Talk:Laura Roslin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battlestar Galactica mandala This article is within the scope of WikiProject Battlestar Galactica, which aims to improve the quality and depth of Battlestar Galactica articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please edit this or any other related article, visit the project page, or take part in the project's discussion.

Contents

[edit] new caprica invasion

I'm not sure about this and have no way of checking, but wasnt Roslin aboard Colonial One when the Cylon Invasion of New Caprica began? This leads me to believe that she ddnt just become a school teacher again upon arrival on New Capricabut a member of Baltar's Cabinet as Secretary of Education.

No, she was in a tent teaching children, IIRC

[edit] Trivia

Probably not that important but if people feel it should be included... Roslin's I.D. code was D-456-345-A Zarboki 13:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rodlin based upon Edwina Curry

Maybe?, Brits may get the reference.--ElvisThePrince 15:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] President

Is Roslin president or Zarek? Since Baltar is gone, succession shows it should be Zarek... Zyxwvutsrqp 03:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Too early to tell. It's doubtful that the order of succession would be blindly and strictly followed, considering the magnitude of the events that have transpired. Zarek might make a claim for the presidency, but considering the Colonials have just returned to the fleet, it's probably best to wait and see. While we're on the subject, according to WP:WAF, the succession boxes are inappropriate to begin with. I'll probably go through the hierarchy tonight and delete them. As for the prose, no assumptions should be made about Roslin's current role... -- Fru1tbat 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the laws of succession, Zarek should become the new Colonial president, but that only follows if he retained the official title while he was being held by the Cylons (Which I admit is a possibility). However, even if he isn't, neither is Roslin, it falls to whoever is the next in line after the VP (I don't believe they've ever stated the specific order). She holds no official political position now and, though they might hold a special election or something now (Or simply give her the title with a "My bad" apology), officially she has no claim to the position. JBK405 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] succession boxes

Preceded by
Richard Adar		 President of the Twelve Colonies of Kobol
(Seasons 1-2.5)		 Succeeded by
Gaius Baltar
Preceded by
Tom Zarek		 Vice-President of the Twelve Colonies of Kobol
(season 3.0)
very briefly		 Succeeded by
Tom Zarek
Preceded by
Tom Zarek		 President of the Twelve Colonies of Kobol
(Season 3-4)		 Succeeded by
Tom Zarek (interim)

Can anybody tell me why the above version of the succession boxes are not being used (including her brief stint as VP?) (ChristopherBorcsok 03:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC))

While I disagree somewhat with using the succession boxes at all (see WP:WAF), even if they are included, it seems a little excessive to clutter the boxes with a "succession" that took up a minor part of a single episode, and was purely a technicality anyway. She never performed any duties as VP, and so never really served as VP... The fact that Zarek appointed her VP only to hand over the Presidency is pretty insignificant as far as the boxes are concerned. It seems better to me to keep them from getting too messy. -- Fru1tbat 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a nicer picture?

I'm not sure the current one on the top represents her well. At least the two pics should be switched. Xiner 03:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The two pictures seem fine to me, I mean, she still looks the same as she does in the photos, and they are of poor quality. Though if you can find a picture that you think would be better suited for the page, then feel free to add it. (Grizzwald 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Section removed on Roslin's abilities- re-added

My section on Roslin's inadequacies (especially in relation to her treatment of Athena Agathon) was removed not once but twice by an unsigned contributor. I have thus added the section in again. Twice. I have not been given any reason for this deletion at all on either occassion and both instances the deleter was an unsigned member who would seem to have an axe to grind.

I am aware that this section is scathing of Roslin in a way that the rest of this entry is not; however, I quote direct factual occurrences and I think it obvious, based on the facts, that none have been so inhumane to Athena as Roslin.

However, if this is considered too much POV I am prepared to leave conclusions out and only the bare facts. Please do not simply remove the sections without explanation, as has been done before. Twice. Lincoln muadib (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If I am doing the wrong thing I would appreciate being told why my edits keep getting removed- having them summarily undone by an anonymous contributor without explanation is, I feel, if not cowardly but certainly rude.

If I get no explanation I can only assume there is none.Lincoln muadib (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, based on info/ advice from other (signed) users, I have made this section more dispassionate.Lincoln muadib (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good job on editing the Section on Roslin's abilities!

That's good editing, well done- all the points I was raising but said so much more eloquently! 170.65.188.1 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign. Lincoln muadib (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't believe I made such a snafu!

Checking some of the edits I realised I'd stated that Baltar had been accused of being part of the attack on Earth, rather than the Twelve Colonies. *smacks self in head* wouldn't say I had a blonde moment but . . . so a BIG thanks for the poster that noticed that! Lincoln muadib (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment of Athena Agathon Concerns

I have several concerns about the Sharon "Athena" Agathon section. Since it has been a topic of discussion here, I thought I'd add my two cents.

First of all, I don't like the overall opinion conveyed by the section that President Roslin's feelings towards Athena are unique. Commander William Adama tried to strangler Athena when he first saw her and Captain Lee Adama tried to shoot her in the head ("Home" Part 2). Later on, Lee still commented on how unnatural he felt her interaction with Karl Agathon was ("Home" Part 2) and several other crew members consistently referred to her a "toaster" and spoke of her in an insulting matter well into the third season (see "Flight of the Phoenix" and "Torn" for representative examples). Other instances of characters other than Roslin treating Athena inhumanely include, but are not limited to: Colonel Tigh urging Commander Adama to shoot Athena in the head for being a Cylon conspirator and Adama's nearly doing so in "Flight of the Phoenix"; Adama's tendency to call Athena a "thing" (same episode); and then-Admiral Adama and Colonel Tigh considering, along with Roslin, the possibility of terminating Athena's pregnancy in "Downloaded." President Roslin is, in fact, one of the first characters to consider the option of peaceful co-existence with and measured respect for Athena (and other Cylons) when she urged Commander Adam to find common ground with her in "Flight of the Phoenix." My point here is not that Roslin hasn't treated Athena poorly, only that the idea that this behavior is somehow unique to Roslin (which is how this section reads) isn't really true.

Secondly, I have other general comments of a factual nature. (1) Roslin orders Athena thrown out of the airlock on the Astral Queen, not the Battlestar Galactica ("Home" Part 2) (2) Baltar used Hera's blood to cure Rolsin or her cancer; Roslin wasn't really involved in the decision making ("Epiphanies") (3) Roslin and her assistant, Tori, created a list of suitable candidates to take Hera in (with Dr. Cottle picking from that list). The adoptive mother wasn't a confident of Roslin and was led to believe the baby was born to a Pegasus officer ("Downloaded"). The adoptive mother only became close to Roslin once they were on New Caprica ("Lay Down Your Burdens" Part 2); there is no evidence that she ever knew that the child was actually Athena's child. (4) Roslin attempted to secure Hera's safety; she just failed. While on New Caprica, she personally kept an eye on Hera and her adoptive mother at the school ("Lay Down Your Burdens" Part 2). While leaving New Caprica, Roslin assigned two armed guards to ensure their safety ("Exodus" Part 2). The argument can be made that she didn't provide adequate security measures, but not that she didn't provide any. (5) Helo was imprisoned for violating orders. Imprisoning him for violating orders isn't really Roslin acting inhumanely towards Athena. (6) Stating that Athena has "never been anything but loyal" is incorrect. Athena refused to warn the Caprica rescue party about the copy of Reverend Cavil being a Cylon agent ("Lay Down Your Burdens" Part 2). Athena even told Helo that she believed Adama killed her baby and that she no longer cared what happened to him. Early frosts (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "Treatment of Athena Agathon Concerns"

You make a good many valid points. I have taken your concerns on board. I have edited (in some cases slightly, in other cases heavily) certain sections. Thank you for your very valuable input, especially in correcting my wrong-ship-ness. ;)

It may perhaps be useful for me to add in the section on mistreatment in the Sharon Agathon wikipedia page as well? Lincoln muadib (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Revision

I have been thinking long and hard about some of the sections of this article. I have reached the opinion that some of the article, particularly the Treatment of Athena Agathon section, is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is designed to be a source of objective information devoid of points of view, original research, and personal criticisms. While many valid criticisms of President Roslin are raised in this article, none of them are beyond conjecture. It would be a different matter entirely if there was an objective source being relied upon to string the facutal information, but that isn't the case here. In other words, specific instances of conduct (objective) are being used to support a position that not everyone agrees with (biased) and that is not "official." Some sections of this article read more like an attempt to persuade readers of a certain POV and, as stated on Wikipedia's standards page, are therefore inappropriate. These sections are more appropriate for a blog, personal website, message board, or other non-encyclopedic source.

This doesn't meant that the information about Roslin's interaction with Athena or criticisms of her presidency have no place on Wikipedia, only that the facts need to be presented in an objective manner. For example, we could add a "Relationships" section in which Roslin's interaction with various other characters is examined. Among those characters would be Athena. Examples of Roslin's conduct, both good and bad, would be provided and readers would be allowed to reach their own conclusions. Input and discussion on this would be appreciated. Early frosts (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Relationships" section?

Could be an option . . . I'd be prepared to put in for this. Course, how big would this article get? Lincoln muadib (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting it as a possible option. I just know that the current format violates several of Wikipedia's standards and needs some kind of revision.Early frosts (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree . . . it needs a striking of the balance between losing a lot of information to stay neutral, or becoming overlong in observing her relationships. I'd be more than happy to assist in creating a balanced section.Lincoln muadib (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing sections without debate is vandalism

Reverted text- as one gentleman/gentlelady summarily went in and removed the section on the treatment of Sharon and put in reams of apologist nonsense far more emotive than the text it replaced.

Roslin treated Sharon appallingly. She was not the only one, sure. But to remove all reference to her behaviour is as unacceptable as my original over-vitriolic entry on her. If I can moderate, so can you. Lincoln muadib (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] EarlyFrost, removing sections without debate is not editing- it is vandalism

You agreed that the bare FACTS of Roslin's behaviour were a part of Wikipedia, yet youy summarily removed entire sections. This is hardly consistent behaviour.

Reasons for summary deletion? As you've seen, I'm open to debate, but summary deletions not so much.Lincoln muadib (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editors, please take note of Wikipedia's Guidelines

I would ask that all editors please read the Wikipedia guidelines.

It is appropriate to delete any information that is p.o.v.-pushing, non-neutral, or unreferenced. Any deletion made in good faith due to the inclusion of any such material is not vandalism regardless of whether or not there was discussion on the topic. See Wikipedia's guidelines on Vandalism.

The material that was deleted has been subjected to repeated editting by different editors to include either pro- or anti-Roslin positions. These sections are not appropriate for Wikipedia for a variety of reasons, the primary one being that the golden rule of Wikipedia is that all articles are to be neutral and unbiased in their entirety. Additional problems with the sections are inclusion of some information that ranges from skewed to outright false (yes, even after the changes made about a week ago), the inclusion of personal commentary, and the total and complete lack of references. Under Wikipedia's guidelines, these sections warranted deletion.

The short version is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of neutral, verifiable information. Anything that doesn't fit that description should be deleted. If you want to make an argument that Laura Roslin is a sinner or a saint, fine. Just do it somewhere else.

In addition, please refrain from directing comments towards specific users. According to Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks guidelines, these comments are inappropriate and users who repeatedly make comments directed at specific users are subject to having their editting abilities temporarily or permanently revoked.Early frosts (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Inappropriate use of Wikipedia's Guidelines

It is one thing to take out commentary-laced sections (which I agreed with), quite another to remove entire sections of what you yourself state are Facts that do have a place in Wikipedia. Surely you are capable of perceiving the difference.

If there is not, why would you not just, say, remove the entire Wikipedia article on Israel's history? That's a site constantly being filled with POV.

Wow, you just don't get it. The deleted sections weren't "Facts" as you like to call them. They were character-bashing and should have been deleted. The deletions were made, reviewed by a recent change moderator, and upheld. At this point you are just going out of your way to attack an editor who did the right thing.


May I quote EarlyFrost?

"This doesn't meant that the information about Roslin's interaction with Athena or criticisms of her presidency have no place on Wikipedia, only that the facts need to be presented in an objective manner."

I reiterate, it was not just commentary that got deleted, it was FACTS. Roslin DID threaten Athena. Roslin DID take Athena's baby away and tell her it died. Roslin DID threaten to throw Baltar out of an airlock. Roslin DID imprison the head of the striking workers.

Just because you'd prefer to sanitise this character doesn't mean it should be wikipedia policy to do so.

As ever, I am wholly open to the creation of a "Relationships" section, as EarlyFrost suggested. If you'd like to assist in this endeavour I'm more than ready.Lincoln muadib (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I can actually sign my comments. Not hard. Lincoln muadib (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] On Sharon Agathon

Sharon Agathon has been far from "the very picture of loyalty".

- She actively aided in the annihilation of billions of human beings.

- She refused to tell Adama where to find the remaining cylons hidden in the colonial fleet.

- She attempts to choke Cottle when he informs her of her daughter's "death".

- She failed to identify Cavil on Caprica.

- She told Helo that she didn't care about anything -- him or the fleet -- after her baby "died".

- Her rescue of Hera gave the cylons access (via her download) to all her knowledge (much of it surely confidential) about the human fleet, indicating that she was willing to sacrifice the security of the fleet for her daughter. (This may or may not be a noble sentiment, surely, but it is not loyalty.)

- She shot Natalie in cold blood.


Meanwhile the examples of Roslin's "inhumane" treatment of Athena are clearly also biased. - When Athena first arrived on the Astral Queen, Roslin had no reason other than Helo and Starbuck's word that Athena could be trusted and thus no reason not to airlock her. Roslin would certainly be a terrible president if she was willing to risk the safety of the fleet on the word of two people who are likely biased anyway.

- The same logic applies to Athena's imprisonment. One cannot simply blindly trust an enemy soldier who suddenly claims to have switched sides. Also, it's never established that it was Roslin's decision to imprison her. Given that she was kept in Galactica's brig, it call may have very well be Adama's.

- I don't know how canon deleted scenes are considered, but the season two DVDs include one in which Roslin thanks an infant Hera for her role in saving her life.

- Roslin's decision to remove Hera from her parents was just as much a move to protect Hera as it was to protect the fleet. Given that the revelation that Galactica was keeping a cylon prisoner aboard had already provoke one terrorist attack demanding Athena's death, Hera would likely be subject to similar attempts on her life.

- Hera's rescue mission was a danger to the security of the fleet as whole as established above.

- Violation of orders is military matter thus any punishment towards Helo would come from Adama, not Roslin. The decision of how to punish people under his command is his and his alone.

- There is no way to establish that Hera wouldn't have still ended up in cylon arms even without Roslin's actions. Once again, I'm unsure about the canonicity of deleted scenes, but there a number which include D'Anna and Gina plotting to kidnap Hera before they hear of her "death". Hindsight is twenty-twenty and all that.


I have no problem with a section dedicating to discussing the often antagonistic relationship between Laura Roslin and the Eight known as Sharon Agathon, but I hope that such a section will be written with an eye to presenting both characters and their actions as objectively as possible. Roslin may have treated Athena less than humanely, and I think it's perfectly acceptable that the article detail that. However, I also believe it is necessary to detail Roslin's motivations for that treatment, such as Athena's sometimes questionably loyalty and certain extenuating circumstances. Perhaps a reader will feel that Roslin's reasonings or the specific conditions justified her actions or perhaps the reader will feel that they cannot, but I think it's important that the reader of the article be allowed to make that call based on the objective presentation of both sides of the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.183.11 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)