Talk:Cameron (Terminator)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Evil?[edit]

It seems she is trying to collect parts to build a terminator and/or design skynet. At the end of episode 6 it is shown that reese did kill andy, yet he left without taking the computer, turk. Who did take the computer? She seems to be expressing grief for killing the T-888 She looks about to smother reese with the pillow before Sarah comes in (she is worried he will recognise her, as he obviously does?) The title introduction says Skynet sent back some to kill john, one to help - implying Skynet sent her back. 87.194.193.49 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And? All of this is near baseless speculation. We have no idea why she's collecting bits and pieces of other Terminators. The Russian Good wa spartnered with is implied to be the one who has the Turk by Derek. We have no idea whose grief she is expressing regarding the note, or why she's even writing the note. She's standing next to Reese with the pillow, she could have simply been bringing it to him. Any speculation regarding her motivations and intentions thus far is just that: speculation, with no real hard evidence of what she's intending. Peptuck (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
She's a terminator, she doesn't kill people by strangling them with pillows, she snaps their neck with her index finger and thumb. There was nothing sinister about the pillow. --Joffeloff (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Possibly she's securing her own existence or following unknown orders. Next there is the problem of different time lines, the moment a backward time jump is made history is rewritten after all. --Scandum 15:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandum (talkcontribs)
I do agree with your last part- the voiceover during the title sequence implies that Skynet sent Cameron back, not John (even though it has also been stated that John sent her back). I believe this is a clue, as such an inconsistency is not likely to have been overlooked, especially in the title sequence. I have no suggestions for an edit to reflect this though; guess we'll have to wait and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.137.207 (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Her real name[edit]

If anyone else watches the show, they'd know her real name is Allison. This is documented and verifiable, so it is NOT VANDALISM. Please explain how it is.

Based on the last episode, Allison was the woman Cameron was based upon. They are not the same. Maybe you should wait until the end of the show before editing Wikipedia. Fletcher (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It's Alison with one L also - you see her write the name at the halfway house in the Ep and it is spelled "Alison" - Also, what's this bit in the article about it not being clear if Alison is killed or not? The snap of her neck is a bit of a giveaway isnt it?70.180.211.82 (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The episode's name is listed as "Allison from Palmdale" so it is an inconsistency as to whether her name is spelled with one or two L's.Mraven15 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems she was killed, but then again Jodie survived the same kind of choking. Who knows. Either way, Cameron seems to be reverting into Alison and making Alison's memories her own. --A.Molnar (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I added to the "Unexplained Behaviour" section regarding this irregularity.Mraven15 (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cameron killed Allison. That's pretty obvious. Even if the snapping of her neck wasn't a dead giveaway, the fact that her eyes were stayed open would be. If she had just become unconcious, her eyes would have closed. The Terminator that became Cameron killed her and used her likeness for its flesh covering. As far as Cameron's model number and series, that's still debatable. We're still discussing this at the Terminator Wiki (terminator.wikia.com).

The spelling of Allison's name is unimportant. If it's spelled differently on the wall, that's just a writer mistake. They've been making a lot of those. Think of Martin Bedell. There were three of them in the phone book. But, why would a 16 year old and a ten year old be in the phone book? Also, the writers state that the T-888 (Cromartie, Vick) chassis comes in a variety of sizes. This goes contrary to everything that the Terminator Franchise has stated in the past; all endoskeletons that belong to a particular series are identical in every way. It's things like this that make me wonder if the writers are even fans of the Franchise.

Shawn Crapo 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec 1971 (talkcontribs)

What part of the franchise? Surely it’d be more logical for the model number to determine the size?
From a writing perspective- every Terminator with that model number would be played by the same actor.
From a Skynet perspective- it’s illogical to go to all that effort to copy someone’s face then to put it on a Terminator that’s too tall to possibly be that person.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.77.89 (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyborg vs Gynoid[edit]

Isn't calling Cameron a Gynoid more correct than cyborg? Therubicon (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No. 'Gynoid' is a female form of 'android'. It is also crass and indicates ignorance of the Greek lanugage. 'Cyborg' is a term derived from 'cybernetic organism' and is asexual. 24.18.154.183 (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. IMO cyborg is a more accurate term and is widely used in the franchise. Gynoid seems inaccurate/not specific enough - I have reverted the opening sentence to use the term cyborg 87.114.179.126 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Characteristics and Unexplained Behavior[edit]

These two sections contain over a dozen paragraphs and only one source. I'll give it a couple of days, and then I'm removing both sections completely unless someone else does it before me. That is, unless plenty of sources are added. Otherwise, those two entire sections look like little more than fan reactions and commentary. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the sections, but the source is the show. I have been watching over these SCC related articles since the season's premier and there are a lot of opinionated edits, which I revert, but I don't like deleting information that is true, even though the articles are looking like "Terminator Wikia". --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, I think the show's episodes, producers, DVD commentary, official literature, or critical reviews should be cited to get that information -- at least for the "characteristics" part. The "unexplained behavior" is almost certainly original fan research and speculation. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'characteristics' section still seems very out-of-place and more suited to a fan-site than an encyclopedia. I feel that it should be summarily removed. 24.18.154.183 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


Cameron PhillipsCameron (Terminator) — Per WP:COMMONNAME, this character is "Cameron" and in-universe, "Cameron Phillips" was a one show alias, she's predominantly referred to as "Cameron Baum" in multiple shows now. — 76.66.195.63 (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support: Naming conventions suggest that the most commonly-used name for an individual should be used as the title. While "Cameron Phillips" has been used in publicity materials outside the show, within the show itself, which, by definition, has to be the primary source, the "Phillips" surname was only used in the pilot episode and, as far as I can remember, has never been mentioned since. Since that time, she's gone with "Baum", following the alias assumed by the Connors and, while I know that we should never assume anything on Wikipedia, it seems likely that, should that alias change, she would go with whatever the new name was. There's certainly no evidence that "Phillips" was anything more than an assumed surname, much as "Baum" is now. With Cameron being the only consistently used name, it seems reasonable that the article name should be altered to reflect that. --Tailkinker (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Of course... ---< Nicht Nein! (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

As mentioned in a previous section above, season two credits list her as "Cameron" 76.66.195.63 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Samson & Delilah[edit]

In "Samson and Delilah", Cameron sustains significant damage... John substantially repairs her chip in the field and reactivates her. It's very unlikely that John could be able to repair such a highly advanced chip. Might be the reason why we could only see him cleaning it. --StYxXx (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't know that, and have to go on what the episodes give us and what reviewers say afterward. You should seek out a reliable source that addresses the unlikelihood of John being able to effect such repairs. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reprogrammed?[edit]

"At some point, she is captured and reprogrammed by John and/or his subordinates to serve as their ally"

Has it been established that she was reprogrammed? So far, we assume that's the only way machine join the humans, but in Today is the Day part 2, it's revealed that they asked the t1000/1001 if it would join the humans. And earlier, when Cameron was interrogating Allison Young, she said there are some machines that want peace. It's logical to assume she was lying, but given that they do sometimes ask machines to join them, it seems less far fetched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespyofcharles (talkcontribs) 07:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Cameron herself said she was reprogrammed and her memories scrubbed in "Dungeons & Dragons." Peptuck (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, spoilers are not used in Wikipedia; if you are here, you are all growns-up enough to know you are going to get an encyclopedic overview of the subject.
Secondly, its been mentioned several times in the series that she has been re-programmed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"It" versus "Her/she"[edit]

I understand that by virtue of being a machine, Cameron is to be considered an "it". However, Cameron is a cyborg (half human) and therefore can be fairly referred to as a "she". The actors, director, writers, characters, and pretty much James Cameron himself refers to Terminators as "he's" and "she's". She is a work of fiction, and this fiction recognises her as both female and anthropomorphic (spelling?). So referring to her as an "it" is questionable at this point. I think we should keep an open mind here. (This is in response to an edit conflict) VeranCorvain (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, she is not "half-human"; she is a metal combat chassis with an organic skin covering. That isn't half-anything. If you wear a William Shatner mask, does that make you half-William Shatner?
Secondly, when Cameron made these largely uncited statements, he likely made them for convenience' sake; we can afford to be more encyclopedic. Cameron isn't femal, we cannot call it such. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
From an out-of-universe perspective, the character is undeniably feminine. She has an outward appearance of being female, characters in the show call her female (even Cromartie and John Henry call Cameron "she" when they are well aware what she really is), and, as stated above, she's called a female by the directors, writers, and cast. Hell, Arcayne, you yourself called Cameron female in the section just above this one. So its up in the air.
I think what needs to be done is that we have to define what "gender" in this case really means. If Cameron isn't female, then what does that mean for other fictional mechanical/artificial characters, like say, Cortana, or the Major? One is a feminine AI construct, another is an entirely artifical female-styled body containing a human brain of a female. Both are expressly referred to as female, as they both have female gender identities, even though neither of them are truely female in the biological sense. At what point do we draw the line at gender identity for feminine yet artificial characters here?
We need to answer that question before we make a judgment call on this. Does Wikipedia have a specific policy relating to gender identity for fictional characters? Peptuck (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You ask good questions, ones for which I am not sure of the answer. They are worth pursuing answers to, and I think we should try to answer them. While looking around the wiki, I came across this statement at WP:WAF:

"The goal is to attain the greatest possible degree of accuracy in covering the topic at hand, which is also the basic rationale behind discouraging, e.g., unproportionally long plot summaries and in-universe writing."

Maintaining/attaining the most accurate point of view, that the character (and not the actor) is genderless, while at the same time avoiding the in-universe style of personalizing a robot as male or female, seems to note that the gender non-application seems on target. I'd add that the article is not damaged or intrinsically lessened in quality by the avoidance of gender descriptives when discussing the character. am fairly sure it isn't. And, looking over the examples you provided, could be altered to provide the same engaging content without gender specifics? I don't know, myself. IAR, and all that, this is what I did here and in other articles, with no loss of value, etc. Staying out of the storyworld and avoiding the shorthand used by those trying to describe something , and almost certainly not intending to create encyclopedic content seems prudent. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Then answer me this: can you read a sentence that refers to Cameron as an "it", visualize her, and not cringe slightly? Like you know it doesn't sound right? Peptuck makes a valid point here: Cameron is, by all accounts, a female entity. It doesn't matter if her bones are made of metal or her nervous system is made of wires. Or even her brain being made from silicon and software. Within the realm of fiction she is female. Simple as that. Terminators have no less reason to be assigned genders than an alien species. Unless you want to argue the definition of life... VeranCorvain (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Cameron should definitely be referred to as a she. When the real name of Thirteen (House) was finally revealed on House to be Remy Hadley, the article stayed with "Thirteen" for the title because the character continued to be referred to as "Thirteen" by the characters on the show and the show's staff. I don't see why this can't apply here.
Cameron is referred to as a "she" by several of the show's characters regularly and by staff of the show. The only characters on the show that refer to Cameron as an "it" are those with a particularly high level of distrust for the machines, most notably Derek, Jesse, and Sarah on a few occasions. The very fact that we titled this article "Cameron (Terminator)", rather than use the model numbers like on the other pages (don't even think of giving me the wussy "we don't know the model number yet" argument), shows that we are identifying the female outside and not the metal inside. It is also notable that making the Terminator for the series a gynoid was central to the conception, and her female outside is central to the drama between her and John. What did Cameron say to John to try to stop him from removing her chip? "I love you, John". And it worked. And of course there are the prolific number of shots of her and John lying in bed together with John looking an unbelievably high level of uncomfortable. kingdom2 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, what part of that argument posited that the robot was a chick? I wasn't opting for the "wussy" alternative of using a model number (thought we still don't have one, and any such edit w/out citation would get stomped into paste almost immediately). This is an encyclopedia, and we don't romanticize fictional characters. Yes, we call our cars and boats, by names and even assign genders. Does that make your Toyota a dude, or your sloop a lady? It doesn't. As an editor in an encyclopedia, we are supposed to try to remember that.
As well, that Cameron acts like a female is part of the tension of the series; a fiction that it is a killer robot from the future, and yet it acts like a sister, a chick, etc. That no one else in the series (not even an unwitting Lothario extra) hits on her - and remember, we are talking about something that looks like Summer Glau! - implicitly suggests that the sexual tension is for John alone to endure. That he is the one who has to reconcile his teenage hormones with what he knows to be the truth.
Yes, various production staff refer to the character as a female as a convenient semantic shorthand. As an encyclopedia we are not afforded that same lazy smudging of accuracy. We are to describe the subject of the article accurately. The article isn't about Allison from Palmdale, or Summer Glau. It is about a machine feigning humanity, as per its assignment, It's rather important for us all to keep that in mind. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It is about a machine feigning humanity, as per its assignment, It's rather important for us all to keep that in mind. - Yes, but what you keep overlooking is that fact that she is a gendered machine. Can you strip off her flesh and properly fit a male's skin to her? Maybe, though she'd be a very disproportioned male. Her endoskeleton, her entire design, is based upon the female form. Her programming is feminine. Unlike the T-1000, she isn't a shapeshifter. She is a female model Terminator and has all of the appropriate programming and characteristics. And you keep citing the encyclopediac rules of accuracy, which is essential for articles containing real-life persons and/or machines. But this is a fictional (i.e. non-reality existent) character. She doesn't fall under the strictures of real-life accuracy because Cameron isn't real. If you are to stick to your belief that she absolutely must not be genderized, then I invite you to visit every single article about fictional cyborgs/machines/synthetic lifeform and change them too. Then see what happens. VeranCorvain (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
But we aren't really concentrating on those articles right now, VeranCorvain; we are focusing on this one. Look more closely at your own arguments: 'it's endoskeleton was designed', 'it's design', 'it's programming' - you are anthropomorphizing. Underneath the pretense, it is a machine. Indeed it was designed to look and act like a female, but it isn't. Barring some Pinnochio-like miracle, it isn't going to magically become female.
As well, the argument that the rules of accuracy do not apply here because we are discussing a fictional character, falls a sizable distance behind what Wikipedia is supposed to do. The standards of accuracy for the encyclopedia are a constant; it's kinda part of the definition of an encyclopedia. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In my previous comment I was trying to bring up a naming-practice precedent rather than continue the hypothetical gender argument. The fact is, though, that no one refers to her as an "it". No one goes out of their way in regular conversation, or in regular commenting, to call Cameron an "it". Oh, and by the way Arcayne, Cameron was asked to the prom by a kid from John's school in the season one finale, so yes others around her are aware of her hotness. The problem is that she is rarely around anyone who doesn't know she's a machine.
Not only was the femininity central to the conception of the character, Cameron is a cyborg, which by definition is "an organism that has both artificial and natural systems", and Cameron's "natural systems" are very clearly female, and as such she should be referred to as a "she". kingdom2 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Last point first, then. Skin, hair and eyeballs are not gender-specific. What you are determining as female (and I am guessing you're sole arguments for this particular argument pretty much consist of pointing to Cameron's chest and declaring 'See?') is not a descriptive of female. As well, you are right about an extra asking her to prom - one person asking one question of her in forty-two episodes. That said, you rather helped prove my argument. Thanks, Kingdom2. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I would probably point further south. An shown in the episode "Vick's Chip", a Terminator can have a sexual relationship if the mission requires it. And no, it was not an extra. He was a recurring character by the name of Morris, who showed regular romantic interest in Cameron in every episode he was featured in. And no, at no point did I "prove" your argument. I have provided examples, evidence, and precedent for my point, and all you have given me is "she came out of a factory and therefore cannot have a vagina!" Cameron can reasonably be referred to as a "she" or and "it", and I am siding with "she", because it is the most commonly used version. kingdom2 (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Point all you wish, Kingdom, but you are assuming facts not in evidence. In deed, what you are actually doing is synthesizing that because Vick presumably was capable of sexual acts, that Cameron is. The first part of the argument is an assumption, that Vick did in fact engage is such. The second part of the argument is that Cameron's design allows for it. Both are unsubstantiated, and fail our verifiability policy even before the discussion of synthesis can arise. So the argument that is truly in place is that, as Cameron is a machine, whether it was designed with an approximation of female sexual characteristics does not render it female. By such an argument, artificial vaginas and RealDolls are female as well.
As well, the argument about Morris is moot, as he is entirely absent from the second season. Not really sure how that tangent got started, but it isn't germane.
Those argument bits dispensed with, your sole remaining argument appears to be that the usage of the female descriptor is what everyone else uses, and just don't like it. Unfortunately, this personal point of view isn't really acceptable in an encyclopedia. Fortunately, we are an encyclopedia, and we endeavor to use the accurate term, and not the popular (and wholly inaccurate) one. Cameron is a machine; one designed to approximate a female, agreed, but a machine nonetheless. Machines are genderless, and the application of gender is akin to doing so for a car, boat or guitar. This logic seems inescapable and, as an encyclopedia, we aren't allowed to import our own feelings of - how did you put it?, oh yes, "hotness" - regarding an inanimate object. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
But Cameron isn't an "inanimate object", nor is she a simple machine like a car or a boat. In fact, calling a sentient intelligence a machine is innaccurate. The infobox itself lists her species as Cyborg. Given the entire concept and bedrock purpose of the Terminator, she cannot possibly be a machine. In fact, the franchise has gone out of its way to point out their "humanity". But I ask you this: Marcus Wright (Terminator in T4) was supposedly a human before becoming a Terminator. Is he now any less male than he was as a human? His body is mechanical. Does this make him a genderless machine? I would vote "no". Cameron may be a synthetic lifeform, but note the keyword here: lifeform. Any lifeform can have a gender, even simple cells. Just because we're organic, doesn't mean we automatically form the basis of everything around us. Life and genders are found in other areas beside the organic. Cameron is NOT a male Terminator, so she must be female. It's how she was created. VeranCorvain (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but but you are incorrect, which often means that youe assumptions are incorrect. I admire your passion, but the majority of your argument assumes fact not in evidence. We cannot cite T4 because it isn't out yet; therefore any argument used from that source is practically a dice toss. We aren't here to debate what is and isn't life; that article is elsewhere. We are here to discuss the descriptor used for what is essentially a very clever wind-up toy, even if it is a complex one.Boats are pretty complicated machines, as are cars. The complexity of machine is not a discriminator of machine or non-machine. Either way, the lifeform argument lapses into the metaphysical and wobbles on the edge of speculation, and one which cannot be supported, even were this a forum, which it most certainly is not. Cameron is neither a male or female Terminator - it is a Terminator, period. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole Vick thing was just a desperate attempt to find an argument that you might be willing to consent to. You fail to see that you are also incorrect. While she may be a "very clever wind-up toy", she is a wind-up toy that, by definition, is part human, and therefore there is no clear cut answer for determining gender, no matter how much you want there to be. Not only that, the character was created with the idea that she would be a "she" at the forefront of this conception. Not only that, even if you do take issue with the fact that she is not technically a female, that does not eliminate the fact that she is referred to as a "she" by the show's characters, writers, and viewers en masse, semantic shortcut or not.
My last point I made is an attempt to view this debate as a naming-practice issue, rather than a "what is gender?" issue, which you took for gibberish the first time I typed it and ignored the second time. As for another precedent from this view, the Faith Lehane article was moved to Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) because, while the last name "Lehane" was created by the show's creator, it wasn't created until seven years after the character was introduced, which was three years after the show went off the air. So, while the character is technically "Faith Lehane", because the public at large refer to her as simply "Faith", that was the title chosen. "Lehane" was also only ever used in the article when referring to itself.
My point is that I am not trying to argue that Cameron is a female. I am trying to argue that Cameron is a "she". There is a very big difference. One implies breasts, ovaries, child bearing, and a vagina, and the other is just a pronoun. A pronoun that, for hundreds of years, was used to refer to boats, by the way. kingdom2 (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
(←dent) Okay, I guess I haven't been as clear as I thought, and for that I am sorry. Terminators are only colloquially considered cyborgs because they have an organic covering. It is not required for functioning; and serves the same function as a Halloween disguise; the definition of a cyborg pretty much relies upon an augmented human, not a camouflaged robot. But hey, some folk use the term, so I can roll with it; just so we are clear, they really aren't part human at all. They have organic components that allow them to approximate humanity, not necessarily human components.
I am glad that you clarified the nature of your disagreement, Kingdom. While I didn't think of it as "gibberish", I saw it as off-target. That said, i still disagree with ascribing a female pronoun to Cameron. Yes, ships are still referred to as she (points I made before), but the usage of that pronoun is one borne out of an emotional or sentimental attachment. We aren't writing about Cameron in that way. Or at least, we aren't supposed to be. I feel that it's an in-universe descriptor, and not as useful when describing a machine - akin to referring to a Dell computer as a 'she'. And since the article is not damaged by the replacement of the female pronoun (and is additionally more accurate), I think there isn't anything wrong. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I give up, but I still maintain that the clear feminine intent of show's staff when crafting this character and the colloquial prevalence of "she" should not be ignored. Note that this comment does not indicate consensus, just loss of interest in a debate that seemed like it would be straightforward. kingdom2 (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Which leaves me to pick up the slack, I suppose. Since you're so predispositioned towards refering to Cameron as only a machine or a piece of technology; how about you remember that certain cords and wires have "male" and "female" components to them. So Cameron is a machine (a cord), but she's also a machine (cord) with female components. Just as Vick was a machine (cord) with male components. Your theory regarding the cyborg terminology suggests that a cyborg is only a cyborg if its organic components support the cybernetic components. Well, Cameron is an infiltrator. She wasn't built as a footsoldier, she was built to infiltrate human society as a female assassin. Her purpose is very specific. She cannot fulfill her purpose, her design, her entire reason for being, without her outer covering (which can only ever be female). So in essence, she does need her organic components to compliment her cybernetics. This makes her a cyborg. Which, when combined with the cord analogy above, supports that she can be referred to as a "she", despite whether or not you believe her to be female. VeranCorvain (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a flawed argument, VC, not including every single, possible reference to Cameron being a "she" (yeah, I noticed that). This is not Philosophy 101, nor is it Metaphysics of Gender 220. This is not hard to suss out. Cameron is a machine. Just a like RealDoll is a machine. Just like a computer is a machine. Just like a lawnmower, car, cruise ship and bicycle is a machine. the tendency to anthropomorphize is only human, but we are an encylopedia. we do not refer to the QE2 or a '67 Chevy as a he or she, 'cuz they ain't. Arguing about male and female "cords" is flawed as well; you have female/male parts to your chromosomes and psyche - does that make you a chick/dude? No, it makes you one gender. Cords do not have gender, except where they have been given semantical tags as such. It doesn't matter what Cameron were designed to do; task does not determine gender. It is a machine. Machines do not have gender. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow. That was good. I'm switching sides. kingdom2 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Traitor! (lol). Okay Arcayne, if you change this particular article, you must then change every single article on this entire wiki where your rule should apply (regarding fictional sentient cyborgs), otherwise you're not upholding the conditions. Good luck with that. I'm sure there aren't too many out there... right? o.O VeranCorvain (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Folk said the same thing about WP:SPOILER. [[Laozi|Lao-Tzu) once said, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step". This is one of the first steps. More will come. Feel free to buy me drinks and Pocky whilst I trod it. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Chocolate or strawberry? kingdom2 (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Beggars can't be choosers. Either/or? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Life is really too short to argue about this in depth, but I will stop to say: this is absolutely silly. Gender is a social construct. The standard thing to do is assign he to characters with a male appearance and she to characters with a female appearance. Are you planning on going across Wikipedia and finding every article about a fictional android to change the he/she to "it"? What about supernatural entities or spirits that aren't meaningfully male or female in a biological sense, but have a human appearance?

Like I said, I'm not going to waste any more time on this argument, but I felt compelled to point out how silly this is. --GenkiNeko (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this, it should be 'she', end of story (92.251.255.16 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Help with a citation, please[edit]

Hello friends,

If you've noticed, citation 5, I believe, is a podcast. However, the link is only to the page the podcast was formerly on. I have an mp3 file of the podcast in question (from much earlier), but I don't know how to link to it from the article. Could I possibly enlist someone's help in doing so? Thanks :)

The no erz (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind; I think I got it.
The no erz (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The original link works for me. I've restored it. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics kerfuffle[edit]

Some back and forth appears to be occurring in the article section Characteristics. I thought that both sides, coming here to talk it out, is going to be a lot more effective than the slim communique allowed by edit summaries. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this edit was wholly unnecessary. The status quo version (aka, the original one: this version had existed for almost a month) is supposed to be used during a content dispute, not the longest version. Your revert certainly didn't help the situation at all and was borderline disruptive. If the anon returned for a third time to perform the revert instead, I would indeed have taken the discussion to the talk page. Anyways, as for my justification, all you need to do is read my edit summary: "it's a bunch of poorly sourced synthesis, original research, and excessive in-universe details not critical to the reader's understanding." Artichoker[talk] 02:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't think I need to remind you that discussion doesn't begin after the third revert but the first one - at least, if you are looking to keep both editors equanimous. I mean, seriously, who actually thinks that suddenly one of the editors are going to slap their forehead and say "Oh, that's what they meant!" Edit-warring is one or both of the people thinking they are smarter/more clued in than the other person. That isn't conducive to peaceful interaction, come the third revert. Interrupting the process now might seem disruptive to you, and you would be right - I am disrupting the process of agitation, and getting folk to come here and solve the problem, instead of trying to serve one another, all the while moving closer to the electric fence. Sorry if that interfered with the inevitable game plan that was brewing.
Now, you have stated your opinion that its a bunch of poorly source OR, etc. Let the other guy weigh in. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Arcayne. Artichoker changes reasons for deleting the section therefore his explanations are not credible. First he says that he deletes it because it is written somewhere else (which was basicly not true), then that it needs sourcing. He has some hidden agenda here. His real reasons for deleting it apparently have not been revealed. The series itself is the sourcing of the description. It does not need any other sourcing. This article is not about the film (the series), but about Cameron, therefore it is not original research basing description of Cameron on the series. The film (the series) is the source, and in the description, which Artichoker have been deleting it is clearly noted from which episode the information source come from. It is much easier to destroy, than to create, you have been trying Artichoker to destroy valuable input of somebody to the description of Cameron's behaviour in various episodes in the series. Perhaps the description needs some new input, some edition, but not deletion.--92.11.252.197 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with keeping the section. As the ONLY terminator in a multibillion dollar franchise to exhibit these characteristics it is surely notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, lets remember to comment on the edits, and not the editor. Assuming the worst of another editor is not going to help matters. At all. Look at wehat Artichoker said in his post above; at no point does he address any "hidden agenda" on the part fo the folk reverting. We'd all do well to follow that example. Additionally, remember that text gets edited ruthlessly (tough politely); its part of Wikipedia. The section is overlong, and rife with too many examples, whereas much of it could be summarized.
Maybe take the time to figure out what is wheat and wha is chaff (iow, what is useful and what is not). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The anon editors are correct, I do have a very specific agenda here on Wikipedia. It is to improve articles, and sometimes that process means keeping them clean of cruft, unsourced synthesis, and other nonsense. So if that huge section is going to stay, then the "Characteristics" section needs a significant trim (needs to be reduced to about half size.) In any case, I didn't mean to get caught up in this. I believe I originally found this browsing on Wikipedia and then made the original edit, and somehow it got on to my talk page. This article isn't in my area of interest, so I believe I'm done here. I have said all that I needed to say. Artichoker[talk] 16:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that Wikipedia suffers a lot from unnecesary deletions. It discourages people to edit it, it makes some articles too boring, with too little information. There is no reason to treat Wikipedia like every other encyclopedia (particularly the paper ones). Wikipedia is unique and should remain unique, not only because of how and by whom it is edited, but also because of its content, which can and sometimes should be logner more elaborate than in paper encyclopedias. After all not everyone must read entire article. For some summary will be enough, for some others only some sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.252.197 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I won't address Artichoker's comments, as he has stated he is done with the topic, but I will concur in suggesting that the section is indeed too long, and could do with a great deal of trimming, maintaining a focus on what is useful information to better understand the subject, and that which is of secondary, tertiary or trivial note. In response to the anon, Wikipedia is unique, but not in how it resembles encyclopedias. While we might have articles of Pokemon, set indices on those who have portrayed Batman and other pop cultural subjects (whereas Brittanica, etc. would likely avoid), we are still constrained by having articles that are brief, concise and to the point. Articles are supposed to be an overview of the subject, not in-depth studies of the same. It is the reason we have sections providing for 'external links' and 'for further reading'. People who want more can be directed as to where to get more. Wikipedia is not a one-stop shop, and should never be confused with such. Expansion should be based upon general need and reliable citations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In the case of a serial character it often hard to find any other in depth source of its characteristic apart from the actual serial, so in this case wikipedia remains the only written in depth source of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.252.197 (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
That should suggest something to you, anon. If those people tasked with writing articles and reviews regarding the show do not write about these things, we don't get to, either. Our impression of how important these things are is specifically not allowed. While connecting elements from the program are allowed, they cannot be used to make specific claims.
Do me a favor: take a good, hard look over the contested stuff again, and try to cut or merge those things that you can cite to a source outside of the series. If you cannot cite it, you are going to find a lot of resistance to keeping it. Wikipedia - by design - cannot be the sole in-depth source of anything - it works off of external citations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
If you deleted everything that wasn't sourced or citations couldn't be found for, you'd delete half of all Wikipedia content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't valid. Artichoker[talk] 15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Though the heavens fall... - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to justify keeping the section, I was simply making a passing comment on your claim that "If you cannot cite it, you are going to find a lot of resistance to keeping it."

Arbitrary break[edit]

Clearly, the emerging consensus is that the entire information isn't going to remain. Ou best bet at this point i to find a way to trim the section drastically. A good way to do this is try and rely on that information which can be cited externally (ie, not citing the episode). This seems the more encyclopedic route. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. However, I'm no expert on this subject, so someone familiar with the character should do the trimming. Artichoker[talk] 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone with DVD commentaries would be helpful.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)