@WMC
So it's now ridiculous for me to write a line-by-line criticsm because it's long? I take it then we're going for the option that the amount of criticism reflected in the wikipedia is inverse to the actual criticism? It's long because there's a ****load of holes in it; this applies to any theory, because we have only a small amount of evidence from the games. And the SM itself is a big arguement 'for' itself anyways, so the page is linking to a big PDF 'support' document - the whole point of a theory is to support itself.
Right, but the document isn't about whether or not the Manifesto is or is not a reasonable theory - just that it exists, and is relatively well-known in the community, and so is something that you'd expect to find with the other things like "FS lingo".
I gave you a list of my criticisms, the things I felt which acted against it's validity for inclusion (in particular), so don't get petty because it's large. Hell, if I stretched it into summary it would be twice that length; I had to work bloody hard to cut it into bullet points and try to cut down on (in particular) referencing alternate theories. I'm quite frankly insulted that you're insinuating I padded it out to look big and impressive. In any case, you're the one who opened up the 'filibuster mentality' by citing the length of the SM as a reason for supporting its addition above other theories.
Insinuating? I bluntly stated it in my post. However you may be right - I could probably make it even longer without actually adding any content. So it isn't "as long as possible".
Still, you have criticisms like this:
- Subspace damage being incurred by travel is, of course, a complete guess. As is - more importantly - that the Shivans have drives that do not damage subspace, and yet the GTVA has not identified what would surely be fundamental differences as a result of their study of captured Shivan vessels.
- Virtually all of the subspace damage/repair physics is assumed guesswork.
Where the latter makes the former redundant. Also, ones like this:
- The Shivans do not disregard planets entirely; they have destroyed at least 3 (Altair, the Ancients homeworld, Vasuda Prime). Also, they do not disregard technology; for example, they attacked the convoys carrying shield prototypes in FS1 (alongside other examples).
Where you yourself make an assumption on the Shivans without factual evidence (That the Shivans attacked the convoys because they were carrying technology).
Other ones like this:
- By this stage of the Manifesto, there is no consideration of Bosch - one of the most important characters of the game storyline, who provides much of the exposition - is ignored, largely because some of his statements would contradict the Manifestos assumptions.
Where you assume that in-game supposition by characters is canon. (Although if you're making reference to some point where the Manifesto states that Bosch is acting out of greed or somesuch, ie where conclusions about the character are made, I would give you this point. Even then this criticism is misleading as most of your assumption points have nothing to do with Bosch.)
There's also this gem:
- Assumes all subspace travel is harmful, except Shivan. This is despite failing to define exactly what is special about Shivan subspace travel, beyond it's creator. Nor does it explain why the Shivans would not offer 'safe' travel to other races; especially given an implication they have the best subspace engines (technically, n-dimension oscillation devices to facilitate entry to subspace apertures)
Where not only is it mostly incorrect about the Manifesto, but the Manifesto specifically talks about this in (IIRC) two different places; it states that Shivan subspace travel may be viewed as a 'necessary evil' even if it is harmful, and points to a repeated breakdown in communication with races as why they don't offer safe travel to other races. The Manifesto also points out that the Shivans live (in some form) in subspace, and so would be better positioned to test for such damage as they would be more accustomed to the environment. Of course, assuming the guess that subspace is damaged by subspace travel, the GTVA obviously does not consider it a very critical issue or doesn't know about it as there is never any mention of it any game, meaning reduced interest in development of 'cleaner' drives.
Many of the others are simply pointing out that the Shivan Manifesto made an assumption here or there, which isn't incorrect, but is sort of a natural consequence of making guesses about anything outside the FS timeline.
Length of SM as a reason? Absolutely. It provides reasons for its conclusions. Above all others? Obviously not reading my bold text. I haven't argued against including other 'theories' in the wiki beyond those that are meant as jokes (Capellan BBQ) and those that aren't really supported by anybody and thus aren't really as meaningful to the community. I think that this is because many of those theories haven't gone to the length to put them in as cohesive named form as the Manifesto, but I can't really do much about it, especially since I haven't seen any of those theories mentioned.
At this point all I could do would be to come up with a 'Shivan theories' and add some of the common guesses in there (ie the nebula was a star that the Shivans made supernova, or that Bosch saved the GTVA in exchange for Capella, or somesuch.) Of course if I did that, then I would be disregarding this discussion and the poll...and to be honest I'd rather not make the page because I don't know that many theories off the top of my head.
The page links to the entire text of the Manifesto. On a thirty page document, there has to be internal support. Moreover, if you wish to change the support, section on the main page, go for it. But the valid criticisms (and I didn't go through and confirm every single one was a valid criticism - I copied and pasted Aldo's ones from here- as a wiki, I figured that the bad crits will get ditched and the good ones kept) should be kept on. If they can be answered, then get rid of them.
Right, obviously, but the criticism is not part of the document. Some criticism makes sense, to point out major problems with the theory being accepted in any kind of official sense. However adding on an extensive point-by-point discussion has no place in the wiki - because (As pointed out) it's a reference document, not a forum. For example, Derelict - almost anybody who's gotten involved in the FS community knows it and has played it, but it doesn't really make sense to add people's opinions on it because they arent part of the campaign itself. (and generally drastically less important to the community or a discussion on it)
Edit: If we're going with an Encyclopedia Britannica idea, I doubt you'd find the actual criticisms on how Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" was unrealistic and fictitious, along with citations for specific archaeological evidence and Roman writings of the time, pointing out flaws with the characters, setting, and plot. However there would probably be some indication that the play itself is fictitious, and thus makes a number of assumptions that have either been disproved or cannot be proven.
