Talk:The Lucifer invincibility misconception

What's the point of this article? Why is it written in a weirdly argumentative manner? Why is it claiming to cite multiple sources when it only cites one source that has been quoted multiple times? Why is it framing the long-running discussion on the Lucifer's shields as a "misconception"? --The E (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• The point of this article is the exact same point of other articles addressing a wide range of topics concerning the FreeSpace Universe. This Wiki hosts them and they all have the exact same right to exist, providing they're grounded on canon or comparable sources. Though there's a caveat concerning the information provided by this article, as it's an indirect report from Volition instead of a proper source extrapolated from the two games, it still falls under the greater umbrella of canonical information just like the well known phrase "The Shivans are merely a symptom of a much bigger problem" (see. Canon and references therein). Though the phrasing and overall structure of the article may be improved and anyone can in fact edit it, I wouldn't say that it's written in a "weirdly argumentative manner". I also wouldn't argue over the purpose and existence of an article, as anything on the Wiki that does contribute to the general knowledge we have on the FreeSpace universe (e.g., this article) should be more than welcome. Furthermore, the fact that the references point to one specific source is not relevant, as the Volition source reporting on the Lucifer's supposed invincibility is indeed one source that was later brought to HLP by one veteran member of the community, but remained stagnant for years. And finally, the article does not undermine other arguments concerning the Lucifer's shields, as they are addressed elsewhere. - Mobius (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • This should IMHO just be a section in the Lucifer article. You're drawing in multiple long-running discussions in the fandom (i.e. "are the Lucifer's shields really invulnerable" and "are FS1's Ancient Monologues meant to be interpreted literally or figuratively"), making completely unfounded statements on them based on what I assume is your interpretation of them, and presenting everything not agreeing with that interpretation as "misconception". This is why it reads as "weirdly argumentative": The entire argument is based on a post IceFire half-remembered years ago and several posts by others half-remembering that IceFire remembered something; that's borderline deceptive argumentation and smells of someone trying desperately to win an internet argument. Bottom line, this is a bad article, written with unclear motivations, that presents a tiny morsel of actual information and blows it up into a rant about "misconceptions" instead of doing something useful like providing an overview over the Lucifer shield debate. The E (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with any of the statements above. The information we got from Volition, even if obtained the indirect way, is still to be considered canon (if you have an issue with IceFire's reliability as a community member, the same could be applied to any sort of information obtained from Volition that does not come straight from the games, with a few exceptions) and there indeed are some consequences and implications of such knowledge on a number of topics. Both the fate of the Ancients and the whole shield debate are among them. A fanmade campaign was entirely based on this canonical information. I'd also go a step further and claim that the article isn't misleading/deceptive at all, as any reader could simply take a look at the references and figure out what their actual source is. - Mobius (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    • The E: Invalidating memories of others is straightforward manipulation technique called gaslighting. You further expand palette of pathological rhetorics by using argumentum ad personam. This is when you really should stand down, and reconsider your approach.
      The purpose of this article is to congregate idea pool that emerged from years of theory-crafting and speculating about canon content. This content has right and valid reasons to be preserved, because discussions like that contributed to current state theory-crafting simply by being their earlier stage. The point I see is accessibility of this content for newer generations of users, so they know what Volition stated outside the game, and what shaped the idea pool that later fuelled development of camapgigns like Deneb III. It is worth noting that Volition kinda contradicted canon material from FS1 by clarifying how exactly Lucifer shield works. The content of this article should be appropriately labelled, as canonicity of this idea pool is debatable and at least speculative.
      Still: this has right to stay. We can discuss about forms such knowledge should be preserved. I think a single, large page containing this and similar theories would be a proper solution. No matter the result of possible discussion like that, it should be done without pesky manipulations and with mature respect between debating parties. - Nyctaeus (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)