Talk:Carnivàle

List of Episodes

Shouldn't the list of episodes be on a different page, like with most of Wikipedia's tv series' pages?--KittyCollier 17:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how big the series (and the article) gets. I think with 1-2 seasons it should stay on this page. Any more and it would get its own.--CyberGhostface 19:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnivàle

In the show, the characters never seem to say the word "carnivàle". Is it pronounced like "carnival"? Or as "car-nee-VAL" or "car-nih-VAL-ay"? I read somewhere that Carnivàle is "the ribald celebration that precedes Lent in South American and European Catholic countries." 70.169.134.132 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I thinks its "car-nee-VAL".--CyberGhostface 18:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was car-nay-VAL. --InShaneee 19:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was "car-nih-VAL" or "car-neh-VAL" with the accent turning the a into an "AL" sound rather than an "UL" sound.--Torourkeus 20:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is Australia, it was always advertised as "car-na-var-lay" on the ABC. However, this could simply a mistake by the promation department.

As someone who has spoken to Dan Knauf in person I can assure you it is most definitely Car-nee-val, not Car-nih-vul. Gateman1997 07:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags TMI

Considering the article as a whole, the spoiler warnings are not quite enough. For a person like myself, who has not yet seen all of both seasons, seeking information about the cast, I just had a bunch of surprises given away. Do we really need to know who died and how in the cast listing? Or all their personal details? I wonder about some of these wikipedia articles which seem more interested in giving a rehashing of a show's entire plot line than a careful and useful analysis without becoming cliffnotes. -GBN

I agree to a point. But I also kind of depended on wikipedia a couple of times on this particular show to figure out what the hell was going on. Is there some way that we can arrange this to have a basic explaination for those trying to figure out who people are and a more complicated explaination for knauf's rules etc.? One thing that could be done, if anyone has the knowledge or time, is separate the more complicated character descriptionsn to have an article for each. I'm not sure, what do you guys think?--Torourkeus 22:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Road Ahead

Daniel Knauf's comments on the show's possible future are factual. It says had the show continued, such and such would happen. Its irrevelant to say its moot just because you don't agree with it. I've also said 'possibly deceased' for Justin, which I think is fair, considering his demise was questionable at best.--CyberGhostface 20:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Changed the statement to an NPOV. But, as far as we saw, Justin had died, so no "possibly deceased," is at best wishful speculation.

Until the show revealed further *concrete* evidence, Justin's death is a certainty, not a fancruft "possibly."

Gnrlotto

Whether or not Justin was dead was debatable at best. It was clearly left up to the viewer at the climax whether not he was truly dead with Sophie and the cornfield.

Its still irrevelant concerning Knauf's comments...no one's said its concrete fact, just that thats what would occur had the series continued. Fans were asking him what would happen and he replied. I don't see how the validity of the creator of the show has to be questioned.--CyberGhostface 02:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

1)"Whether or not Justin was dead was debatable at best. It was clearly left up to the viewer at the climax whether not he was truly dead with Sophie and the cornfield."

No, it's not. Justin was dead. What's debatable is if she could bring him back to life.

His death is a fact.

Anything other wording than "Deceased" is fancruft at best, purposefully misleading at worst.

2)"Fans were asking him what would happen and he replied. I don't see how the validity of the creator of the show has to be questioned."

Where did anyone question the creator's validity?

The point about the statement's releveance is both a) NPOV, and will therefore remain, and b) pertinent to any sort of critical analysis of the show.

Gnrlotto

Brother Justin being deceased...fine. I didn't remove that. But I think the Road Ahead is fine the way it is. Its Knauf's plan. He posted it because it was cancelled, and he wanted fans to have an idea of how it would have gone. (BTW '24.63.42.221 ' is me...I don't know why my username isn't showing up)--CyberGhostface 03:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • " Brother Justin being deceased...fine. I didn't remove that."

Good, cause that would have been wishful fancruft thinking, and therefore aaginst Wikipedia's rules.

"But I think the Road Ahead is fine the way it is."

No, it's not. Mentioning what the relevance is of making statements that blatantly contradict everything the show illustrated, especially when there is no indication at all of the show continuing - ever - is important.Gnrlotto

Uh... what's debatable isn't "if she could bring him back to life." What's debateable is whether or not when we saw everything around where they were in the cornfield dying (as we'd been previously set up to associate with someone being healed), that was Sofie bringing him back to life or not. Since that was the last thing that happened and may well mean he is still alive, "possibly deceased" is the only thing that makes sense to say. --74.75.145.125 (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What contradictions are there?--CyberGhostface 03:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll take it you're either kidding, or being a smart alec, as you know what I'm talking about. I don't have time for games, and The Road Ahead section has neither time for lies (Some people - not some people. That makes it a lie, and therefore POV. The simple questioning of the relevance is enough) or pernicious fancruft editting.Gnrlotto

No I wasn't joking or being a smart aleck. My guess was that the information that Knauf added was different than the current status quo...but of course it would be. And there are no 'lies' or fancruft in the section. I can see why you don't like Brother Justin not listed as dead, but everything stated in the Road Ahead there has been fact. Since we're getting nowhere here, how about we have a poll where we ask the others what they think?--CyberGhostface 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As is what the relevance of such a statement is. You seem not to like it because it questions Knauf and chinks away at whatever pedestal you have him on but that's not the case. It simply questions whether this statement will have any validity in the future. For example, if George Lucas suddenly said that Luke is really Jar-Jar after plastic surgery, then died, not changing Star Wars or adding this plot element in, then it doesn't matter. In the same way, we must question what Knauf says when it contradicts what the show has evinced us, especially if it never continues. If the show never continues, then for all it mattered, Samson could be Ruthie's baby, and any number of other wild claims could be laid out by anyone, creator included. Their validity, and therefore relevance is still important. Gnrlotto

Now you're being ridicilous. What Knauf has said isn't contradicting the series. Its not comparable to Jar Jar being Luke or whatever.--CyberGhostface 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Its gone now. Happy now?--CyberGhostface 03:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Look, deleting it completely seems kind silly to me. All or nothing doesn't work. I think we shoulod have mention of Knauf's further plans in the section about the show being cancelled, and the comment about what bearing anything he says will have if the show never continues. I'm a huge Carnivale fan, I just find cheap shots like Knauf's word to be sketchy at best being a) Jonesy and Justin were both popular, and they want to sell DVDs, and b) He wants to still have a happy following, which might be by killing off two characters permanently. If the show never continues however (and all signs point to no, unfortunately) then what he said is completely irrelevant to the series.

As it is, I think what he said is interesting, but a caveat needs to be placed on whether or not it's relevant.

Gnrlotto

Trinity

Linking Trinity to the Trinity Site page could constitute a spoiler for events in the second season. It's fairly obvious a connection, but, probably isn't the best place here considering this is an on-going show. --Uhlek 04:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I thought it was obvious from Samson's monologue at the beginning of the very first episode that the "false sun exploded over trinity" was in reference to the Trinity test. What else could it be? --Brouhaha 08:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was obvious. I certainly didn't understand it until the second season. I'd support putting it behind a spoiler warning. -Branddobbe 02:06, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Brother Justin and Jonesy's Deaths

Daniel Knauf was asked what would happen had the show went on. Knauf refused to give away any major plot points, but he did relent that Brother Justin was not dead and that Jonesy would recover from his gunshot wound. So I removed the references to them being dead.

There was a discussion for this already going on at the bottom of the page. See those comments first, then we'll discuss reverting it back. Also, it'd be very nice that whoever this is could get an account, and not just change things with an IP address as their annonymity. I mean, it's obvious this person has editted things here more than once, so getting a free account shouldn't be so hard.Gnrlotto

Lodz' Lover

Unless you can show where Lods had a romantic/sexual relationship with Lila after he was strangled, the revert stays.

• Didn't you see last night's episode ("Cheyenne, WY," 13-MAR-2005)? The episode begins with Lodz crawling naked through the Carnival grounds in the middle of the night, into Lila's trailer where she is sleeping. He crawls under the covers with her while she is sleeping, and performs oral sex on her... and it isn't until after she orgasms that Lodz changed back into Ruthie with the white eyes... Looks like a clear case of "sex after death" to me. P.S. - Please sign your comments on the talk page. Kevyn 03:22, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Since it's a possession, then that means it's ruthie performing Lodz' actions Gnrlotto
  • I sincerely disagree. Ruthie wasn't even there - only her body was. It was Lodz who was making love to Lila, using Ruthie's body. The show's creators clearly intended this by showing Lodz crawling into bed with Lila, not Ruthie. Lodz continues as Lila's lover, even though he is dead. Kevyn 20:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then we'll leave it until we see either Lodz come back fully (then it stays permanent) or until he gets exorcized or something, like Appy did from Sofie. Then it goes back to being "Until his death" 'cause right now, a one night stand from beyond the grave doesn't count to me as "lovers."Gnrlotto

No, no, you're right. Though they were going to find his body.

Deaths as of the second season's conclusion...

It's pretty safe to say that Norman and Jonesy are dead. What to classify Justin as is less clear- he was most certainly dead for a period, but then Sofie did... well, we really don't know yet. It looked like she was bringing him back from the dead (and having killed Jonesy, one can argue she has the means to do so)... or it could be she was taking his boon... or something I've not thought of. I'll leave it to wiser heads than mine- but Norman and Jonesy are dead, so that needs to be editted.

At the end of the series, sophie (now aware of her powers) went to Justin's corpse, and the field of grain died. This is what happened with Ben's healing. Saying that Justin is DEFINITELY dead is not accurate. Saying it was ambiguous is.JeffStickney 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Avatar of Darkness, etc.

We don't clearly know that sofie got Justin's powers, as she was also doing some sort of healing as evidenced by the positions of her hands when she was leaning over im, and the corn dying. Whether or not that will bring him back or not doesn't matter. She has a healing power which is one of ben's, i.e. something she couldn't have recieved from her father. Right now, unitl season three, we should leave it as Justine being the Avatar of darkness and the usher of destruction. I made mention of Sofie exhibiting unknown powers and being the Omega, so that should be as far as it goes until we know more.

Also, for the character's relationships, yes we know that Ben is the son of Hack and Flora, but putting her name in his character description would be confusing to anyone just reading through the listing we have only put the interelationships of characters who are regulars on the show, not a guest star for one episode.

If someone wants to start a geneology somewhere else on the page, that would be fine, but in a page of basic character descriptions, that doesn't work. Gnrlotto

• Well, I feel something needs to be said to the effect that Sofie was doing something to Justin at the end of the episode. Possibly in the chapter begining "The second plot line..."- point out, perhaps, that Justin appears to have died, but that Sofie (his daughter) appeared to have done something to him at the end. Possibly point out that whatever it was caused a Ben Hawkins healing-esque death to the surrounding corn field. And maybe mention Justin's murderous rampage (in extreme brief), as I can't imagine that this wouldn't have a major impact on Justin's status as the leader of the Oakies at New Canaan if Justin comes back for the next season.

• Another point- we don't know that Sofie is the Omega of the Avataric lines. We just know she's the "Omega"- of what we cannot say for certain yet, unless I missed something on Lodz's message. In fact, it was so vague I suggest you take that bit out all together...

Who's talking? Please sign your posts...Gnrlotto

Curse my laziness in not getting an account until now. The last two points were my own.--Deridolus 17:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It's cool. I also added the genealogy section to cover all the main relationships.Gnrlotto

Thanks for the helpful genealogy. I think another geneaology is needed showing the descent of the Avataric powers for each generation.Lynxx55 11:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:familytree supports box styles, so we could use background colour to show House? I understand your desire for separate trees, but they'd be pretty incomplete at this point: Was Hilton Scudder an Avatar? Is Sofie Light or Dark? Is Lodz half-Avatar? Vagary 05:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Character Names

Just curious why Justin is always listed as "Brother" Justin Crowe. Is there any reason why we need the "Brother" every time and in quotes too?

Similarly, do we need Sofie's and Apollonia's full names every single time they are mentioned? Seems excessive to me.--Patrick T. Wynne 22:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's to help avoid confusion. If someone wasn't a full time watcher of the show, referring to a character by a nickname or some other such version would only serve to confuse them.

And, the "Brother" is in quotes, because he is calld "Brother" Justin Crowe, but it is a nickname/monicker as his first name isn't really "Brother".Gnrlotto

• But do we need to repeat the full name every time the character is mentioned? A more standard way of referring to characters would be to list the full name the first time the character is mentioned and then just the first name (or however much is needed to fully distinguish the character) in subsequent instances. I very much doubt this would cause any confusion among folks who've never seen the show. And the "Brother" shouldn't be in quotes because it is, in effect, an informal title rather than a nickname. If Justin's name were to appear in a newspaper article or a church newsletter, for instance, he'd be called Brother Justin Crowe, without quotes. And I notice that in the episode descriptions Brother is not in quotes and works just fine. ---Patrick T. Wynne 04:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Then we'll get rid of the quotes.Gnrlotto
  • Wynne's right: it's downright itrritating to see the character names ever time. I disagree with Gnrlotto that it would be confusing to use a shortened form: it's more confusing to use the long form, because the reader thinks he's neglected something. I'm a very faithful Carnivàle-watcher, and I was never aware of Sophie's last name and am made to feel like I missed an episode or piece of dialogue in not knowing it. I say begin the overhaul.--Signor Giuseppe 19:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Your disagreeances would be fair if people used a uniform naming policy, which they don't. Some people might refer to an action by Ben Hawkins as (Deceased-Ben) while others might use (Deceased-Hawkins) which gets confusing. Esepcially since so many characters go by nicknames to some of the cast, and by formal names to others. Samson always calls Ben Hawkins, Hawkins, but Ruthie always calls him Ben. A lot of the carnies call Jonesy, Jonesy, but now Libby refers to him as Clayton. Brother Justin is Brother Justin to a lot of people, except his sister, who calls him just Justin, and Stroud who calls him Brother J. Which name would we pick?Gnrlotto
      • Technically speaking, Gnrlotto has a great point, but there's no need to be so technical. I can tell exactly what names I'd use: "Sophie," "Ben," "Samson," "Stumpy," "Rita Sue," "Libby," "Lila," "Lodz," "Jonesy," "Burly," "Ruthie," "Scudder," "Management," "Iris," "Brother Justin," "Norman," and "Stroud." Sure, it's a mish-mash of nicknames, last names, and first names, but there's no need to be picky: they're the most common recognizable name of each character, and there's no need to drag the discussion down each time with bringing up Sophie's/Apollonia's last name, Samson, Stumpy, or Lodz's first name, or Management's real name. I know it's th'internet and space isn't at a premium, but clarity still is and Wikipedia readers deserve it.--Signor Giuseppe 16:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • It's been my understanding that generally the first time you mention a character (or a real person) you call them by their whole name with the nickname being written as a quoted middle name. After that you can call them by their most referred to name. Another thing to assure no confusion is simply to explain they are referred to that way. For Example, "Brother Justin Crowe, Brother Justin, does this thing this one time" From then on you can refer to him simply as Brother Justin since you've explained who you're referring to. --Torourkeus 20:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Are the character names actually from the show? What are the sources for these? I don't think "Plemina Belyakov" or "Edgar Leonhardt" have ever been mentioned on the show. -Branddobbe 08:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Some come from the official HBO webpage.Gnrlotto

Deceased?

Daniel Knauf has said that Jonesy would have survived the shooting by Sofie Gospel of Knauf http://s6.invisionfree.com/The_Baggage_Trailer/index.php?s=22decaa9c86ec70301059d99e702a554&showtopic=158&st=30). Should this then be changed in the character section, or is it more reasonable that - because the show was not renewed - he is for all intents and purposes, dead?

I'd say it's better to leave them dead (jonesy/justin). Even though Knauf says different, this isn't like a clarification to something that is confusing the fans of a long running series. As the show has been canceled, for all intents and purposes, they're dead. People who come into it later on, more likely than not, will not go looking for years old information about who made it and who didn't. They'll take the show at face value, and in this, I believe, so should we.Gnrlotto 23:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this in regard to Justin as we see his body last as a corpse. However with Jones the last time we see him he is still alive, albiet he's been shot. That does not mean he is dead for sure even on screen. Combine that with Knauf's statements and I believe Jones should be noted as still living. Brother Justin however is verifiably dead and should be left as dead. Gateman1997

We see Jones collapse from a point blank gunshot. We don't see him "alive," so at best, if one holds onto that, he must at least "Appear fatally wounded." Gnrlotto 22:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

We see Jones collapse from a gut wound... wounds that are survivable for quite a long time after they are inflicted. He was not fatally wounded. Had he been shot in the chest that might be the case, however it was not. Combine that with Dan Knauf's assertions that Jones was not going to die and I believe the best wording we could use is "gravely wounded". It implies a near mortal wound however one that is survivable. Saying he is "fatally" wounded assumes he would not have survived. Gateman1997 01:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, gravely and fatally are the same thing. What differentiates them both, is the word "Appers" just because something "appears" a certain way doesn't make it so. Jonesy, being shot point-blank in the lung, "Appears fatally wounded."Gnrlotto

Actually "Fatally" means (So as to cause death; mortally: fatally injured.) In other words Jones was going to die which we were not sure of from the on screen depiction, and are certain was not going to happen from Dan Knauf's further exposition. "Gravely" on the other hand means (Fraught with danger or harm: a grave wound.) Or in other words, incredibly dangerous as Jones' wound appeared on screen, but the term also does not assume something we have no evidence of. This is also the case for the wound being a "lung" wound. We have no evidence he was shot in the lung.Gateman1997 23:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not just say that Jonesy was "shot and left for dead"? It gets the relevant info across (he was shot) and leaves his ultimate fate undefined, which technically it is until we get a movie or something to wrap up the story. Even though Knauf says the plan was for Jones to survive, that doesn't matter now. Future projects could change that plan based on any number of factors so the best we can state at the moment is that Jones was shot and left for dead. Just my two cents on this issue, which really seems like a non-issue to me. --Patrick T. Wynne 04:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The final scene was of Sophie healing Justin. She went to his corpse and the field of crops died. While the final outcome (Justin standing up) was not shown, his death was ambiguous at best. Simply saying he is dead and deleting any mention of the ambigous ending is about as POV as you can get.JeffStickney 23:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism / Father Coughlin reference

Nixed the "minus the anti-Semetism" qualification from the description of Justin's message as Coughlin-like. Justin's sermons are pretty obviously anti-Semitic, unless you have a really creative interpretation of "the bankers who bled Europe dry for centuries" and "the International Shylock" (the latter admittedly voiced by his candidate.)

When were these line's said in the show?Gnrlotto

• I've solved this problem. Remove all comparisons to Fr Coughlin and thus remove all worries about pro or anti-Semitic comparisons. Gateman1997 23:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That was useless. Thanks for destroying who the creator of the show compared BJ to. Didn't know the way of solving issues on Wikipedia was to simply excise and/or censor them.Gnrlotto

• Well since you guys had violated the revert rule, it seemed the prudent thing to do. Yes he compared him to Coughlin, but there was never any comment on jews one way or the other. Any discussion about anti-semetism is strictly original research and speculation, both of which don't have a place on Wikipedia. Gateman1997 16:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• • In the show BJ makes no mention of jews (or not ones able to be found by those making the claim), yet the creator still compares him to Father Coguhlin. So, what you're saying is, is that stating he is like Father Coughlin, but clarifying one difference, based on the evidence from the show itself is original research? That is not only inane, it is an extremely unintelligent idea of what "original research" is.Gnrlotto
    • As has been established in the earlier discussions about character deaths, what the creator says, and what appeared on screen are two different things. Gateman1997 02:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So your rebuttal has to do with character deaths and nopt the issue at hand? What point are you making?Gnrlotto

• No my rebuttal is that what the creator says is irrelevant. Only what appears on screen is of any consequence. And there is NO anti-semetism apparent on screen. Gateman1997 06:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So the comparison with Father Coughlin is completely valid, and you got rid of it for no reason...Gnrlotto

• No there in lies the problem. The comparison to Coughlin is totally invalid as Coughlin was an anti-semite to the extreme, it was one of the basis of his ministry, Justin was not an anti-semite and his ministry said nothing for or against jews.Gateman1997 07:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The comparison is perfectly valid as Coughlin and Justin were both powerful radio preachers who used that power to start influencing politcs. So comparing them with the exception of the anti-semetism is perfectly apt.Gnrlotto

• Possibly, however using Coughlin as the comparison does nothing but engender a revert was as the last two months have show. I would suggest finding an alternate radio preacher who was less controversial to compare to Justin.Gateman1997 19:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, being as that's the one the creaotr used, (as opposed to say, Amy McPherson - a woman, and even futher from Justin) you're basically stipulating that we can't do it. I'm going to use Coughlin with the anti-semetism clarified.

• "minus the anti semitism" is not exactly accurate. It IS hinted at, although not overt. His speech about the bankers seemed to imply Jews, and at the time he was setting up an encampment of his followers, a newspaper headline was shown that read "Jews Not Welcome" although the show did not make it clear that the paper was refering to Justin's camp. Iris also asked Sophie at one point whether or not she was Jewish. The show's creaters certainly hinted at Justin's anti semetism.JeffStickney 23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If not, then you'd best go through every page on Wikipedia and get rid of This is similar to this," statements as none are accurate accordin to the new "rules."Gnrlotto

• • What "new rules"? Anyone who noticed something that you personally missed is banned from adding to this article. If someone posts anything that you personally disagree with it is labelled by you as "fancruft" and censorred out? JeffStickney 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Justin was not as overtly anti-semetic as Coughlin, but he was clearly anti-semitic.

• How so? I cannot recall any instance of him mentioning Jews.Gateman1997 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• : Gateman1997, I'm sure you are a great contributer to wiki.. but bud you are dead wrong regarding removing the reference that notes the similarities between Coughlin and Justin, it is self evident that Justin is at the very least partially based on Coughlin. By removing this point I feel you have degraded the quality of this article on Carnivale, as you have removed an important point that references the happenings of the world within the show with the real life happenings of our world.. this is one of the basic points of the show.. haven't you noticed that throughtout the entire show it blends reality, history and non-fiction with fantasy, supernatural and fiction?
  

I know both season pretty well, however I have only seen once & over one year ago the episode where Brother Justin makes these thinly veiled negative references about the Jewish people and I clearly recall them, the reason I recall them vividly is as soon as I heard them I detected the race hatred that is being spoken but between the lines of wht is actually being said, in fact it reminded me almost immediately of Hitler. And another line that Justin said regarding Jews was some negative comment that referenced Shylock, Shylock was a miserly and avaricious Jewish moneylender.. is that one line alone not a clear indication of Justin's anti-semitism?
To conclude, I think the Father Coughlin reference should without a doubt be re-added to the main article. If someone who visit here more often than I do would like to add the Coughlin points that would be great.. otherwise I'll do it myself in several days time. Dirk Diggler Jnr 06:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• • A headline was shown that read "Jews Not Welcome" at about the time Justin was setting up his encampment. It was not explicitly stated that the headline referred to Justin's camp, but the creaters certainly wanted to give that impression. Also, remember when Iris asked Sophia if she was Jewish. Iris' tone of voice when she asked that question was one of disgust. The creators were DEFINTIELY hinting at Justin's anti-semitism, but the writers preferred subtlety.JeffStickney 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can not make a definite claim that "the creaters certainly wanted to give that impression." Are you Knauf?

You can not simply put something in because you interpret it that way. Sorry.

Gnrlotto

• Actually, I agree with you on this. Stating in the article that Justin IS anti-semetic would be POV. While I believe the writers did hint at the anti-semetism it was never explicitly shown, but was left up to the viewers. I believe "minus the overt anti-semetism" would be a better choice of words than "minus the anti-semetism" Something that was deliberately left vague (Justin was anti-semetic/Justin wasn't anti semetic- either side) should not be presented as a fact.JeffStickney 09:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• • There seems to be some confusion on the difference between being vague or ambiguous and being subtle but explicit. For example, in Blade Runner it is ambiguous whether Deckard is a human or a replicant--based on the material in the film, the answer cannot be determined. On the other hand, in Reservoir Dogs, Mr. Pink's altercation with the police after he leaves the warehouse is subtle--you may not notice it if you arent' listening carefully, but it is clearly there. In this case, Justin's anti-semitism is subtle, but it is clearly there. In one of his sermons he refers to "the bankers who bled Europe dry for centuries." This is a subtle but explicit reference to an anti-semetic stereotype. Justin was not giving a history lesson and explaining the origins of this stereotype; rather, he was employing the stereotype in order to convey an anti-semetic message. Denying the presence of anti-semetism in his sermon is factually inaccurate. 02:01, 5 February 2006 (EST).

* I totally agree with 02:01, 5 February 2006 (EST)'s point above. Justin's anti-semitism is there as clear as day and without ambiguity.. what it is without is overtness. His racism is covert, not overt. The key point being it is there.

Hey 02:01, 5 February 2006 (EST) doesnt the bit in Blade Runner where Harrison Ford/Deccar(sp?) is carefully looking over video footage (or the like) for a clue to someone and he eventually finds a reflection of someone in really tiny spot of what he is viewing.. sort of lean towards him being not human? It struck me as being such pinpoint accuracy in finding this practically imperceptible clue that it was beyond a human's power of vision. Dirk Diggler Jnr 07:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't you simply write that "The creator of the show describes Brother Justin as being similar to Father Coughlin" and then source it?--Torourkeus 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Official policy as it relates to Justin's ambiguous death.

From the article Wikipedia: Neutral Point Of View: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

There are many who doubt the permanence of Justin's death as the last scene seemed to be of Sofie reviving him. However, when anyone tries to even mention this possibility in the article (presenting it as a possibility rather than asserting it as an indisputable fact)it is instantly deleted by someone who claims that "he is definitely dead and any claim to the contrary is "fancruft speculation" that is against the new rules." The NPOV rule is linked to above , and the relevant passage is quoted. The "fancruft" rule is linked to in the previous sentence - (i e it is the use of the word "fancruft" in an article that is against the rules as it is not a real word). It is the POV bullying that has been going on regarding this issue that is truly against the rules. BTW, I would not consider the closing scene of the series finale to be so insignificant and obscure as to be "fancruft"JeffStickney 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am putting my edit back in because the manner in which it was deleted was an absolute violation of the NPOV policy quoted above.JeffStickney 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• • That point of view has been presented in the area entitled "Cancellation" where it is specified what would have happened.

"There are many who doubt the permanence of Justin's death as the last scene seemed to be of Sofie reviving him."

And it could just as easily be argued she was taking his powers from him. There's no telling how an omega works - period.

And, being as what would have happened to Justin has already been dealt with, this is unnecessary clutter of a simple description.Gnrlotto

• • • "And it could just as easily be argued she was taking his powers from him. There's no telling how an omega works - period."
• In other words there are conflicting views. Official policy states: " The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." Forcing one interpretation and locking the other one out violates this.JeffStickney 21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whew, no, nothing to do with conflicting views. You missed the boat completely. The point is, we already a) have it presented about what would happen, and b) you're putting your spin in there based on your interpretation, not verifiable facts. Knauf has always been purposefully vague at what an Omega is, so for you to make any sort of assertion is a violation of NPOV--which you so love to use as a weapon--as it is your POV about what is happening. It will be reverted.Gnrlotto

• I did not make an "assertion" in the article. My edit said POSSIBLY revived by Sofie. That word presents both sides as POSSIBILITIES. A paragraph which states that Justin IS dead as if it were an indisputable fact, does not fairly present both sides, because that asserts one side as a fact. You might not like what I am saying but NPOV is official policy, and it is set in stone. JeffStickney 08:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV is official policy, and it is set in stone."

And you don't follow it. Putting in your "possibly" to poorly disguise your own interpretation of events (when it is already clearly stated that Knauf was going to revive him in an earlier section) breaks all NPOV rules. It is stated what Knauf would have wanted. But, going purely based on the show, Justin was left dead, DEAD, a corpse, with Sofie doing something--what, we don't know. For you to try and disguise that with the word "possibly" is a flagrant abuse and malicious twisting and completely childish. By hiding behind the word "possibly" a person can add anything they want to. You could say Jonesy: Possibly gay with Lodz. You can't use putting in the word "possibly" to up the vague quotient as a defence.

If possibly was a defence, then you have to list an infinite amount of possiblies:

You: She could be reviving him.

Person b: She could be taking his powers.

Person c: She could be playing patty cake on his chest.

Person d: She could be singing, and it's so bad the crops are dying...

Yes, I know some of those examples are silly, but because we don't know and aren't shwon exactly what is going on, they're all equally valid. You can't therefore justify putting "possibly" unless you're going to think of everything she could be doing there, from pulling the knife out to farting the corn to death, and add them all in. Otherwise you're using vague words to justify your own POV.

Reverted. Gnrlotto

I changed his status to "mixed belief - last seen dead". This fits both arguments and doesn't have a POV. On one hand it ackwnoledges that he is in fact seen last as being dead. However, it also shows that this ideal is not completely agreed upon and the ending can suggest otherwise. SewerRanger 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't an argument. An argument is a well reasoned debate between two people based on something that can have differing points of view. This can not. People who want Justin to live have what the creator's intentions were and they are well stated. People who go by purely what is seen on the show know he is dead (for now). As the series ended with him dying, and didn't show him reawakening, there is no "argument." Just people telling the truth and others twisting it.Gnrlotto

• • "there is no "argument."" If she was reviving him,, then that occured at the end of season two, not at the beginning of the would-be next show. Although the outcome of whatever happened occured offscreen, chronologically it occured DURING the last show. Strictly speaking WE DON'T KNOW if he is alive or dead at the end of that show- it ended on a cliffhanger. IS he alive or dead? To quote Bill Clinton "It depends on what your definition of "is" is." If "Deceased" were replaced with "Killed by" it would settle this issue. It would still state just as clearly (perhaps more so) that Ben killed Justin, without taking a side on the "is he still dead" issue.JeffStickney 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • This is not really getting any of us anywhere. I believe the show implied that Brother Justin was revived. The three of us will not come to any conclusions. I think an implication of him living should be included, you (Gnrlotto) obviously feel differntly. I've asked for the wikipedia Cabal to help us resolve this issue. Perhaps a neutral fourth party can help.Dominic 03:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I give up trying to deal with you people in any sort of calm/sane manner. It can't be done.

None of you can offer actual evidence that contradicts the episode showing him dead. If you can't do that, you don't get to win by the proxy, "Well, I can't prove it, but you can't not prove it!" Gnrlotto

How about the fact that Daniel Knauf ACTUALLY SAID HE WASN'T DEAD. That should count for *something*.--CyberGhostface 22:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't believe that we are arguing that he was last SEEN dead. However, at the end of the show, we see Sophie doing something to Justin that resembles Ben's healing. That in combination with what Knuff said implies that Sophie heals Justin. Yes, we do not see it happeneing but it is heavely implied. At the least, there should be a mention that Justin might not be dead.Dominic 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are the facts:

Management clearly states that to give a life you have to take a life. For someone to be brought back from the dead, you have to take another living person's life. Not plants, not animals, but a human for a human. Sofie + Corn =/= Healed daddy. So, for those who still think it's vague, no matter how much corn she killed around him, Sofie could not revive Justin through corn. Period. Based on the show's own rules, which were evinced over and over and over.

Ben is having a heck of a time trying to kill Justin. Until he has that quick flashback where he must plunge the knife into the heart of the branches. He does so, and then passes out on Justin's corpse until the next morning.

Justin is shown dead. Period. Not waking up, not rolling over, nothing. Dead as stone. A doornail. He is a corpse. Being as we're not stupid, and we know that plants do not equal people on the saving chart, we have incontrovertable proof that Sofie didn't revive Justin through the corn.

"If she was reviving him,, then that occured at the end of season two, not at the beginning of the would-be next show. Although the outcome of whatever happened occured offscreen, chronologically it occured DURING the last show."

This is absolutely the stupidest thing I have read regarding this. A) Being as we have to discuss this like literature, we can only go by what we're shown, not what "may have happened." and B) Carnivale has already evinced itself to be completely contrary to your statement. In the first season cliffhanger, we still get to see Ruthie come back. Even though the rest of the night's events are finished during the next season's first episode. So, if your point of it happening even if we don't see it was valid, he would have come back at the end of the last show. He didn't. Tough.

Now, I want to see what false spin you people will try to put on this next, in the face of blatant evidence. Gnrlotto

Maybe thats why she shot Jonesy? Maybe the Omega's Powers are different? Maybe DANIEL KNAUF SAID HE WOULD RETURN?

Well, I don't know whom I'm speaking too, but a) "Maybe thats why she shot Jonesy?"--Knauf said Jonesy would be back, too. So, no, sorry, thanks for playing, try again. Mediocre speculation does not a wiki page make. B)"Maybe the Omega's Powers are different?"--Yeah, in the sense that she has aspects of both light and dark, not that she can circumvent all otherwise established rules, besides the fact that we can only go by what we are shown on screen, and this is all speculation and C)"Maybe DANIEL KNAUF SAID HE WOULD RETURN?" Which is why it's mentioned in the cancellation section. But being as it happened after the last episode was aired, it has no bearing. Gnrlotto

Just a comment, but early on, Ben healed a little girl. Unlike the healing of Gabriel, which killed a lot of fish, I don't recall anything dead or dying when he healed her. ++ just a short comment ++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.59.82 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole field of crop around Ben and the girl withered. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sofie

While reading the page, while there are a great many things that are not mentioned, I am wondering if Sofie's role at the end is an intentional oversight. Brother Justin is her father after he raped Apollonia, and in the end she became the Omega and inherited some sort of powers. I would think that it would have been important that Sofie be mentioned as the culminating point of the storyline.

It should also be noted that (at least from what I observed) Scudder had dark powers like Justin, and Management had powers like Hawkins. Logically, Sofie would had received healing powers, but at the same time there was a dark element to her. I would suppose that by being the Omega, Sofie had actually come into possession of both sets of powers (but that is simply speculation). --Waterspyder 12:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Knauf said essentially that Avatar begits Avatar, although Light doesn't particularly begit Dark. It is essentially random if Light begits Dark or Light begits Light and vice versa.--Torourkeus 20:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben Hawkins article.

I recently started a Ben Hawkins article but my memory's been a little hazy so if someone wants to help complete it that'd be great. Its at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Hawkins. Thanks. --CyberGhostface 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Ok, I'm here for the mediation! Sorry about the wait guys :)

First thing, I'd like to clarify to make sure I have it completely clear...

The dispute is over including the words "though possibly revived by Sofie Agnesh Bojakshiya" in the section on Clancy Brown.

• JeffStickney's version: Clancy Brown as Brother Justin Crowe (Alexi Belyakov) {Deceased - Ben Krohn Hawkins--though possibly revived by Sofie Agnesh Bojakshiya} a corrupt Methodist minister; Son of Lucius Belyakov; Younger brother of Iris Crowe; Sofie Agnesh Bojakshiya's father; Avatar of Darkness; Usher of Destruction.
• Gnrlotto's version: Clancy Brown as Brother Justin Crowe (Alexi Belyakov) {Deceased - Ben Krohn Hawkins} a corrupt Methodist minister; Son of Lucius Belyakov; Younger brother of Iris Crowe; Sofie Agnesh Bojakshiya's father; Avatar of Darkness; Usher of Destruction.

First things first, is there a reliable source that says that this chap was "possibly revived"? If so could you post it here. Also I note that the article does not have any inline citation, it would be good if it could get some, in line with Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes. - FrancisTyers 21:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• I guess you got me on that one. Until and unless I find such an outside source, I'll leave that paragraph alone. Someone else on the "Justin might not be dead" side suggested "Deceased- Ben Krohn Hawkins, though it has been stated by Daniel Knauff that he will return"- something along those lines, but with a footnote linking to Knauff's exact words might be ideal. Does anyone have a link to Knauff's exact words? JeffStickney 22:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone had a link to it on a Livejournal group...I'll try finding it...--CyberGhostface 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it.

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/CarnivaleHBO/message/20373

http://s6.invisionfree.com/The_Baggage_Trailer/index.php?s=b151809ea7d84f776e4b85817f7bf46d&showtopic=158&view=findpost&p=1455480 --CyberGhostface 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I had to scroll around a little on that second link, but his exact words were "Neither Ben nor Justin are dead." Scrolling through that forum, Knauff had also said that only the "annointed blade" could kill the Usher Of Destruction, and that Ben had broken that blade on his first try (before he remembered where to stab).In light of Knauff's statements, and the mixed views, should the article really assert "Justin is dead" as a fact?JeffStickney 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This compromise sounds reasonable, that is stating the "facts", then the view of the creator - although your version might be a little wordy; "Deceased- Ben Krohn Hawkins, though it has been stated by Daniel Knauff that he will return"- something along those lines, but with a footnote linking to Knauff's exact words might be ideal. Do you have the link, I can't open either of the two above (I don't have a yahoo account and the second sends me to some forum main page.

The other option would be to have something like "Deceased - Ben Krohn Hawkins (disputed)^[1]", and then having a footnote explaining (succinctly) both sides of the dispute (with sources). Gnrlotto what do you think of these compromises ? - FrancisTyers 05:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So whats the deal here, is the dispute over, have you come to an agreement? Need anymore advice? :) - FrancisTyers 09:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no response for a long time so I'm closing the case, feel free to open another case if the problem persists. - FrancisTyers 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi I don't mean to be nitpicky, I just read through the article and the discussion and by no means am I an expert in wikipedia. I am an avid watcher of Carnivale though. I noticed that in the character list, you have changed Jonesy's small bio to say that he was left for dead, but you left Libby as his widow. I think that if you are going to leave the man's death as questionable then you can not call his wife a widow. -Katie

Main Photo

Am I the only one who thinks the main pic should be Justin and Ben rather than the logo? Sopranos usually changes it to the promotional pic for that season rather than just the title screen. I'll change it back and see what you guys think.--CyberGhostface 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not. Though the Logo might be able to be placed somewhere else on the page. Or maybe the logo for header, then the Justin/Ben pic in the article somewhere.Gnrlotto

Gypsy Family

The Belyakov family is of Gypsy heritage.Like most carnie families. And their names are Eastern to suuport it.

• The eastern names are because Justin, Iris, and their parents are RUSSIAN. (Their father, Management, was shown as a Russian soldier.) Appolonia was a Gypsy, but it is unlikely that the others are because in the flashback scene where Justin was raping her, he made a racist comment about her being a Gypsy. JeffStickney 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sofie's surname is Albanian.

The Gospel of Knauf

This section needs a fair amount of cleanup...it really doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense at the moment. --InShaneee 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I attempted a major revision. Let me know what you think. --Torourkeus 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Nice. I added a few bits based on additional information passed on by Dan Knauf in chats and at Carnycon. --Thalidar 00:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion without Explaination

I really don't mean to be rude or to change an entire thing that you guys have worked so hard on... but what was so wrong about the edits I made? All of the same information exists, I simply reformatted it so it was a bit easier to understand. At least for me, and I'm not the brightest guy in the world so I figured it would be beneficial to others too. I'm just slightly irritated that all of my edits were reverted rather than just what wasn't working and no explaination was given either.--Torourkeus 20:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• thank you, I changed most of it back. The only thing i thought might not be acceptable to everyone with these changes are the abundance of spoiler tags. but it usually irks me a bit when spoiler tags run on for section on section or are never ended so people don't know what to read... you know?--Torourkeus 22:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carnivaledvdseason2picture.jpg

Image:Carnivaledvdseason2picture.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 Wikipedia articles 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 Wikipedia: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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carnivaledvdseason1.jpg

Image:Carnivaledvdseason1.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 Wikipedia articles 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 Wikipedia: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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Goal to add references to the article

I recently bought Carnivàle on DVD (I had never watched it before), and I'm very interested in the background of the series. And since I'm reading through old interviews and the like, I though I might as well back up unsourced claims in this wiki article.

I know that I have flooded this article with {{fact}}s, but it is my intention to back up every claim one by one by myself and make this article a whole lot better than it was before, although it might look like the exact opposite for a while there. I am already trying to get all sources together in userspace, but to fix this whole article in userspace as well is just a too big task, so the way I'm currently going is a convenient tradeoff. If someone can help out though, that is even better, but not required. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious - Lawsuit

"The case was dismissed with prejudice on February 17, 2006." - This statement was added by wiki newbie on March 2, 2006. I couldn't find anything on google with the search terms carnivale "Jeff Bergquist" Beulah or carnivale "Jeff Bergquist" dismissed or carnivale "Jeff Bergquist" february. Nothing. This statement should be removed in a few months if no-one is able to find a source. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a hint: try Googling "carnivale lawsuit," it's simple.71.189.237.68

That was unsuccessful just like before. "carnivale lawsuit": Zero hits. carnivale lawsuit (without the quotation marks): only blogs and forum hits, unrelated newspaper articles, and forums citing wikipedia as the source; seems exactly like what I got for my previous search terms so I won't go deeper than 3 Google pages. Nothing reliable. Still very dubious to me. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found a yahoo group posting all court documents as PDF files at http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/CarnivaleLawsuit (registration required to access the PDF files). I'll replace the "dubious" tag with all relevant references tomorrow when I flesh out the "Lawsuit" section. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Visions of Avatars & Real World Events

I'm going to start building a section on all the visions seen by Ben, Justin, and Sofie, as well as show the difference between the visions and actual events. One such vision is the corn field and the tattooed man, and the real life event of Ben being chased by Justin in the cornfields of New Canaan, CA. Since the visions are merely a representation of the events that have yet to unfold, they can be changed or avoided by free will, unless destiny is involved, as it was with Ben and Justin's battle.

Bree Walker

If I'm not mistaken, Bree Walker played in this, and as mentioned in her article requested the part because of the lack of a character with ectrodactyly syndrome. Zchris87v 08:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she did, but she was never in the main cast (this article only lists the actors who belonged to the main cast in at least one season). Of course she is included on Characters of Carnivàle, where the ectrodactyly syndrome is already noted. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The #Cast section has been changed and also includes notable recurring characters now. Bree Walker is of course mentioned in this context now. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

Congratulations on the featured article. I've assessed it for WP:TV accordingly.--Opark 77 09:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If this article ever makes it to the main page...

... as Today's featured article, there are two good free images that might work. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A Ferris wheel of the same 1920s/1930s construction like the one that appeared almost every episode.
Michael J. Anderson (Samson) at Carny Con 2006.

HBO's interference

It's been brought up in numerous interviews that HBO repeatedly interfered with the show, such as making Justin more evil in Season 2, killing off Lodz, etc. I was wondering if we could add some stuff about it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any refs would be my question. You can mention it but only if it's referenced. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's one. I know Knauf brought it up on the Yahoo! group. I also know that the issues with the writers were brought up at various conventions, but the only source talking about it is a forum post, so I don't know how 'reliable' that is...--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

...And the reliability of these sources is exactly the problem. :-) Reviewers at the FAC for this article made a huge deal out of those sources (can't hold it against them), so if I had to choose between the little star and "unreliable" information worth one sentence, I'd choose the star. But I still get google news alerts about Carnivàle, and a usable gem occasionally turns up. (Nothing about HBO's interference yet, though.) – sgeureka ^t•c 05:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How is one of the major actors in the show not a reliable source? Or Daniel Knauf himself, for that matter? I mean, obviously until I find the posting by Knauf we can't use it, but I don't see why Clancy's chat isn't reliable.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you but I couldn't change anyone's mind in the FACs by arguing that way; only Knauf's confirmation by special email was accepted there. I guess all of this has to do with WP:SELFPUB and the belief that if it was important, the New York Times would have reported on it, or the belief that some rabid fans just made up the chat logs. (BTW, CB's chat log slipped through in the Character FAC, and what you want to add here is already included there.) Have you checked the used third-party sources for mentions of HBO's meddling? Because that would be the holy-grail solution. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made a post on the group asking if anyone had any reliable sources about HBO's interference. I'm going to be leaving for a week on Tuesday, so hopefully someone responds tomorrow.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)