Talk:Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

Copy Vio

FYI, this article is a Copyright Violation, the Synopsis section (if not more) is copied Word for Word from here: [1]

From here: "The SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES reveals what happens when SARAH CONNOR (Lena Headey) stops running and goes on the offensive against an ever-evolving technological enemy bent on destroying her life, and perhaps the world. Her son, 15-year-old JOHN CONNOR (Thomas Dekker), knows that he may be the future savior of mankind, but is not yet ready to take on the mantle of leadership that he's told is his destiny.

John finds himself inextricably drawn to CAMERON (Summer Glau), an enigmatic and otherworldly student at his high school, who soon proves to be much more than his confidante she assumes the role of Sarah and John's fearless protector. On their trail are not only threats from the future, but an intelligent and tough FBI agent, JAMES ELLISON (Richard T. Jones), who soon becomes a powerful ally."

From that link: "SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES reveals what happens when SARAH CONNOR (Lena Headey, "The Brothers Grimm," "300") stops running and goes on the offensive against an ever-evolving technological enemy bent on destroying her life, and perhaps the world. Her son, 15-year-old JOHN CONNOR (Thomas Dekker, "Heroes"), knows that he may be the future savior of mankind, but is not yet ready to take on the mantle of leadership that he's told is his destiny. John finds himself inextricably drawn to CAMERON (Summer Glau "Serenity," "The Unit"), an enigmatic and otherworldly student at his high school, who soon proves to be much more than his confidante she assumes the role of Sarah and John's fearless protector. On their trail are not only threats from the future, but an intelligent and tough FBI agent, JAMES ELLISON (Richard T. Jones, "Judging Amy"), who soon becomes a powerful ally. Directed by David Nutter and produced by Warner Bros. Television and C-2 Pictures, SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES represents an exciting reinvention of the "Terminator" franchise, in which the strong and intrepid Sarah discovers that protecting her son and stopping the rise of the machines is more difficult than she had ever imagined."

Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, its from FOX's Press Release. How is that copyrighting??? wouldnt FOX want the information they put out to be found on this page???— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullyano7 (talk • contribs)

You copied and pasted word for word. You are not allowed to that on Wikipedia (source or not), you must paraphrase.. Copying and pasting IS copyright infringment.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Copying text from other websites is not allowed on Wikipedia as the text you copied is not released under the GFDL, please see Wikipedia:Copyright. Matthew 21:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow aren't you a fool Illyria05, you accuse him of a copyright violation and reprint the text you claim is a copyright violation. You are also wrong. Those who create text may give you specific rights with that text, since its a Fox pressrelease they specifically want people to reproduce it. Its possible its against Wikipedia rules, but there is no copyright violation which took place (I see the segment has long since been deleted)IceHunter 23:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First, be civil. There's no need to call people fools, especially when they were by no means nasty to begin with. Second, the rules on Talk: and User: pages are different from those in the main article space. Third, desiring to have one's content redistributed does not mean that the license granted complies with the very specific requirements and rights laid out in the GFDL license. So, unless the copyright holder specifically releases something under a GFDL-compatible license (GFDL, public domain, some others) - it cannot be used (barring exceptions like fair use). — ceejayoz ^talk 02:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Title Image

Should we be using an image from a leaded version of an as-yet-unreleased show? Should we also put up the plot from the lleaked video? First, we don't know if this is the final product, and we shouldn't be contributing to the spread of this. ColdFusion650 18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter any more? However the episode was leaked, it's been seen by lots of people now. How will you be able to tell the difference between an edit made by someone who has seen the leaked episode, as opposed to having obtained that information elsewhere? Even if the episode changes slightly from the leaked version, it seems likely that plot details obtained from it will be still be fairly accurate. Is there much point to pretending the knowledge doesn't exist? However I do think that the reference that links through to the torrent should be removed. I think that is endangering Wikipedia if it stays. BigBadaboom0 19:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out also I think, that the plot descriptions I added are supported by the Futon Critic article that is already referenced on the page. BigBadaboom0 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a screen shot taken from the FOX teaser promo, if somebody wants to use it (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2259/1676934991_4a2c9c383d_o.jpg) --Chibbie 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Leak

The pilot has been leaked onto the torrents. Someone should add that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.78.167 (talk • contribs) 13:59, July 22, 2007 (UTC)

First, look up a few lines on your screen. Second, read the article. ColdFusion650 19:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the information about the leak. I think a pilot leaking out some five months before the air date is pretty damn significant information and should definitely be mentioned here. Music leaks like Systematic Chaos are always mentioned and when Dexter leaked it was mentioned. So why not this one? --Petska 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not the one that removed it, but one problem I see with your reference is that it links through to the torrent site. Some litigious media company (is there any other?) might take a dim view of that. Can you perhaps find a reference that doesn't? BigBadaboom0 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean. But technically the reference is a link to a site that links to another site that links to the torrent file. Not really illegal, but I'll try to find some other source. Anyway, I don't think information like this needs any sources since anybody can easily just google it and see for themselves. --Petska 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. It should not be up to the reader to Google to find a source for information in a Wikipedia article. It should be cited on the page. I'm not sure about this. I've requested some input from an admin who worked on the Terminator (character) article a while back. Let's see what he thinks. I still think we need more opinions. ColdFusion650 20:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shows being "leaked", not really notable, it's not like it doesn't happen every year. Personally I don't care whether the information is kept, but you'll need to cite it to a credible source. The source given is unreliable, also policy prohibits linking to it (WP:COPYRIGHT). Matthew 21:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't we violate copyright just a little bit? It's one of those laws that nobody really likes anyway. :) ColdFusion650 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah. We wouldn't want to cause forest fires, would we ;-)? Matthew 22:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a television episode so the only real source for the plot is the episode itself. If you look at the list of 'featured sample articles' at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article half don't quote a source for the plot. One (Abyssinia, Henry) cites the episode itself and two cite only an episode summary elsewhere on the net. Can I suggest that a citation something like the following is used as a solution to this? BigBadaboom0 05:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posed this question on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources in the hope of getting the opinion of other experienced admins. BigBadaboom0 06:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The episode itself is not verifiable till it becomes legitimately available. So no, you can't cite it. Matthew 07:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's my opinion as well. ColdFusion650 11:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Matthew and ColdFusion650. This information needs to be sourced, and I don't think an illegally leaked pilot is usable as a reliable source. On Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows only information that appeared in reliable sources, like reviews of the book by people who legitimately received advance copies, was allowed. Plot summaries from illegally leaked copies were removed whenever they were added. TomTheHand 14:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What about a legally distributed pilot? The legal references from various sources match with what can be seen in the leaked pilot. The fact that a high quality leaked pilot is available on the net is very important information and definitely related to this article.Urbanriot 02:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. The thing is, our only source violates copyright laws by distributing the video. If we put it up without a source, it's uncited. If somebody can find a source that does not link to the file, we can put it up. ColdFusion650 02:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What I believe Urbanriot is referring to, and what I referred to in the other thread, is the Futon Critic reference, which described the plot in detail from what is apparently a legally distributed 'screener' copy that was sent to reviewers. BigBadaboom0 06:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read that, but anything from that, and sourced as so, would be fine. However, we should reiterate in that section that it will change before release. ColdFusion650 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the bit about the leak and used Zeropaid as source. I believe it is reliable, no? --Petska 13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. We've always known it is true. I, uh, personally verified the story as soon it was posted on here. The problem was proving it without copyright violation. I think this works. I have no objection to the reliability of that site. ColdFusion650 13:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The majority of blogs are not reliable, the one cited in the text I've just removed does not appear to be reliable. I'm also still not convinced that the leak is notable and so I've removed the note that was added back in July. Any editor is welcome to establish notability/provide adequate sources if they so please (source #2 may violated WP:COPYRIGHT as well, in that it provides information on potential sources to obtain the leak). Matthew 12:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

T-800 = Arnold Terminator

Will people stop changing Cromartie's description to "Arnold Terminator". That specific model is the T-800, calling it an "Arnold Terminator" is not only redundant, but incorrect, as he was but one of many models of the series. So please, leave it as T-800.

While I absolutely agree that the "Arnold Terminator" description should be removed, it has not yet been revealed what model number Cromartie is. So assuming it is a T-800 is incorrect. (For Eg: Arnold in T3 is a T-850 as he has modifications from the T-800 Units. In SCC we are dealing with essentially a different Skynet, which goes online in 2011, so Cromartie could clearly be a further modified version. Until it is revealed what model Cromartie is, the description should just detail the abilities we know he has.Tullyano7

Of course, Cromartie really can't be a T-800, as he (in all likeliness) comes from a future, where the T-800 never came into existence, or at least, not as we would know it. However, it's still true that Cromartie's model has a lot in common with the T-800/850.

I thought the first movie referred to Arnold as Cyberdyne Systems Model 101. --Neilrieck (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In Terminator and Terminator 2, Schwarzenegger played a Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101. Series 800 is the endo-skeleton, and Model 101 is the Arnold-looking outer body. Meaning that a Model 102 would look like someone else. In Terminator 3 Schwarzenegger played a Cyberdyne Systems Series 850 Model 101.
The older fake/rubber looking Terminators were Series 600. See Terminator (character) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As the Terminator (character) article states, in the first two movies he is only called "The Terminator" and a "Cyberdyne Systems Model 101". T3 calls him a T-101. Anything with an '8' in it, is not in the movies. So, yes, Neilrieck, you are correct. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Series 800 Model 101 Version 2.4 is shown on-screen in the director's cut of Terminator 2. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

T-888

http://www.terminatorfiles.com/news/2007/2007-09-26-a.htm

New model is the T-888. Stop changing it please, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.86.178 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminator posing as a teacher attacking John at school

I've just seen the first episode and the aforementioned scene is part of it. Perhaps this should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.121.73 (talk • contribs) 16:48, December 17, 2007 (CST) (UTC)

Where did you see the first episode? The show hasn't aired yet, and we can't just take your word for it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The snack chip

I feel stupid even mentioning this, but this is the kinda thing that people tend to obsess about, so: I removed the comment about Cameron (Glau's terminator) eating the snack chip being "never seen before". There's actually a deleted scene from the first film where the original terminator eats a candy bar. It's on the 2003 "Special Edition" DVD if you want to verify it. I played around with the text for a bit, trying to come up with wording that could allow for this, but everything I came up with was really cumbersome. I eventually just gave up, as it really doesn't add anything special to the article. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Casting

I am curious if anyone else has noticed this, but I am having trouble locating a casting credit for the actor playing Charles Dixon, he doesn't appear on the IMDB page. What is the actors name? I think it looks like Dean Winters, but I wasn't able to catch his name in the credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.228.116 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dean Winters is indeed credited as a guest star in the overlaid opening titles (in the scene where Sarah confronts John in his bedroom and tells him they're leaving ("pancakes")). No character name is given. A Google search did find lots of press mentions, though. I've added a ref to the article. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Extended reality

Can a section be added outlining the Extended Reality promotion running alongside the series currently? Takebackthefuture.com existed pre-airing, along with Enitech research's site, and now Dyson Trust. Updates have occurred since the show aired, so it wasn't just a pre-airng promotion - it's anongoing extended reality, a trend shown with other shows, such as Heroes, Lost, Jericho, and others. --Thebruce0 (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I put the following together by re-watching the DVDs and episodes, after coming across multiple inconsistencies. For example John could not be 15 in 1999, based on his birth date from T2. Also since I do not have T3 on DVD I only included a couple key dates from that film, referencing them from online sources.
Should this be its own article? and if not, how much should be in the various existing articles? —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the information is irrelevant. If we were going to use it, one of the major errors is that it contains both SCC and T3 which take place in completely different timelines. Sticking them into one timeline makes things very confusing. 1997 Sarah Dies, 1999 Sarah and John leave Charley. A proper timeline would create two branches after T2, one for SCC, one for T3. However, this is not really encyclopedic, and looks like it belongs on a fan site like Terminator Files. ColdFusion650 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But will SCC really ignore T3, or could a future episode show in a flashback how the timeline changed from the T3 version to the SCC version? (They have referenced the cancer already for example.)
The reason I started putting this together (with the notes) was that a number of external sites would list dates without giving detailed sources, and I kept finding unexplained contradictions. It occurred to me that having it all in one place on Wikipedia might be helpful. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just removed an auto signature from my most recent addition to the material below. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the series creators, they really will ignore T3. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Chronological timeline

Dates and times in bold are direct quotes from dialog or shown on screen. Other dates are direct calculations. (Note, quoted dates are not linked so that they will not be reformatted.)

Some dates changing—such as the date for "Judgment Day"—fit changes to the timeline resulting from time travel, but some are obvious inconsistencies between—and sometimes within—productions.

The timeline also ignores Terminator stories from written media such as novels and comic books for clarity.

• 1959 – Sarah Conner born according to her tombstone.^(T3) This would make her 24 or 25 in The Terminator.
• 1963 – Security Trust of Los Angeles; bank vault and contents built by a time traveler under the name E. Boykins.^{(SCC Ep.01)}
• (1964-05-11 – 1965-05-15) – Range of dates for Sarah Connor's birth according to her being noted as 19 in the script for The Terminator.^(T1)
  • (1965-08-25 – 1966-08-23) – Range of dates for Sarah Connor's birth according to her FBI file which gives her age as 33 on August 24th, 1999.^{(SCC Ep.01)} This would make her age 18 during The Terminator.
  • February 4th – Sarah birthday according to Sarah Baum's drivers license.^{(SCC Ep.02)}

• 1984 1:52 AM – The Terminator (Series 800 Model 101) arrives from 2029.^(T1)
  • 12th… May… Thursday… – Date according to police officer.^(T1)
  • Friday night – Sarah is attacked by the first Terminator at the bar Tech Noir.^(T1)
  • Saturday – John Connor is conceived before Sarah destroys the first Terminator at the factory.^(T1)
  • 5/19/84 – Date Sarah Connor's current "Pay Period Ends" according to her time card.^(T1)

• 2/28/85 – John Connor born (from his police record).^(T2)
  • (1983-08-25 – 1984-08-23) – Range of dates for John Connor's birth according to Sarah's FBI file which gives his age as 15 on August 24th, 1999.^{(SCC Ep.01)} This entire range is too early to fit with the official date of The Terminator, but not the originally scripted date.

• (1995-02-28 – 1996-02-27) – Range of dates for when the Connors and Myles Dyson destroy his work at Cyberdyne. (John is age 10 according to his police record).^(T2)
  • The Sarah Connor Chronicles suggests that this was late 1997 ("Almost two years" before September 1999).^{(SCC Ep.01)}

• August 4th, 1997 – Skynet Missile Defense System goes online (original timeline).^(T2)
  • August 29th, 1997 – "Judgment Day" (original timeline).^(T2)
• late 1997 – Sarah dies of cancer after seeing "Judgment Day" pass uneventfully. Year from her tombstone.^(T3)

• June 25, 1999 – Cameron's arrival date, it took her "73 days" to find the Connors.^{(SCC Ep.01)}
• West Fork, Nebraska: August 24th, 1999 – Sarah and John leave Charles Dixon. It's been "almost two years" since Terminator 2. FBI file lists Sarah age 33, and John age 15.⁽SCC Ep.01)
  • Red Valley, New Mexico: September 6th, 1999 – John meets Cameron.^{(SCC Ep.01)}
  • September 7, 1999 – Cromartie (Terminator) attacks John at Crestview High School.^{(SCC Ep.01)}
  • 09.10.1999 – Date the Connors and Cameron jump forward from.^{(SCC Ep.01)}

• July 24, 2004 – Skynet Missile Defense System goes online and triggers a nuclear apocalypse. (post T2 timeline, T3 version).^(T3) Date from the Series 850 Model 101's internal clock.

• December 4th, 2005 – Sarah would have died from cancer, according to Cameron.^{(SCC Ep.02)}

• September 10, 2007 (after 7:30 p.m.) – Date the Connors and Cameron arrive on (after twilight).^{(SCC Ep.01)} The time machine shows a jump of 78892.31163 units.^{(SCC Ep.01)} This number of hours is exactly consistent with a 9 year jump (the original script had them jumping from 1998), whereas the jump shown—around 9:10 a.m. on 1999-09-10 to around 7:30 p.m. on 2007-09-10—was about 70,138.3 hours.

• April 19th, 2011 – Skynet Missile Defense System goes online (post T2 timeline, SCC version).^{(SCC Ep.01)}
  • April 21, 2011 – Skynet triggers a nuclear apocalypse 2 days later (post T2 timeline, SCC version).^{(SCC Ep.01)}

• August 29th, 2027 – In a future where Skynet was never able to launch its war on humanity, Sarah (now a Grandmother) watches John (now a Senator) playing with his daughter while she reminises on the original "Judgment Day".^{(T2 Alternate Ending)}

• 2027 – Cameron's year of origin (post T2 timeline, SCC version).^{(SCC Ep.01)}
• 2029 – Year of origin for the Series 800 Model 101's,^(T1) and the Series 1000 (original timeline).^(T2)
• 2032 – Year of origin for the Series 850 Model 101 (post T2 timeline, T3 version).^(T3)

info

in terminator 3 it is said that Sarah Conner died 1997 in the tv series after they time traveled to 2007 the terminator states that sarah conner would died in 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.245.210 (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This information is already in the article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to wonder if this information really belongs here in the entry for the series, or whether it more properly belongs (solely) in the entry for Sarah Connor (Terminator) (where it currently also exists)? If people do think it should be here, perhaps at least a re-naming of the entry to something about date inconsistencies rather than just "birth and death"? --Umrguy42 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please think before you revert

The final pilot for the show was made publicly available on tv.yahoo.com one week before it was shown on TV. It showed that several of the rumored changes to the pilot were false. I then removed this false information from the article. Users ColdFusion650 and AlistairMcMillan added this false information back to the article without verifying it.

I suggest, in order to improve the article, that when a user removes information and provides a reference to show that it is false, other editors check the source before blindly putting the information back in. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What? I don't even under stand what you are saying. The article says, "Fox Entertainment Chairman Peter Liguori said that a certain aspect of the pilot, involving a Terminator posing as a teacher attacking John at school, would be changed following the shooting at Virginia Tech." That information is true. Regardless of what aired, the guy said that. It is not false information. About not checking a source: I did see the show on Yahoo TV, and did see that the scenes remained. I didn't blindly put anything back in. However, as I said before, the information was true. The Fox Chairman said those things. Whether or not he was correct, he said them, and that should remain in the article, along with a note that he was wrong. And that's exactly what's in the article. So, I really don't understand the complaint. What are you complaining about again? ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

His statement was false. Why was it relevant to leave it in? Additionally, the antagonist terminator in the pilot, Cromartie, was not recast. The other actor plays another terminator who is first seen in the second episode. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

His statement showed that they at least briefly intended to remove it. Now, in the second episode, Cromartie had his face covered. We know he is missing his skin. It's possible that once he gets a new biological covering, the new actor will portray Cromartie. In this instance, our source would be true. Since we don't have any evidence that the source the article cites is wrong, we should leave it. Remember, if you want to contradict a reliable source, you have... another reliable source. Until we can say for absolute sure that the new guy will not be playing Cromartie, we should not randomly remove information from the article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuity Errors Section

The events of T3 might have been put aside because of the time traveling bit, but that would have not changed the year that Sarah Connor died. If they would have wanted to put the cancer issue aside as well, they would have, but they kept it. Also, if something is relevant or not is your personal opinion and that does not count. I await your response. Duhman0009 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC) (cross posted from User talk:ColdFusion650)

Your first sentence is wrong. If they ignore T3, they ignore T3. Therefore, there can be no continuity errors springing from differences with T3. Your second point is also wrong. Relevancy does count. Imagine what Wikipedia would be like if every article contained tons of irrelevant information. What if the article for George Bush contained an explanation on why the sky is blue? How stupid would that be? It has to be pertinent to the topic. As far as it being my opinion, of course it is. You cannot scientifically prove what is and is not relevant. It is a judgment call, which by definition calls for an opinion. It is your opinion that it is relevant. See how pointless it is to bring it up? ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevance is a PPOV, not acceptable on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duhman0009 (talk • contribs) 15:53, January 20, 2008 (UTC) (cross posted from edit summary)

Are you saying that relevance does not matter on Wikipedia? What about [[WP:Topic], or Wikipedia:Relevance of content? And again, relevance is a judgment call. It requires an opinion. You are asserting your opinion that the content is relevant. Don't bash me for asserting mine. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How dare you post for me, I'm reporting this. Duhman0009 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not posting for you. I'm taking the comments you made in many and varied places (edit summaries, my talk page) and moving them here to make things easier to read and keep up with. And it clearly says "cross posted from [[User talk:ColdFusion650]" or "cross posted from edit summary" along with the time you made the edit so someone could look up the edit summary if they didn't believe me. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact that you did this proves that you believe that you're in charge of this situation, making this even more important to request the help of an admin, which I already did. I'll wait. Duhman0009 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Well it seems that this is actually a rule, so me being pissed about it won't do much good, however, one admin felt that you should have done a better job to make it more obvious that you weren't the one posting it. Anyway, I'll start posting below so that it doesn't get mixed up with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duhman0009 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that, for all intents and purposes, this show is ignoring T3. Therefore it's not a continuity error if something in this show contradicts something from T3. In any case, to include any "continuity errors", there would need to be a reliable source stating that it's a continuity error (per WP:V and WP:RS). Without one, it's original research which isn't permitted. Chaz ^Beckett 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree regarding the timeline issue, mainly because it's been stated and that it's obvious that if they go after Skynet before it's being build/rebuilt, that they have a chance of preventing Judgment Day, making the T3 timeline disappear, but changing the future doesn't change the past.

Let's play make belief, let's pretend that you have cancer and that before dying from that, you get hit by a car and die, that makes the original timeline of your life. Now let's say that I travel through time and push you away from that car, that would be timeline line #2 of your life. Now in timelife #2, I saved your life, but you still have cancer.

I have nothing against them wanting to get rid of the T3 events since I personally hated that movie, but unfortunately, they added information that took place before T2 and that's Sarah Connor gets diagnostic with Leukemia before the events of the 2nd movie, so how would changing the timeline after the 2nd movie change the timeline from before that? If the producers wanted the remove the entire concept of Sarah having cancer, they would have removed it, but they didn't, they changed the date of her death. The events of T3 takes place well after her death (1997) and the events of the series takes place in 1999.

Since the series to take place a few years after T2, the only possible conclusion would be a Continuity Issue where the writers either goofed or decided to change the date for whatever reason. In any case, this is common in movie sequels or series that follows movies, which is why they're called Continuity Issues. Hell, there's even one that goes on between T1 and T2.

Duhman0009 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's the deal. You don't know how she got cancer. You don't know where the timeline split. It split sometime after T2. It's possible that the timeline split before she encountered whatever gave her the first cancer. Then, she encountered something that gave her cancer later. Perhaps in the series timeline she quit smoking. The damage was already done. But since she wasn't smoking anymore, it took longer to develop the cancer, or for the cancer to grow strong enough to kill her. The point is, we just don't know where the timeline split. In your example, what if we went back in time and prevented that person from getting cancer and prevented them from getting hit by a car? Lets say they got cancer from working around asbestos. Removing them from that job could keep them from getting cancer. See how easy it is to use time travel to remove (or delay) cancer? See, your just not thinking far back enough. You assume that she had cancer in T2, and therefore both timelines must be equal in that regard. ColdFusion650 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I need to ask, have you ever watched Terminator 3? I'm asking this because all of your questions can be answered in this movie. She got cancer in 1994, before the events of the 2nd movie which took place in 1995 (stated by John Connor in T3) and the cancer she got was Leukemia, which is not something you easily get like lung cancer (smoking). So it doesn't matter when the timeline splits, she got Leukemia before the events of the 2nd movie.

But then again, there's another contradiction in the series regarding the dates. T2 takes place in 1995 and in the series, John says that it's been 2 years since the events took place, meaning that it should have been 1997 and not 1999. You see how easy it is to goof up (and this has nothing to do with T3)?

Duhman0009 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen T3, but T2 does not explicitly say that it takes place in 1994. You assume that. And the cause of leukemia is unknown. ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. John said that she learned that she had leukemia back when they were living in Baja, before she got put in the mental institute and before the events of T2. John also says that the doctors gave her 6 months to live, but she lasted 3 years, just so that she could make sure that Judgment Day didn't happen. 1997 - 3 = 1994 and the events of T2 took place in 1995. As for leukemia, the most common reason why you have this cancer is because you were meant to have it (genetic defect), outside influences are rarer case and smoking is not one of them.

Off topic, an admin stated what I didn't which is that you are aggressively reverting everything you can on this article. Not that I care or anything, but you need to remember that this article does not belong to you and that anyone is free to add things to it that are legit. I don't know if you've seen T3, if you remember the events or if you're simply trying to avoid the facts, but what I just stated regarding the events are true. Duhman0009 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also important to remember that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If a statement is not based on verifiable information from a reliable source, it may not be included in the article. In this case, there isn't a source stating that anything regarding Sarah's cancer is a continuity error. The arguments that have been made on this talk page are fine for discussion, but would constitute original research if added to the article. Unless verifiable information on the continuity error is found, it simply can't be added to the article. Chaz ^Beckett 13:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when is common logic an original research. Do I need to show proof that 2 + 2 = 4? The T3 movie stated that Sarah died from Cancer 1997, she had it for 3 years, meaning 1994, the T2 movie too place in 1995. The series takes place in 1999 and guess what, with the 3rd episode that has just been shown yesterday, she doesn't even have cancer anymore, so they pretty much dropped the entire issue. If this is not a continuity error, what is it then? Duhman0009 (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourced criticism in major newspapers

I've returned some of the criticism that was deleted with no edit summary, or with misleading edit summaries. When major newspapers are printing criticism, and we source it, it deserves to be included, especially as users are adding glowing reviews. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. ColdFusion650 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you cutting sources and content? As in the other criticisms, or praises, it's relevant to say what the criticism or praise is, and as so many newspapers have now covered the same criticism, I think it's relevant to include them as sources, both to show how widely the issue has been covered and due to additional info in the different articles. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first way was basically a direct quote from the article, but not in quotes. That's plagiarism. Calling Lena Heady emaciated is what Wikipedia calls POV. Everyone else calls it biased writing and loaded language. Second, the Guardian article didn't add anything other than to say, "Oh, yeah, and them too." ColdFusion650 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ColdFusion, "emaciated" was in quotes, the other part of it was briefly paraphrasing the debate. I think you need to look into what plagiarism is. Please stop revert-warring and removing sources. You are also using misleading edit summaries, posting that you're "adjusting a source" while also cutting content and other sources. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Two complaints in one day. Most of the time its only two a year. Anyway, I'm not removing it because I don't like. In fact, I'm not removing it. It's still there. It's still sourced. I just made the sentence shorter. You realize how long the sentence was before? After reading it, I felt tired, like I just ran a marathon. What information have I removed? I cut two sources down to one. Besides, the LA Times article requires registration to read, which means most people can't read it in the first place. Wikipedia has a policy against writing content that is biased, and that sentence is it. It's Headey bashing. It is obviously written that way. We are the Fox News of encyclopedias. We report. You decide. Just saying that she has been criticized and why and then linking to the article is enough. ColdFusion650 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times article, when I click the link, says "Please Register or Log In The story you requested is available only to registered members." It's not like I can make this up. As far as misleading edit summaries... what? ColdFusion650 (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring T3 completely?

So, Sarah Connor died in 1997, yet we see her alive and well in 1999. Then we travel to the future, 3 years after judgement day was supposed to have happened and the world is still in one piece. It seems like they are completely ignoring T3, but is there any official word on this? The article states that T4 will be tied into the TV series as well, does this mean it will also ignore T3 and that T3 is just being completely retconned out? Uniqueuponhim (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Watch online?

I missed the first episode. Is it possible to watch it online?