heck, it's not even used that much on the JCs. --Imp 20:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree there, but to be honest, I really don't care enough about this anymore. QuentinGeorge 20:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but having opposing sides take potshots at eachother under different headings doesn't make an article NPOV either. And I don't really see this as a 'controversy', more like a group of people expressing their distaste of another group. Either way, I don't think it belongs here. Why should anyone care if some people dislike Jedi or not? Ywingempress 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that they are extremely attached to Mandalorians, thus why they have this name. Hating Jedi shouldn't be a strong subject in this article, should it?, unless we need to make a "Jedi hater" article. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Blanking the entire article is a weak way to try and balance it. By this token, all the Potentium article should say is "a view on the Force that some accept and others don't." Kuralyov 23:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Potentium article explains what the Potentium beliefs are (facts, not opinions), and lists some of the history and followers. It makes no judgements on what's good or evil, right or wrong. The previous Fandalorian "criticism" section was very judgemental in tone, hence the need for a "rebuttal" section. Why can't this article simply explain who the Fandalorians are (fans of the Mandalorians) without the air of "oh god, they're so annoying"? I don't understand why the facts alone aren't good enough here. Ywingempress 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ywingempress. Facts are good enough. If the opinions of the relevant groups is added, special care must be taken to insure that it is impartial. I would, for example, try "Other fans present on the boards view "Fandalorians" and the Fandalorian ideas as foolish or disregarding of previous continuity." KT data, product data, and screename data can be readded, but without any condescension. "Those who identify themselves as Fandalorians tend to enjoy material with Mandalorian content, especially content from a Mandalorian POV, and are thus drawn to the works of Karen Traviss who greatly expanded their character and perspective . . . Fandalorians often choose screennames with Mandalorian references to reflect their personal preferences . . . etc."--Erl 01:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then make those changes, don't blank the article. Especially when said blanking is done by someone who has contributed less than 50 edits to this Wiki, all of those done on articles related to Traviss (I'm referring to Ywingempress here, by the way, not Erl). That is not acceptable to me. Kuralyov 01:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to offend here Kuralyov. It's about quality, not quantidy. Ywingempress has made some very helpful edits on the mando'a page that have saved me and corran_fett some time, along with other edits on other pages that were helpful. Ywingempress has as much a voice as anyone here.--Xilentshadow900 01:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a heated topic, and so I think it's a good idea to move slowly. I'll add some of the stuff I described above to the page, and you can examine it.--Erl 03:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Added. Better?--Erl 03:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa man, chill. I blanked part of the article to refute the point of certain unnamed people above who thought there was no problem because no one was editing it. And frankly, the number of contribs I've made and what articles they were on is not relevant in the slightest, and you're only saying that because you can't stand my "kind" (now who's biased?). Those types of opinions belong on forums and blogs, not here. Just like personal jabs at a fan group don't belong here, period. That said, I think the newest edits are a big improvement; thanks Erl. :) And thanks for defending me, Xilentshadow. Ywingempress 04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You removed the entire article save for a single paragraph, as well as any descriptors of what a Fandalorian was or was considered. And I don't care how many edits she's made, the point still stands that she, like anyone else, does not have any right to blank an article that is under discussion for revision. That is not me, that is our official policy. Kuralyov 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * a) I did not "blank" the article, I removed the parts of it I deemed not necessary. b) I did it for the purpose of making it under discussion for revision. The people who were calling for revision were not being taken seriously because they weren't actually editing the article. c) If it was so wrong and against policy, you should have just reverted it. ... But none of that matters anymore and there's no point in arguing what's done. Are you happy with the article as it stands or are further revisions necessary? Ywingempress 05:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did revert it. The fact that I reverted it, and you and your followers got angry at me for doing so, is why we're having this argument now. And the very fact that it's labelled NPOV automatically means it's under review, and in fact deleting so much of that article while it is under such review is not a good thing. I'm not trying to be ahrsh, but there's a reason we have this spelled out. Kuralyov 05:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have "followers"... if others got rid of your reversion, that's not my problem. I only made that one change initially and wasn't even expecting to fight this one out. I wouldn't even be here if other people didn't agree with me. In fact, I'm unsure as to why I'm still here, because it's all good now, right? Ywingempress 05:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, heated topic, chill. We all know you have different perspectives on these things, and it seems like we've established a good midpoint. Fighting time is over, children! (joke not condescension)--Erl 12:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)