text:
Talk:Prometheus (Stargate)

Does Prometheus deserve it's own page?
I'm thinking out loud here...but, why is this page even titled BC-303? It seems to me that it should be entitled "Prometheus", as the Daedalus page is. Is there some outrageous reason I'm missing? -b 04:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. The ship is usually refered to as Prometheus rather than X-303 or BC-303. And since it's the only ship of its kind, there's no point in centering the article around the class of ship. --84.156.182.167 16:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Same here. I've moved the article. Bryan 16:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Daedalus Classification
The show Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis are following normal military naming conventions when it comes to the technologies they develope. The X-302 became the F-302. The X-303 became the BC-303. The BC-303 series is following US Navy naming conventions. When a ship class undergoes significant structural and weapons technology improvements, it considered part of the same class of ship, but a new Flight. Hence being called Flight II. I provided information to show this. This is not original research, it is the way the US Navy conducts naming conventions. If we follow US Airforce, it goes a different route. If the prototype experpimental model is the same as the production model, it goes from X-5 to F-5. However, when changes occur between the prototype to the production model, it goes X-5 to F-5A. This occured with the F-22 raptor. The YF-22 is now the F-22A. For the Prometheus class this means the production run model (represented by the Daedalus) would be listed as BC-303A. This is not original research. This is following the identification conventions set down by the United States Military. If this is original research, then the bulk of Wikipedia (this article included) violates this rule and all should be deleted. Anyway, since the Prometheus is apparently following US Navy conventions (hence being called a Battle Cruiser), the BC-303 Flight II is the proper designation. The differences between the Prometheus and the Daedalus are both visual and stated by characters in series. This is the exact same type of information that already makes up this article. Some might call what I've done speculation, but given the military accuracy that the Stargate series has strived for, the choice for designation of the Daedalus is limited. Alyeska 06:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * So you admit it is speculation then? Why not just wait until an actual episode establishes the information you want to add? AlistairMcMillan 12:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Its called an informed hypothesis. Military designation conventions tell us the Daedalus and future Prometheus class ships can be designated only two ways. I didn't state the Deadalus would be labeled as such. That would be baseless speculation. I stated the Daedalus could be labeled as such. That is an informed statement, and I provided evidence in article to back that up. Alyeska 17:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * We have a policy (No original research) that prohibits this sort of thing. It's fine to have an article discussing U.S. military vehicle model nomenclature, and it's fine to have an article on a class of fictional spacecraft from a popular television show, but since it is a fictional show there's no guarantee that it follows real military guidelines until we actually see evidence of that on screen or from some other related source. Is there an article in Wikipedia on military nomenclature that discusses these issues? If so, perhaps one could insert a link to it from here to allow the reader to make these hypothesese themselves if they choose. Bryan 23:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This ignores the fact that the TV series in question is known for the military accuracy and the fact that the US Airforce is known to provide technical support for the show on many ocassions (to the point that two difference Airforce Chiefs of Staff have appeared on the show in cameo appearances). I did not state the classifications as fact but pointed out it is the logical course of action given historical precidence on the show. Alyeska 07:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * But it's still speculation with regards to the show. Explicitly labelling it as speculation doesn't give it an exemption to the no original research rule. Bryan 03:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the entire article is original research because it requires people to review the episodes in question and even count specific information (according to Alistair counting is original research). It is infact not original research but is a reasoned and logical conclussion bassed on past information already presented in the show. Alyeska 16:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, as someone left the opening to mention the Daedalus might be labeled as a new ship I added in the point that it remains possible it would potentialy be redesignated. I didn't go into details but just pointed out the differences in the ship indicate this might happen. It correctly points out the valid differences between the Prometheus and Daedalus while not going to the full extent of what I previously put in there. Alyeska 22:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're wrong there Alyeska. The space ships are following USAF classification conventions which means each new spaceframe or design comes under a new and unique designation, BC-303, F-302, etc. If they were following the USN convention then the F-302s would range from F-302 to F-3-(whatever the number of 302's they've built is) and the Prometheus would be BC-01 rather then BC-303. They still use a military advisor in the show and this is what he recommended to the producers which they adapted. Start reading the producer blogs on Gateworld 59.167.6.100 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Deadalus class is known as the BC-304

BC-303 never existed?
We know that the X-303 was the prototype for the BC-303 class, but it's canon (SG-1 ep. 904, "The Ties That Bind") that the Daedalus is a BC-304 class. So would the Prometheus still be the X-303 or is it the only BC-303 now that that class has been superseded? My knowledge of these things is sadly nil, but I think the article should include the BC-304 information and whatever implications it has for the Prometheus's designation.

 * Was it actually called the 'BC-304'? The only reference I remember is the senator talking about wanting to build more 'Daedalus-class ships.' slab 04:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There was no mention in "The Ties That Bind" that the Daedalus had been classified as a BC-304.

The Prometheus started out as an experimental ship and before it was officaly comissioned it would be the X-303. However, once it entered offical service it would be redesignated the BC-303 because its now an active duty US Space Warship. The Daedalus was not stated to be a BC-304 class ship, but its the only logical number for the ship. The Daedalus now represents a new class of ship. Ships are designated and named. Neither of these can conflict with other active duty ships. The Prometheus is a BC-303. The Daedalus would be the BC-304 by its offical designation. Example, USS Los Angeles is a SSN 688 while the next ship of the class is the SSN 689. Whether or not the Daedalus is part of the same class of ship, it is designated as the BC-304. However we know the Daedalus now represents a new class of ship. So this new class of ship will be designated on the lead ship of the class. Daedalus class, BC-304. Alyeska 06:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If it hasn't actually been named a BC-304 in a verifiable source, then we can't say here on Wikipedia that it's a BC-304, or even speculate that it might me. I've brought related issues up before earlier on this talk page, they look like they apply to this too. Bryan 06:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats like saying because someone didn't say 2+2= 4 but only said the answer was 2+2 we can't conclude the answer is 4. That is nonsensical. The ship was specificaly stated to be of a new class. The Daedalus would be designated as the BC-304 due to it being next in line after the Prometheus. Therefor the Daedalus is a BC-304. Its very simple logic and follows established military naming and designation guidelines which both SG1 and SGA are known to follow because they have US military adivsors keeping tack of show content. Alyeska 07:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "The Daedalus was not stated to be a BC-304 class ship." Really, that should be all I need to rest my case here. Stargate has generally been following the military's guidelines on these things but it's a fictional show and so in the final analysis the only things we really know about it are the things that appeared on screen. If you want to speculate you have to at the very least indicate that it is speculation and describe what source material you're working from. Bryan 14:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The Daedalus is going to have the next hull number after the Prometheus. The Prometheus was number 303. Daedalus will have hull number 304. With the Daedalus representing a new class of ship, it is project 304, Daedalus class. Or more correctly Daedalus BC-304. Thats how the system works. By calling the Daedalus a new class of ship they green lighted the numeric designator of the ship class at the same time. When you have one, you have another. Alyeska 18:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * So why not wait until they actually give it that number in the show? Simply repeating your opinion over and over isn't going to make it any less original research. Bryan 05:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"If it hasn't actually been named a BC-304 in a verifiable source, then we can't say here on Wikipedia that it's a BC-304, or even speculate that it might me."

I'm afraid I have to agree. It does make sense that Daedalus would be BC-304, but it hasn't been officially shown, like "X-303" was with the Prometheus.

OTOH, I'm not quite sure it's original research, since X-303 was given in the show and Daedalus is the next ship after Prometheus. All that's needed is to connect the dots. The original research page says

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

So it's based on established facts, but it relies on induction. Is it OR or not? WayneC 19:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I suppose you could say something like "The Daedalus' predecessor was the X-303 Prometheus. Real-life military tradition would suggest that Daedalus should therefore have the designation BC-304, but this has not been established on the show yet." All of that's factual, it combines information from two different sources, and it doesn't make any conclusions on the reader's behalf. Saying "in accordance with real-life military tradition the Daedalus is the BC-304", on the other hand, is original research because we're creating a new piece of information that didn't exist before. I still think this is a rather pointlessly nitpicky issue to be putting in the article, but I guess considering some of the stuff I've done myself on other articles I shouldn't complain too strenuously based only on that. :) Bryan 15:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, now that I think of it, where as the BC- prefix been used in the show? The article here says that the Prometheus was "promoted" from X-303 to BC-303, but doesn't give an episode reference. It also states with certainty that the Daedalus is a new class if ship, but given that Prometheus was just an X- series prototype I don't see why that's necessarily true - perhaps they decided to leave Prometheus as X-303 and started BC-303 production with the Daedalus. If I get some time tonight I'll try looking for references, but if anyone knows offhand which episodes this information comes from please add it in. Bryan 15:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Episode 7x07, Enemy Mine. Stated as both Battlecruiser 303 and BC-303. When a ship goes from experimental to active duty stage, it is no longer experimental and as such recieves an offical designation. The X-303 became the BC-303. The Prometheus has been around more then long enough and has seen plenty of active duty and its design has been final for quite some time. Its the BC-303. Anyway, its obvious the BC-303 series itself recieved several modifications and upgrades to the original design. Enough so that the Daedalus became a new class of ship. As was already mentioned the Deadalus was the sister ship of the Prometheus. Its hull number is logicaly 304. Daedalus is a new class of ship, the Daedalus class. Its series deisgnation number would also be its hull number. BC-304. Figuring all of this out is called logical deduction. Alyeska 20:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "deduction" is original research. Insert another round of the same argument here. Bryan 02:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

According to you when someone says 2+2 its original research to finish the statement by saying =4. Alyeska 19:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This does not follow. Bryan 08:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I fracking KNEW IT. Its the BC304.Alyeska 02:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I take it this means you've found a reference? Please provide. I'm guessing Flesh and Blood, based on the context in Daedalus class battlecruiser, but since that hasn't aired yet I can't check it directly so a secondary reference would be nice until then. Bryan 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The Korelov is a "304" by Landry's words. Alyeska 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, but in which episode? I want to cite this. Bryan 16:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * In Crusade (9x19) Xornok 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical data
81.10.141.72 added a bunch of technical data that seems dubious to me (I removed a similar set he added to Ring Transporter for reasons described on the talk page there). Anyone know where it came from? Bryan 08:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the mass of 2.95 million tonnes is mentioned during an episode somewhere; but it seems extremely high. For comparison, the Knock Nevis, the world's largest ship, has a dead weight of only 565,000 tonnes. It's nearly thirty times as massive as the Reagan, which has a crew of 5,680 compared to the Prometheus' 115. Is there an order of magnitude (or three) error here?

The maximum sub-light speed is specified as 95% of the speed of light, yet elsewhere the vessel can only travel at 110,000 miles/s - 59 PSL. Deadlock

Gateworld's Omnipedia, which claims to use only canon sources, states the speed as 110,000 mi/sec. Can anyone cite a source with another number? Also, I deleted the reference to Mach speed (which is irrelevent in a vacuum) and replaced it with the speed in terms of c (speed of light in a vacuum). Davidyorke 10:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 * In the sixth season episode "Prometheus", Carter says expressly that the ship's maximum sublight velocity is 110,000 miles per second. On the other hand, in the very next episode ("Unnatural Selection"), Thor says that the Asgard have improved the ship's engines to their maximum potential. Whether or not this means that the Prometheus has some higher top speed at that point is impossible to say. (However, in Stargate Atlantis's "The Return, Part One", Colonel Caldwell states the same figure of 110,000 mi/s as the maximum sublight speed of the Daedalus, which may or may not be of any value.) The Mink Ermine Fox 08:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Asgard weapons
The fact that your edits being reverted, Alyeska, seems to suggest that the Prometheus having Asgard weapons is disputed-- why would the Prometheus not use it, or at least mention finding a way to use it, when Earth was on the brink of annihilation from Anubis' mothership or when it was on the brink of destruction from the Ori-designed superweapon?

In addition, it was Thor who offered vague mentions to weapons and shields as a carrot for keeping the SGC. The Asgard High Council, however, only explicitly agrees to upgrade the Prometheus with their beaming technology, sensors and scanners, and hyperdrive.

However, since there is evidence of mention on the show of an Asgard weapon (especially in 6.20 "Memento), I've reworded the statement (with a reference!) that should hopefully satisfy both parties.

128.120.173.175 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * "Just to clarify here is the direct quote from the DVD.
 * "You travelled all the way across the Galaxy, just to tell us that?"
 * "And install Asgard designed shields and weapons on the Prometheus. A small token of grattitude for SG-1's efforts in saving our galaxy, and yours, from the threat of the Replicators"
 * It says Asgard designed, not Asgard weapons. Not to mention the Prometheus has run out of ammunition time and again with it's AA-like guns. Designed just means, like what the Asgard did to the Naquadria hyperdrive, it was enhanced with their knowledge, not replaced.
 * Not to mention that stargate-tech is an unreliable source of information.59.167.6.100 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Fine-- I added the word "designed", so the following should be completely accurate--the Prometheus has still never used Asgard or Asgard-designed weapons, period. (To continue your argument, any weapons the Asgard would give us or assist us designing would be energy-based, and they probably wouldn't even touch, much help us design, any primitive projectile-based weapons like railguns or missile batteries. And if you say we enhanced railgunes and missiles with Asgard knowledge, you're stretching it as there's no evidence for that.)
 * The Prometheus was given Asgard-designed weapons technology, but it was never shown being used, including in the attack against Anubis or during its final battle, suggesting there wasn't a power source to power it, was removed later at the request of the Asgard after the elimination of the Goa'uld threat, or otherwise defunct.

 * P.S. Stargate-tech isn't reliable? Tell me what you think isn't accurate about Stargate-tech's information about the Asgard weapon:
 * The last weapon system has never been quantified in any real way. During its first refit when the Asgard installed defense shields they also installed an energy weapons emplacement. Which has never been used, even in massive combat against Anubis's fleet. The most likely reason initially is that without the Naquadriah core, the X303 didn't have the juice to power such a massive piece of weapons technology. This is explicitly backed up in "Memento" when the Prometheus without her reactor was unable to power the weapon. The shields alone would probably take up a majority of the ships power. In battle drills when the core was still on board, the weapon was explicitly mentioned and we can hazard a guess that it is situated in the ships forward arc, from commented in 'Memento'. However given the Asgard's newfound reluctance to equip the Daedalus with advanced offensive weapons technology and Prometheus in 'Beachhead' now given a 'Primary Railgun', it is possible they requested the removal of the weapon as the threat from the Goa'uld decreased.

 * 128.120.173.175 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Just because they're Asgard designed, doesn't mean they have to be energy weapons. As i said before, the Asgard redesigned and enhanced the Naquadria Hyperdrive to actually work properly on the way to Othalla, it doesn't mean that it was an Asgard Hyperdrive engine, just something enhanced and reconfigured. Same with the weapons, Asgard designed means that they could have been effectivly reenforced or modified to be maybe 500% more effective against enemy shields or more efficient targeting/payload wise.
 * More to the point, why would the Asgard design weapons for the Prometheus when they full well know it's specifications, that cannot function based on the ship's power systems? That's the same as you giving a gun as a present to a Rifle Association member and then give them a 45" anti-tank shell for the weapon.
 * We've seen the Asgard design stuff for us before, like the Time Dilation control panel in "Unnatural Selection" it didnt use super-advanced technology, but it was built and designed by the Asgard - 59.167.6.100 09:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * OK. This is getting childish. There's no evidence that the Asgard enhanced human weapons!
 * It's supported that Thor gave Prometheus "Asgard designed weapons". It's obviously the energy-based weapon mentioned in "Momento" as being offline IN ADDITION to the hyperdrive (which has a problem and fails), the Naquadria reactor has to be ejected (which goes critical and explodes), other systems are offline (as a result of the EMP from the Naquadria explosion), and they're stranded -- basically, Prometheus is Earth's first intergalactic ship and it shows.
 * The energy weapon onboard is clearly Asgard. However, there's no evidence the Asgard helped enhanced any of the projectile weapons on the Prometheus-- if they had time to do that, why didn't they fix the damn hyperdrive and the naquadria reactor, when it's such an obvious defect that it strands the Prometheus on its maiden voyage?
 * 128.120.173.175 12:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a timecode in Memento where they mention energy weapons, i have watched that episode today and at no time did either Ronson, Carter or anyone mention Asgard energy weapons at all. And the hyperdrive was just an example of something asgard enhanced that was human based. There is NO evidence whatsoever of energy weapons on the Prometheus. Check your sources - 59.167.6.100 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I watched the episode again, and apparently, the reference to the Asgard energy weapon ("charging" the primary weapons system) is actually in the battle-drill portion of the episode before they actually launch. While I *could* assume they're doing battle drills preparing for the real thing, for all I know, it was just a battle drill.
 * So there's no direct evidence that the Prometheus has Asgard energy weapons, but no evidence that the Prometheus' CIWS and missile batteries were enhanced by the Asgard, either.
 * All this debate is from one line of Thor's dialogue in which he says he is bringing Asgard weapons to the Prometheus in "Disclosure"-- a weapon that has never shown itself since. I think the best explanation is that the High Council eventually decided not to give Prometheus any weapons, substantiated by the fact that they refused to give the Daedalus any weapons (going as far as to prevent its beaming technology from transporting nukes or any explosives in case it could be used as a weapon.)
 * However, as a compromise, what do you think of the article saying:
 * In 6.16 "Disclosure", Thor mentions installing Asgard-designed weapons on the Prometheus, but this weapon has never shown itself since, even during the massive attack against Anubis or at Prometheus' last stand, suggesting it was either 1) never installed because of later doubts by the High Council (substantiated by the fact that Asgard refused to give the next ship, the Daedalus, any weapons technology, going as far as to lock down its transporter beam from being able to be used as a weapon), 2) the weapon was incorporated as a part of human technology, such as the railguns that were later installed on the Prometheus, or 3) it was otherwise incapable of being used.
 * 128.120.173.175 13:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Asgard Weapon Continued
We can make some fair assumptions as to what the weapon is and isn't. The weapon almost certainly isn't a railgun or missile because such weapons exist on the Daedalus and would violate the no Asgard weapon rule. All we know is that the Asgard installed weapons designed by them. This indicates special weapons, almost certainly energy in nature since that is all they ever have built. I have amended the entries to indicate its a Asgard designed weapon and make no assumptions of exactly what it is.

We know this weapon was installed thanks to Memento. At the time of that episode the only Earth weapons on board were Missiles and point defend guns. Neither need charging. But Colonel Ronson mentions charging some main weapon.

So what happened to this weapon? Well the Prometheus was using the Naquadriah reactor to power ship systems, but that was lost. Later they send the Prometheus an Alkesh reactor and hyperspace core. This was all Prometheus had to power its systems for some time and it likely had to use all available power for shields and couldn't manage the Asgard weapon. Then the Asgard come and offer an Asgard hyperspace generator (almost certainly power generator as part of it). Bet you with the Goa'uld being much less of an apparent threat at this time (Anubis was gone) and constant Asgard help in the Daedalus, they pulled their weapon system from the Prometheus.

PS. Stargate-Tech is my website, well I co-run it with Chris O'Farrell. Alyeska 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As i've said time, and time again, Asgard- Design DOES NOT MEAN ENERGY WEAPONS. We've seen no evidence that there is any sort of energy weapon on Prometheus but we have seen projectile weapons more advanced then you'd expect for a human made vessel (Missles that can track in space without requiring specialized guidance or not larger in size). Missle launchers and AA like weapons on real life vessels require an electrical charge to be able to operate. "Charge the Primary Weapons" can easily mean charge the missle launchers or activate the AA defences or even activate power to the targeting systems for the weapons, it DOES NOT mean that they're energy based, and until you have proof remember Wikipedia's policy of "No Original Research". However, to compromise, i reworked the paragraph about the possible energy weapon to include more detail - 59.167.6.100 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You make several logical mistakes. "Charge the Primary Weapon" (singular, not plural) was stated after the missiles were already mentioned. One does not charge missiles, and AA weapons do not constitute a primary weapon. Now, if you would stop ranting, you would note that I took out energy weapon references and just called it an unknown Asgard design. And none of what was posted violated the no original research since those posts got removed already.Alyeska 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, what you edited and posted is good and gives a good explination of the facts. Alyeska 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Asgard weapons had been removed in a retcon, in which case, this discussion is nonsensical. - LeonWhite 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a Retcon. While its never been heard of again, we have plausible reasons.Alyeska 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well after some disputes, that entire section got cleaned up nicely. People can read the facts and most will likely come to one of two conclussions, both of which are perfectly logical. Though I have to say. If mentioning that a Retcon was possible, doesn't it stand to reason other possibilities can be mentioned? Or does retcon without outrigh evidence become an unsupported assumption and should also be removed? Alyeska 03:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * True, I've taken that out too. Bryan 05:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm new to this particular discussion, and it might have been covered before, but the Prometheus clearly does have an energy weapon of some sort. The episode Full Alert (Which I'm watching at this very moment) has the Prometheus using an energy weapon to destroy a Goa'uld Al'kesh in use by the Trust. Now, I'm not saying that it was definitely an Asgard weapon (It might very well be a Goa'uld staff cannon or other such device) but the "No energy weapon present" argument doesn't hold water. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.22.11 (talk • contribs)

 * I was watching that episode just a few weeks back and had the same thought when I hit that scene. But fortunately I was watching the DVD, and so was able to step through frame by frame. The shot is made at timecode 41:37 and with the video slowed way down and blown up fullscreen it's clear to me that there's a missile at the leading end of the yellow streak that goes from Prometheus to Alkesh. The yellow streak is rocket exhaust, not energy weapon fire. Bryan 05:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The end of Ethon
There's apparently some dispute over what the episode made explicit or left unsaid about the end result of the most recent Rand/Caledonian war. Here's Daniel's complete description of the situation from timecode 42:00 in Ethos:

Daniel: "Soon after we left the talks broke down." Mitchel: "And?" Daniel: "And we've been unable to make contact with General Landry had the Daedalus rerouted on its way back from Atlantis [Daniel seems to have switched seamlessly from one sentence into another different one here, I transcribed word-for-word]. It seems the Caledonians weren't content to just leave their fair planet." Mitchel: "They launched an attack." Daniel: "And Rand responded. The Stargate is presumed buried in the rubble." Mitchel: "Rough day." Daniel: "Rough day." [Fade to black, credits]

So as far as I can see, any solid statement that they annihilated each other is unwarranted - there's no indication of any sort about whether there are survivors, just that they attacked each other and made a sufficient mess that the Stargate is now lost. Bryan 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To me it implies that the Daedalus took a look at the planet and saw the damage of the missile exchange so they know that the above is the case... It should be noted that if the Caledonians were evacuating to another planet it is likely they would be keeping the gate open for extended periods to let the population though such that it likely that many attempts by the SGC to dial that gate would not work, but I consider that improbable. Shogun 00:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that fact that daedalus may have actually reported detecting lifesigns, particularly when they were asked to find out why they weren't answering. - 59.167.43.113 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Those are possibilities, sure, but the "no original research" policy is pretty clear on this sort of thing; we shouldn't be mentioning possibilities that we've come up with ourselves at all. No original research goes into detail. This also applies to the subject of Asgard weaponry which I also removed some original research on from the article. Original speculation is very easy to let slip into articles about things like this that are made up to begin with. Bryan 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If the Daedalus went to investigate, it could have told us this info and it wouldn't be original research. Now, from my perspective, the Daedalus did not reach the planet before the end of the episode, so the actual status of the inhabitants are unanswered and best left that way. All we know is that both sides apparently went to war with eachother and something very bad hapened. Thats all we know. Alyeska 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Original research regarding energy weapons
Okay, here's a more elabourate point-by-point justification of my removal of the following paragraph as original research:

 * A plausible reason for the existance, but lack of use of these energy weapons is the number of changes the Prometheus main power plant has been through over the course of it's lifetime. The change in power configuration could have forced the human engineers to take the weapon offline permanantly due to power control issues, or the Asgard could have taken the weapon back when they installed Hyperdrive engines on the Prometheus.

From the policy No original research we have the following nutshell summary:

This paragaraph makes the following statements:
 * Prometheus' main power plant has changed over the course of its lifetime
 * Was this actually mentioned anywhere in the show? The hyperdrive's been replaced since the original Naqadria one blew up, but the hyperdrive isn't necessarily the "main power plant". Please cite an episode where it was mentioned, I'll go check up on it to confirm.
 * Changing the power configuration could cause power control issues forcing the energy weapons to be taken offline
 * I'm almost certain this wasn't mentioned anywhere in the show. This is therefore a theory of some sort. Has it been published anywhere? If not, then it's a "new analysis or synthesis" based off of the previous already-debateable fact of the power plant being changed. See No original research - "it introduces a theory or method of solution"
 * The Asgard could have taken the weapon back.
 * Again, has this theory actually been published anywhere? Cite please.

That seems to be all of the substance of the paragraph accounted for, if I've missed any bullet points feel free to add them. More importantly, please provide some cites for the existing ones. IMO this paragraph clearly violates the NOR policy and therefore unless there's some sort of justification provided I'm going to have to keep taking it out. Bryan 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your really stretching the definition to cover this. The policy is in place to prevent people from turning their analysis into claims of fact. As it stands, the paragraph merely presents possible explinations as to why a known fact (the Asgard weapon) has not been seen since. It presents known facts and says "Maybe this is why". Alyeska 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You say that the paragraph "presents possible explanations", and the policy states "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." Far from stretching, I simply cannot see any way to interpret this so that it's compatible. What source are these "possible explanations" from? Verifiability demands that cites be possible for this sort of stuff (from that policy page: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources.") If there is no published source, then it's unpublished.

 * Presenting known facts is fine. Saying "maybe this is why" is original research (unless some appropriate source can be cited, of course). Bryan 02:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The actual detailed descriptions as to what the Original Research rule say don't actualy cover what your claiming. They primarily deal with sources which are not authorized publications. As I said, your definition is the vague description of the rule, and you stretch the intent to cover any analysis no matter how its presented. There is actualy a lot of analysis in that article. If you want a very strict interpretation of the rule, you have a lot of work to do. In effect, don't sum of facts with a conclusion. And the article does this again and again. In reality, almost every single Stargate article has this. As it stands, what has been done is a look at the facts and possible answers given, but clearly labeled as such and not presented as facts. When the offical sources of something raise questions, is it not reasonable to offer the answers rather then force the reader to answer the questions? And the answers aren't presented as fact, just as possible answers. The reader can still decide the facts for themselves, but the article lists the most logical answers that fit the facts. Alyeska 03:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I don't think you're quite getting this. Just presenting this paragraph as explicit speculation doesn't exempt it from the NOR policy, it still needs some sort of reputable source. The official sources may raise questions, but they don't provide any speculative answers in this case - the speculation is coming solely from you. That's original research, and that's no good. We've clashed over this sort of thing before with the "BC-304" designation for the Daedalus class, and the argument is much the same. Unless you can actually provide some sort of reference for this speculation I'm taking it out. The fact that other original research may remain elsewhere in Wikipedia just means there's more work to be done. Bryan 07:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanking information because you disapprove of it is not how wikipedia works. And to answer your question, yes. The documented changes to Prometheus power systems have been clearly identified in the series in the episodes "Prometheus", "Memento", "Grace" and "Covenant" - 59.167.43.113 08:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not blanking it because I "disapprove" of it, I'm blanking it because I think it's original research and nobody has yet provided any evidence to the contrary. This is against Wikipedia policy, specifically No original research. Since you're insisting that this paragraph isn't original research, could you please provide a citation for where exactly this speculation comes from? Bryan 09:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, the changes in the power systems is not the main issue here, BTW. The original research comes in the speculation that this is what's responsible for an apparent lack of energy weapons, and in the unrelated speculation that the Asgard took it back when they installed the hyperdrive. Those are the things that need citations. Bryan 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You want people to cite facts when they are openly speculating. Give me a break. Your asking for the impossible and you know it. Alyeska 20:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You can indeed cite facts where speculation is involved. Grabbing the first good example I can find, Comet presents some speculation about what the structure of comets is like. It cites the source of that speculation - it's from Dr. Laurence Soderblom of the U.S. Geological Survey. That makes it not original research, since it's not Wikipedia editors that are coming up with the speculation themselves. What I'm asking is that if you're to put "changes in the power system may have forced them to take the energy weapons offline" you indicate who it is that holds this opinion. Otherwise how can we tell whether it's from a reputable and significant source, rather than just some random speculation by a fan? Bryan 00:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont think he's ever going to be satisfied, the only real alternative is to ask a mod to lock the page - 59.167.43.113 23:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Or we could get some additional editors involved to see whether a consensus can be reached one way or the other. Or someone could provide the sources I've been requesting. If this is something that a Stargate writer or some other such person has publically speculated about in a verifiable way, then it's not original research to talk about it. I'm not opposing including that stuff because I've got some sort of personal stake in ensuring that aspects of the show's background remain forever unexplained, you know. Bryan 00:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The section in question presents the facts, and then states openly that plausible possibilities exist which explain the facts. It does not claim the explinations as factual, it just offers a conclusion bassed on the facts available and openly admits to being what it is. The intent of the Original Research policy is to deal with people passing off personal analysis as fact. This is not the case here. Alyeska 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure how else I can go about explaining why "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories ... or any new analysis or synthesis of published data" applies to "offer[ing] a conclusion based on the facts" that has no external source. The NOR policy explicitly lists original theories, arguments and ideas among the things that are forbidden, not just facts. Bryan 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The intent of the rule is to prevent people from posting such information as fact. If you actualy read the meat of the rules you will note that it covers people making analysis of unpublished sources.  Your enforcement of the rule is an extremely strict reading.  In the Daedalus thread its listed as having 16 F-302s.  According to you we don't actualy know this.  All we know is the Daedalus had 8 F-302s in one launch bay.  Its analysis to conclude that it carries another 8 in the other launch bay.  Of course its extremely obvious and logical analysis from which there is no logical alternative.  But by your strict reading of the rules, the number 16 needs to be changed.  ANY analysis no matter how minor or easily concluded must be removed by your very own reasoning.  And your not doing that.  Alyeska 15:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You're right, that does look a bit iffy - the 400 soldier capacity, too. Which episodes were those figures established in (or other source, for that matter - novels, tech manuals, magazine interviews, etc. are also okay for this kind of thing)? There should at least be a cite. Also, I notice the BC-304 reference has returned in a more acceptable form but it'd be nice to have a source for that too - how can I tell whether "many fans" speculate that, rather than just the one who put it in the article?

 * Yes, I'm being strict. But NOR and verifiability are foundation policies of Wikipedia, these articles will probably never become featured if I'm not. As a cautionary example, during this argument I also stumbled across Prototype Death Glider and found it to be almost entirely original research - as far as I could tell a bunch of stuff had been made up out of thin air. I've cleaned the OR out, added in some additional facts from the episode, and merged it into death glider - you can see the version I started from at . Bryan 19:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Compare what you removed from the Prototype Deathglider to the entry on my Stargate website. I think someone more or less used my entry to copy parts into the Wikipage. Alyeska 05:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah, didn't know you had a website., I take it. Would you like me to delete the "Prototype Death Glider" history as a copyvio? I almost deleted it anyway on account of it being a neologism, but held off thinking I should preserve the history on GFDL grounds. If it's a copyvio then it should definitely go, though. Bryan 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Nah, I don't particularly mind. If you check many of the SG ship pages on Wiki you will also note they are taken from my website.  I don't much care on that issue either.  So its no big deal. Alyeska 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph fits guidlines for "No Original Research" and should not be tampered with further, save restoring the blanks componants. Dude, you're really reaching now. - 59.167.43.113 02:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Stargateproject
Please manually move the above banner to the top of the page.

This banner has been added to aid project coordination. It was added using AWB, the automation of which could not place the banner at the top; please help by doing this manually. --Albotim 02:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus Commanders
I just read here that someone's gone and thrown in all the commanders of the Prometheus into a single chapter. They should actually be elabourated on in their indivudual sections. Colonel Ronson and Major Gantt were only on the ship during it's shakedown cruise (Both out and back in Memento and Grace, respectivly). Hammond commanded her for only two missions and Pendergast took over till the ship blew up. They should be put into the respective sections, rather then thrown into a single ambiguous statement. - Count23 14:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode listing?
What episode was it destroyed? --72.202.150.92 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Speed
Should that speed be listed? It could be like in every Star Trek they go much farther than they should.

Fair use rationale for Image:Sg1-s09e15-0.jpg
Image:Sg1-s09e15-0.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

hanger bays light up?
y do the hanger bays of the ship light up blue when its in hyperspace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.136.231 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

answer: there not hangerbays learn your stargate the hanger is located below the bridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.169.249 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

in 'Ethon' it seems fairly clear that the F302s are launching from the hanger bays/warp nacell-sorry-hyperdrive nacelles. i always wondered that too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.229.151 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Prometheus (Stargate)


text: Category:Operas by Luigi Dallapiccola

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Category:Operas by Luigi Dallapiccola


text:
Talk:Thomas Francis Meagher

Clean-up & citations
I'd like get this article to WP:Good Article. Over the past couple months I have been updating this article with in-line citations. I have also tagged a number of items with "citation needed," especially in the "Death & disappearance" section. My plan (in a week or two) is to remove any statements that currently have a "citation needed" tag next to it, and possibly consolidate the "death" and "legacy" sections, then seek a peer review or copyedit.

If there are sources for some of the items that I have tagged, I will be more than happy to add the inline cites if you point me in the right direction. If there are any other issues with the article from those familiar with the subject, this might be a good place to bring them up. Thanks, Mitico (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Some clean-up
I just work briefly on the page, mostly to the infobox to make it more like other ACW articles. Expansion is needed on his Civil War career (shocked to see the accusation of drunkenness at Sharpsburg and wounding there not mentioned!). I can provide the ranks and their dates no problem, but more info is needed as to his actual participation in the fights. Kresock (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have expanded to include at least some detail for the battles he participated in & the items mentioned above. Is there anything still missing regarding the Civil War? Thanks! -Mitico (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks much better and more complete now. I you want, I can insert with cites his militia & army ranks at appropriate spots in the text. Might be considered over doing it, but most of the other Union general pages include this info. Kresock (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate consistency. For Meagher, wouldn't his ranks just be colonel, bevet, & brid. gen?  Doesn't seem like it would be over doing it - I don't think.  So if you have this information handy (& by the sounds of it you are much more familiar than I) I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Mitico (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do! Kresock (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One minor minor thing. Is there any reason that the pronunciation of the name is in the family section, rather at the very top of the article when his name is first mentioned? That seems more intuitive, but if there is a reason not to, feel free to ignore this.Buirechain (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I moved to the lead and used the IPA format. Mitico (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

More work
Added rank info & dates, and some other adjustments. I put in the near the bit about Mitchel because at first glance it could read as Original Research. I could not find out the nature of his injuries at First Bull Run, so this can be added later. I still have two major concerns with the Civil War section:
 * Regarding the split over slavery, here is an link to google books:
 * Let me know if you think this is sufficient. Mitico (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Kresock (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 * In ACW articles we use the National Park Service names for the battles, excepting First Bull Run/Manassas, but here Seven Pines is called Fair Oaks in the text. I corrected the links to avoid redirects, and assume this wording is due to the visible caption on the Fair Oaks pic, correct?
 * Yes, I had actually changed it from how you have it now. I'd like the image & text to match without much explantion - so hopefully the way it is piped now is okay.  Mitico (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll do the rewrite of these sections if you want. Kresock (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My source states he held two Western Theater commands throughout 1864 and into 1865, and not resigning until May 15, 1865. This does not jive with the text or the infobox, and I would like to know how you would like to deal with this.
 * Oh I see that in the Civil War High Commands. The Army of Ohio is not mentioned in a number of my sources, if you'd like to add that detail that would be great and I'll look to see if I can expand if needed. Thanks.  Mitico (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that this reference is the first time I had seen his death attributed to a "drinking party." Though drinking is frequently attributed, just never quite in this way.  Interesting. Mitico (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I put in his western service with dates and cited it. Also:
 * I also combined a few parts of the section and a very short quote together for appearance and flow. Change it back if you hate it now, but I thought the part about raising the company in NY should be closer to the quote for the ad concerning it.
 * Do we have anything on his actual participation at Chancellorsville. It just states he was there, not saying he was engaged or how much. His command was the 2nd Brigade, 1st Division of Couch's II Corps, and the corps fought McLaws' men in the early hours on May 3 and damn near everybody else on May 4. Beyond that I cannot expand. Kresock (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will follow up, but I think his participation was limited in Chancellorsville. Due to limited troops, recovering from the injury and (IMO) being po'd about not being able to further recruit he stayed on the "sidelines." Mitico (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Meagher and the Irish Brigade did engage in Chancellorsville, but the reports seems mixed. Some say he was wounded, Meagher's report conflicts with Hancock's regarding the brigades actions, subsequently Meagher resigned.  Interestingly, Meagher only took command of the brigade on April 27, after recovery from his injuries, just three days prior to Chancellorsville.Mitico (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then I'd add the bit about taking command three days prior and put in something like "lightly engaged" or so, and for now leave out the possible wounding/Handcock stuff until more in known. Perhaps the OR's can help? Kresock (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added his taking command & engagement as suggested. Just to be clear, Meagher was not wounded at Chancellorsville, but I was stating that to illustrate how much the reports vary. All-in-all, I think stating that he  saw limited action is proper, especially compared to the other battles.  Let me know if you have any other observations regarding the article.  I am going to nominate for GA now.  I appreciate your expertise and your help improving this article.  Mitico (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, and feel free to ask anytime. Kresock (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs more work on his Irish significance
I think while there are a lot of people here bringing his US connection up to a good standard, his significance to the Irish struggle against Britain has been neglected.. the real significance of his life seems to me that he was an Irish patriot who was transported, fought in a foreign country as part of a greater cause he believed in, and died young, before he or we could know what he would do next. I feel his life needs to be interpreted in terms of his Irish origins and causes - remember that he did not leave home voluntarily, he was an exile. Rcbutcher (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify a little: Do you think the Young Ireland section needs expansion? Or is your concern that the remainder of the article does not reflect back enough to Irish concerns? Mitico (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The latter : I feel that everything he did, including his Civil War service, needs to be interpredted in light of his dispute with Britain over Ireland. I.e. I feel he was an Irish rebel first, politician second, and US soldier third. The article needs to be balanced and not be dominated by his Civil War involvement, which in the big picture was of minor importance. On re-reading the article I think it's getting there.Rcbutcher (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have updated some of the information on the early life section (up to the image you uploaded), and created a page on wikiquote. I will expand the rest of the section over the coming days, likewise the wikiquote and wikisource links. If you would like me to expand more on any aspect, please let me know? -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Wow, I think I need un-nominate this for GA now. There are some issues that any reviewer will note (below), and especially now with article stability.  I'm a little busy now, so I don't think I'll be able fix in the next day or two.  Anyway, issues I think exist now:

 * 1) The new prose is at times rambling, & will need to work to tighten.
 * 2) Spelling - I ensured the rest of the article used American english spelling. I liked to continue using American english, unless there are objections. If consensus is to use british spelling can someone make those changes throughout the entire article because I am not familiar and would most likely do an awful job.
 * 3) Regarding the "brogue" - I have a source that states that TFM took pride in retaining his irish brogue while at stonyhurst, despite strong attempts to change it.  Are you sure about your source on this one?
 * 4) Regarding sources, I'll clean up and make consistent with the others. Can you verify that the applicable page numbers are presented.  Seems like a lot of referencing to page IV (preface) & page 10 of the Lyons book.  I'm not saying its not right, but seems odd - so jst a quick confirm would be nice.
 * 5) Regarding, the Lyons book - is it the same one that I have linked to google books in the general references section? If so, I'll refer to it, instead of a unique book.
 * 6) The "Books by" & "Additional reading" - are these sections necessary - with that much detail? As noted above, on  June 16, I removed much of these list because (IMO) it cluttered the article. Some of the books (and probably the truly relevant ones) are used -or should be used - as references in this article.  On the Young Ireland & Irish Confederation articles, sure, but I don't think these lists are helpful to the biography pages that they are widely attached, including this one.  Especially since this article now exceeds some of the technical issues raised at Article size.
 * 7) I will also focus on adding a paragraph "Arrival" section (and maybe a final sentence in the Legacy section) to discuss TFM's contribution to irish concerns while in the US, which will hopefully address RCbutcher's observations
 * I wish we could have done some of this prior to the peer review & nominating for GA, but thats just how collaboration works. GA is still my goal, and attainable - so hopefully we can work together patch up a few things then re-nominate.  Mitico (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 * On points 1 & 2: On prose (not my strong point I admit), I welcome suggestions. Like you, point 2 would be a problem also for me, but agreement on English / American should not be. I had a small go on the wording.

 * On point 3: I include a quote from the from the book cited:

“Regarding Trinity College as anti-Irish and anti- Catholic, his father sent him to Clongowes and Stonyhurst for his education. In the first institution he was bred in ignorance of his country and all that related to it—in the second his preceptors, with some success, laboured to overcome what was termed his “ horrible Irish brogue,” and succeeded in sending him back to his own country with an Anglo-Irish accent which grated on the ears of his countrymen when he addressed them from the tribune, until the eloquence and native fire of the orator swept the gift of the English school from their jarred consciousness.” Pg. iv - v

In addition, on a cursory look through some books, I have three sources with reference to his English accent. One by Duffy, Meagher’s contemporary and two secondary sources. If you wish to have them cited, I’m happy to oblige. What source out of interest, are you citing, I may just have it?

To balance it out we could include something from “until the eloquence and native fire of the orator swept the gift of the English school from their jarred consciousness”?

 * On point 4 & 5 together: Yes page numbers are correct. On the Griffith’s book, the Preface is actually an autobiography of Meagher, and on the Lyons book, yes it is the same book, only difference being my copy is an original, and contains a Dedication by W. F. Lyons to “The Irish Soldier Everywhere.” Dated New York, December, 1869. I understand there is also another book by Lyons titled "Meagher, Memoir of Thomas Francis," which I have yet to get. I've had a go at sorting the references, and added the books to the "General" list.

 * On point 6: I have hidden the book list, so that is not really a problem. Since we wish to inform the reader as much as possible, it can only be seen as a tool in that respect to the broad nature of the movement which Meagher was so much apart. Meagher is mentioned in almost each and every one, covering every aspect of his life.

 * On point 7: Agreement all the way, and nice work.-- Domer48 'fenian'  18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Early life
Hi, I have a question, what is the point of including his father's feelings towards Trinity College? Also if his father did regard it as anti Catholic etc. why was he sent to Clongowes (Catholic granted,) but seems to have failed to educate him about his country ("bred in ignorance of his country") and then an English school which seemed to want to Anglizise (horrible Irish brogue etc) him further? Reading the article it just seems confusing to me. In my opinion the Trinity part could be simply left out as it seems set a confusing tone for the paragraph. As an aside Trinity did also produce half a century earlier Wolfe Tone a legend in Irish Nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.208.91 (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Why was he sent to Clongowes? Because it was a Catholic school, Trinity being anti Catholic. Was he a nationalist leaving Clongowes? No, he was in ignorance of his country. Was he a nationalist leaving college in England? No, English schools seemed to want to Anglizise him. When did he become a Nationalist? After he arrived in Dublin and came in contact with both the Repeal Ass and the Nation. So he went from not having a clue about his country or nationality to becoming one of the leading nationalists of his time. He became the very opposite of everything he was educated to be, so I can understand your confusion. Is that not what makes his early life so interesting? -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed yes ! These are the sorts of things that a biographical article needs to cover. The man seems to have been driven by passion rather than just cold intellect. So where his feeling came from is important. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the IP editor has a point regarding leading off with Trinity comments. It doesn't seem all that relevant.  Especially when you consider that Trinity was a historically protestant college that would not even allow Catholics to attend - I believe this was even in Sr's lifespan.  I have tried to re-word emphasizing that he attended Catholic schools.  Domer, I believe above-explanation was clearer than the description in the article space about why this event in his early years were important.  I have tried to incorporate that. I have also attempted to describe why the brogue is important.  Question: is "which grated on the ears of his countrymen" a quote from somewhere?  If not, than I think there is better wording for grated on the ears needed.  Let me know what you think.  I am still very busy in real life, so I may not be too responsive. Mitico (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How Meagher’s father felt is very relevant. Trinity at this time was no longer a Protestant institution, but it was still anti-Catholic. Catholics did send their sons there, but Meagher’s father would not. I think the source you cited at the end of the section Bruce 2006, p 55 would support the inclusion of his fathers views as having relevance (apples not falling far from the tree) as to the effect on his son.

This addition however, is not reflected by they source I used. Meagher, who considered the brogue as a symbol of Irish heritage, would soon overcome his acquired accent. Ua Cellaigh pg 152-3 Despite his formal education lacking in Irish studies and even attempts to overcome native country's brogue, Meagher would become a key figures in Irish nationalism. Bruce 2006, p 55

Meagher never lost his acquired accent; it was his eloquence which won over his audience.

 * “To the common eye, indeed, the new recruit was a dandified youngster, with a languid air and mincing accent obviously derived from an English education; but this was a vulgar error. Nature had made him a great orator, and training had made him an accomplished gentleman. Charles Gavin Duffy, Four Years of Irish History 1845-1849 pg. 10

 * “He addressed the meeting on one of the passing topics of the day; something in his manner savouring of affectation, something in the semi-Saxon lisp that struggled through his low-toned utterances, some thing in the total lack of suitable gesture, gave his listeners at the outset an unfavourable impression of the young speaker. He was boyish and, some did not scruple to hint conceited; he had too much of the fine gentleman about his appearance, and too little of the native brogue and stirring declamation to which his listeners had been accustomed.” Ua Cellaigh pg 152-3

 * John Mitchel tells in the columns of his Irish Citizen, thus: “It is difficult now, for those who did not know Davis, to understand and appreciate the influence which that most puissant and imperial character exerted upon the young Irishmen of his day. Meagher had never known him personally, but had been inspired, possessed by him. In speaking of Davis, his Lancashire accent seemed to subside; and I could perceive, under the factitious intonations of Cockaigne, the genuine roll of the melodious Munster tongue. We became friends that evening.” Lyons pg 11

 * “In that year he had gone Dublin for the purpose of studying for the Bar. Conciliation Hall had, however, a greater attraction for him than the Four Courts, and despite his English accent and a somewhat affected manner, he soon became a popular figure in Burgh Quay. These defects were forgotten in the eloquence of the orator who had no compare in Conciliation Hall…” O’Sullivan pg. 193

I intended to expand the early life section, using a number of sources. Duffy's is somewhat critical of Meagher and should be included though I would suggest caution. This will include his fathers views and the effect on young Meagher. The last two lines will have to be changed to reflect what the sources actually say I think?-- Domer48 'fenian'  21:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay. I think the Trinity parts illustrate that Meagher's father was a source of his Irish nationalism, contrasting to his education.  My issue may be that it just seems like a dig at Trinity.  Maybe there is a more direct way to state the point of Snr's effect.
 * Content wise I think this section is good, maybe some rewording on:
 * "which grated on the ears of his countrymen" Per above, maybe something more subtle like: "which left an unfavorable impression upon his countrymen"
 * "defects forgotten in the eloquence of the orator he would soon become a popular speaker who would have no compare in Conciliation Hall." This seems very close to what is written above from O'Sullivan and Conciliation Hall makes it first reference here, but is not explained.
 * a) How about: "Despite his English accent and a "somewhat affected manner", his countrymen would soon forget his English idiosyncrasies due to his eloquence as an orator. He would soon become the most popular speaker in Conciliation Hall, the meeting place of Irish Repeal Association.
 * b) or,"Despite his English accent and a "somewhat affected manner", his eloquence as an orator would soon lead his countrymen to forget his English idiosyncrasies. Meagher bacame a popular speaker "who had no compare" in Conciliation Hall, the meeting place of Irish Repeal Association.
 * Thanks, Mitico (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On the issue with Trinity; there is this quote from Duffy, which may help, though how Ireland was at this time and how it was governed is a fact of life. All of which influenced Meagher.

“He [Meagher] had not had the advantage of university training; his father shared with many Catholic fathers a profound distrust of the only university in Ireland [Trinity]— an institution which tempted Catholic students to apostasy by reserving its prizes for apostates” Duffy, FYIH, pg. 8
 * I think I'll add the "only university in Ireland." Provides nice perspective. Hopefully settling the Trinity issue. Mitico (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Likewise the effect of his manner, and accent on his contemporaries, and their first impressions of him. These characteristics they described as “defects.” I consider the term “grating” as aptly descriptive when we review the above quotations, likewise, we could attribute the term to the author, though in my opinion the quotes mentioned above support its inclusion.
 * The above quotes mention: "unfavorable impression" "defects" "somewhat affected manner" a "lisp". One mentions "mincing".  While mincing & grating are similar, the use of this term over the others feels does not reflect the consensus of sources (which is much more forgiving then "grating"), in my opinion. I'd still like to tone it down a bit. Mitico (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On a comparable note, the following sentences caught my attention;  ''“Meagher was injured when he fell off his horse. There were reports that Meagher had been drunk, causing the fall.” ref name=bruce120 Bruce 2006, p 120, and in the same paragraph, “This was not the first time that Meagher faced this accusation, as it was reported that he was drunk at the First Battle of Bull Run." Bruce 2006, p 89 The high number of casualties, and the rumours of being drunk on the battlefield, lead to increased criticism of Meagher's command ability.” ref name=bruce120.   Now I have no real problem with all this, after all we have the official report included “However, official reports from Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan indicated that Meagher's horse had been shot.” Wylie 2007, p 165, so we know who the official report is attributable too. I’d simply like to know were the “reports” “rumours” and “accusations” of drunkenness came from, epically when it is yet again mentioned in the “Disappearance and legacy” section “Some state that he had been drinking, and simply fell overboard.” Who are the “some”''? Would the “some” and the source of the “rumours” and “accusations” include Mr Russell of the London Times, and if so, should this also be included? We know from reading Lyons pg. 20 that they were described as an "utter falsity." I simply raise these points in passing, as we have not reached those sections yet. I would not consider their inclusion as being a dig at Meagher’s character, as we will address them later, in detail.
 * Regarding the accusations of drunkedness, in fact the First Bull Run reports were largely reported by Russell (an anti-Irish & anti-Union writer). These claims were also supported by a confederate Lt. Connolly. Back in New York, a wife of a judge (Maria Daly) was spreading these accusations as well. I think it would be fair to throw the word "falsely" in regarding the Bull Run claims and leave it at that. Later claims at Antietem are more numerous: namely a Colonel David Hunter, but also by a number of soldiers & reporters named Grey, Hitchcock, Strother, and Reid. (Wylie p 165-167). So the Antietem claims were not isolated to detractors and later put in doubt by the McClellan report.  Other statements & accusations appear, but I do not think they are noteworthy enough for inclusion.  His death is surrounded by a lot of "some say" innuendo (b/c nobody knows for sure), but drinking is a common theme (to what extent, it varies).  - Mitico.

Dispite this we are making progress-- Domer48 'fenian'  19:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Meagher and nationalism generally: From Christine Kinealy's "Repeal and Revolution. Ireland 1848. "....0n 17 March 1848, Meagher and some other leading Confederates shared a platform with Chartists in Manchester and Oldham. Their comments were revealing, in light of the Repeal movement's earlier antipathy to democracy, demonstrating how much the [1848] French revolution had radicalised politics in Ireland and in Britain. They also demonstrated that a new alliance was being forged, which cut across previous antagonisms. When a leading Confederate, Michael Doheny, appeared alongside Feargus O'Connor at Oldham Edge, he proclaimed himself to be. 'an Irish Chartist'. More tellingly, Meagher admitted to the 8,000 people who were gathered in the Free Trade Hall in Manchester that he had previously been wrong in his political stances. stating:

"We have confused the English government with the English people … The disenfranchised millions have been held responsible for the privileged hundreds ... We retract every word that galled your manly pride, and here, in the name of the Irish people, we claim an alliance with democracy in England   … I do not disguise my true sentiments, I renounce my false ones  …  the revolution of Paris has made me a democrat." (page 148) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PV Nevin (talk • contribs) 11:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Family
"Born in No. 19, The Mall, Waterford City, Ireland, his father, Thomas Meagher (1796–1874), was a wealthy retired merchant, who was twice Mayor of the City, which he also represented in Parliament from August, 1847 to March, 1857"
 * Question: Was Meagher's father born in No. 19, The Mall? If so, I think we should start the paragraph mentioning the subject of the article (Almost like a "lead sentence" for the section.), then his father, then his grandfather. Since the three are all Thomas Meagher, special attention to detail is needed here.  Mitico (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at clarity, let me know what you think? -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think I am with you now. Having never been to Waterford, I assume "No. 19, The Mall" would mean something to someone who has been there?  Looking good so far. Mitico (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that it is now the "Granville Hotel" formerly the "Commin's Hotel"

Books by & additional reading
I think there are two options with this list. 1) Keep it as it is & when we are "complete" delete the items that have been used as a reference in the article, or 2) incorporate the entire list into the "Books by Young Irelanders" template.
 * Option 2) would be my preference, with an additional biography section on Meagher? Just a suggestion. -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Instead of using == headers at additional reading a ; (semicolon) just prior to the word may be used to separate these sections. (For an example, see the general references.) The advantage of this would be that the "Additional reading" section will not show up in the Table of Contents. Mitico (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats sorted, got it on second attempt.-- Domer48 'fenian'  20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is a good article!
I notice that all of the sponsoring groups for this article have it listed as "B" class. Have these been revised recently? This is a damn good article on a fascinating subject (I had no idea of the level of involvement of the Irish in the American Civil War!).

Given my limited knowledge of article grading standards, does this still qualify as a "B" class? I think there is some excellent DYK potential for this article, at the very least.

Vulture19 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Body recovered?
The section https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cardiff_Giant states

"In 1899 a petrified man found in Fort Benton, Montana was "identified" as U.S. Civil War General Thomas Francis Meagher. Meagher had drowned in the Missouri River two years previously. The petrified man was transported to New York for exhibition."

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.222.100 (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * It's a great Montana legend. The "petrified man" was found in 1897, Meaghar drowned in 1867, so the "two years" bit is wrong right off the bat.  The thing was displayed as a sort of carnival sideshow novelty for years and has since been lost, so no way to determine truth or untruth. See  and .  I updated the Cardiff Giant article.  Don't know if it's worth adding this to the article here, I find it an amusing tale, but would like to see consensus of other editors first.   Montanabw (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Francis Meagher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/The%20National%20Flag.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040217014807/http://www.quinnipiac.edu/other/ABL/etext/irish/falcon/falconmain.html to http://www.quinnipiac.edu/other/abl/etext/irish/falcon/falconmain.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thomas Francis Meagher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121162139/http://travel.mt.gov/history/Montana_the_Magazine_of_Western_History/montanavigilantes2.htm to http://travel.mt.gov/history/Montana_the_Magazine_of_Western_History/montanavigilantes2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080425152539/http://mhs.mt.gov/research/library/exhibits/constitution.html to http://mhs.mt.gov/research/library/exhibits/constitution.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910055354/http://www.lewisandclarklibrary.org/pdfs/historyproject/news/HIR20020109Meagher1.pdf to http://www.lewisandclarklibrary.org/pdfs/historyproject/news/HIR20020109Meagher1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418204508/http://governor.mt.gov/speeches/ltgov/speeches.asp?ID=124 to http://governor.mt.gov/speeches/ltgov/speeches.asp?ID=124

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thomas Francis Meagher


text: User talk:69.148.70.104

title: User talk:69.148.70.104


text:
Love potion (disambiguation)

Love potion may refer to:

 * Love potion, in mythology and fiction, a type of potion designed to create feelings of love
 * Lappish Hag's Love Potion, an alcoholic drink
 * The Love Potion, a 1903 painting by Evelyn De Morgan
 * Aphrodisiac, a substance made with or containing ingredients that increase sexual desire
 * "Love Potion" (song), by Alisa Mizuki, 2002

title: Love potion (disambiguation)


text:
Pentagon City (disambiguation)

Pentagon City may refer to:
 * Pentagon City, Arlington, Virginia, a neighborhood in Arlington County, Virginia
 * Pentagon City (WMATA station), a Washington Metro station serving the Pentagon City neighborhood
 * The Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, aka "Pentagon City Mall", a large shopping mall adjacent to the Pentagon City Metro station

title: Pentagon City (disambiguation)


text:
Winter Kill

Winter Kill is a 1974 American made-for-television mystery-thriller film directed by Jud Taylor and written by John Michael Hayes and David Karp. It stars Andy Griffith as Sam McNeill, the police chief in a small resort town in the mountains of northern California. The film is mystery-suspense drama about McNeill's attempts to solve a string of local serial killings linked by messages left at the scenes of the crimes. Nick Nolte played the role of Dave Michaels.

The movie (which aired on April 15, 1974 as an ABC Movie of the Week) was the second attempt by writer/propducer Lane Slate to adapt the 1972 movie They Only Kill Their Masters into a TV series. The movie starred James Garner as Abel Marsh, a Police Chief in a small, beachside community.

The first adaptation attempt was 1973's Isn't It Shocking?, starring Alan Alda as police chief Dan Barnes and the setting relocated to Oregon. Next, Griffith stepped in as the now-renamed Sam McNeill (Andy Griffith) in Winter Kill and then again in 1975 with two episodes of Adams of Eagle Lake (this time, the character was renamed Sam Adams). Two more reworkings followed in 1976 and 1977 starring Griffith, with the character's name restored to Abel Marsh: The Girl in the Empty Grave and Deadly Game.

title: Winter Kill