Talk:Chloe Sullivan

Other media

Unless there's conclusive evidence from a reputable source that the blonde named "Chloe Sullivan" in the Stardock videogame is based on the Chloe Sullivan in Smallville it cannot be included here. To interpret as such as WP:OR, explicitly forbidden here. Also, message board claims by fan are explicitly forbidden by policy by WP:RS. Also, External links are not citations, which is necessary by WP:CITE because Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, per WP:VERIFY. Saying they are the same thing effectively accuses the game manufacturer of possible copyright violations, since Chloe Sullivan is an original creation owned by DC Comics. That's a pretty serious claim. - Debuskjt 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at this:

• The name is the same
• The appearance seems to be similar, although the one stylized image given could match a lot of other people
• The character has a 10/10 score in "media bias", a measure of the media's friendliness towards them, as well as in comeliness and stamina, and has high ratings in integrity, intelligence and charisma

I certainly think it is reasonable to say that fans have made the assumption that the characters are related. It is quite likely that the programmers were having a little fun when they put that character in - they are one of a few characters who do not appear to be well-known politicians in real life. However, to the best of my knowledge the game makes no specific reference to Smallville in relation to the character, nor is any character background given that might infringe on anyone's copyright. GreenReaper 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And how does that not fall within the bounds of WP:OR? Wikipedia aims for verifiability, not accuracy. Verifiability requires reputable sources. Since the game doesn't make the claim that they're related, and the game's creators haven't made that claim, you can't assume they're related here because of Wiki policy. Google for "'The Political Machine' 'Chloe Sullivan' Smallville". Most of the entries are unsourced copies of Wikipedia; the rest are users asking if they're related.

Let me make it very clear. My issue isn't whether or not that character is or isn't based on Chloe Sullivan from Smallville. I don't care. If it truly is, it would be good information to have in the article. However, that claim has to be sourced reliably. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. - Debuskjt 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I ever say or imply that it wasn't original research? My main point was that there was nothing in the game showing that it was definitely intended to be the same character. I was arguing for you, not against you. GreenReaper 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just snappy after last nights reverting. - Debuskjt 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

At the time the game was made, the character was not owned by DC comics. As well, it's obvious that the charcters are meqant to be the same by common sense. Type Chloe Sullivan into any search engine, and tell me, just how many results will coem up as anyone other than the Smallville character. The name is a unique name, and it could only have come from from the characters being one and the same. OR policy does not rule out common sense.- TheGreenFaerae

TheGreenFaerae is right. The buyout of the character only occured recently. The use of the name, in combination with the facial recognition feature, including simlar hardo and smile, is proof enough. According to the standards you are attempting to hold this page to, a character named Clark Kent would not be able to be proven that a link would exist between the game character and the comic book character. When a name is unique enough and famous enough, having the same name is sufficent evidence that two characters are indeed the same. For another example of this in action, in the movie Runaway Jury there was a juror who was a gothic woman named Lydia Deets. Observers easily noticed this as a tribute to the Beetlejuice character. Appearance and having a similar, uncommon, famous name is more than sufficent evidence to prove relation. To put it simply, if a casual observer recognzes at first glance that the characters are the same, it is obvious that they are the same. And, FYI Debuskjt, reverting of obivously valid information on mere technicalities classifies as bullying under Wikipedia policy, and can result in disciplinary action. TheSonofSerenity 10:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not bullying, and the same argument works in reverse. TheGreenFaerae is pushing for an obvious bias for that game without a reputable source over Wiki policy without attempting to address acknowledged concerns about Wiki policy violations. - Debuskjt 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The character was owned by The WB before it was owned by DC Comics. A blonde named Chloe isn't uncommon, and the last name Sullivan is very common. That alone isn't enough to make that kind of leap here. Even if they're related, there's no reliable source. Revert warring is also not vandalism. Classifying it as such is a violation of WP:GF. If done again, I will file a Wikiquette. Now, specifically, Wiki says these things that your edit is violating:

• "Articles may not contain... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." - Stating that a blonde named Chloe Sullivan in a video game must be the Chloe from Smallville without a reliable source is analysis and synthesis of published data. WP:NOR
• "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." WP:RS - Since your only source is fan speculation on a message board, it's not reliable. And without a reliable source...
• "In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite." WP:CITE

Together, that puts your assertion in violation of all three Wiki content policies. Your edit is also badly written, per WP:AWT. "Most players have assumed" is obvious Weasel Word, and gives it bias in violation of WP:NPOV. We cannot ignore these policies. Until these issues are addressed, I don't see why it's pertinent to allow. And you have yet to defend it here against Wiki policy. - Debuskjt 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

i jsut foudn a website that scans U.S. census records for names, and out of the United States population (~300 million people), there are just nine people with the name Chloe Sullivan, ie m,atching first and last names. And I'm willing to be that none of them look anything like Allison Mack. The anme Chloe might not be uncommon, and the name Sullivan might not be uncommon, but in combination, the full anem of Chloe Sullivan, the name is very unique, and any reference to the name with a face that looks anything close to Allisdon Mack, quite obviously has to be a homage. I never said it was nto a copyright violation. If you will ntoe, i said it is nto apparant if it was authorized or not. there is no evidence saying permission was or was nto given to use the character. And since she would have to be the only playable character not linked to someone famous for it to not be her, Simple common sense is a reliable enough source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreenFaerae (talk • contribs)

I understand that, but Wikipedia is not the place to synthesize data. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. I'm not arguing against your deductive logic. I'm trying to tell you that such an argument in a Wiki article is clearly in violation of Wiki's No Original Research policy, and therefore cannot be included in Wikipedia unless it is sourced reliably. No Original Research is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. We don't set forth new arguments here. You need a game magazine review, statement from the game publisher or creator--something within the bounds of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources before it can be included. Your common sense is not verifiable. Encyclopedia's must be fact checked. I'm not sure what part of that you aren't understanding. - Debuskjt 23:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found on what would otherwise be considered unreliable. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included. So how is this unnaceptabl, again?

You just posted it yourself: "Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources." That policy is there to allow the inclusions of websites like TV.com or celebrity gossip in say... TV Guide... as sources. And "the best material" is qualified with "when a substantial body of material is available." There is no substantial body of material here. Once again, not sure where you're confused here. The exclusion of bulletin boards as reliable sources is explicitly listed twice: once in generality, once in reference to popular culture and fiction articles. - Debuskjt 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

but the snapshot is nto excluded. The snjapshot is sufficent evidence for this situation, with my reasoning.

Interpreting the snapshot of a cartoon blonde as the Chloe Sullivan from Smallville is Original Research. It's the "unpublished analysis... of published... data." It's prohibited by Wikipedia policy. - Debuskjt 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

and anylasis do nto have to be from reliable sources with regards to works of fiction or popular culture, as is the case with this fictional character.

Analysis has to come from outside of Wikipedia. It has to be sourced. It cannot be solely the editor's opinion, ever, and it can not be backed up by posts to bulletin boards, ever. Especially ones that never definitively even conclude that the Chloe Sullivan from the game is indeed Chloe Sullivan from Smallville. You cannot post an image of a stylized cartoon and say, "It looks like her." in a Wiki article. This has been explained to you multiple times and point by point citations of policy have been given to you. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive collection of information, despite what you may think, I'm done discussing this until after mediation, as you are willfully going in circles to push your POV on this article. You've been given more than enough time to find something reliable on the issue, and the truth of the matter is that you can't. And I know, because before I removed your edit *I* looked myself. - Debuskjt 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that he's confusing "In Other Media" with "References in Other Media" -- e.g. there's a difference between Superman in Superman: The Animated Series which is "In Other Media" and a parody of Superman such as Captain Hero appearing in Drawn Together which is an example "References in Other Media". The Chloe character in the game, if anything, is a parody/reference. DonQuixote 13:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. That is probably part of the issue. But even then, the best we could say is that "A fan site thinks the Chloe Sullivan in The Political Machine may be a reference to Chloe Sullivan from Smallville.[1]" And while that wording/citation would be infinitely better than what's in the article now, it's still pretty bad weasel word, and shaky in regards to reliable sources. I just don't see anything when Googling for "'Political Machine' Smallville Chloe" that really stands up to Wiki policy, since it's all blog-style fan sites and web forums. We would be letting the content in the article to appease a niche POV, and four pages of web hits isn't exactly WP:NOTABLE. - Debuskjt 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i didnt relaize there was a difference between references in other media and in other media. I wholeheartedly agree that it should only be a reference in other media. But to deny that it is a reference is pure idiocy, and the continual denial of this fact is nothing more than bullying on Debuskjt's part. It is notable by proxy. The game, wyhile not a major release, or a major sales hit, was released by Stardock, a subsidiary of UbiSoft. the game itself is notable. The reference is obviously true. Why would you need a notable or reliable reference for a atstement like a clear sky is blue.

I think that if it is not clearly intended as a direct reference from a good, published source, then we should simply state that there is a character with that name in the game and leave it at that. This is unquestionably true. Whether or not the character is meant to is uncertain, and so we shouldn't suggest that it is or that it is not. People will draw the appropriate conclusion - that it might be a spoof. I have updated the text and replaced the picture with a direct screenshot. GreenReaper 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

works for me. Nic screenshot byh the way. I couldn't figure out hwo to do a screenshot, so thats why i used my camera. I'm nto sure spoof is the word, as it is nto a parody, but that's jsut semantics. Good job. -the Green Faerae

Your analogy is entirely false. The sky is blue is a fact. You can look up at the sky and see it. Stating that a blonde cartoon character named Chloe Sullivan is the same Chloe Sullivan (or even a reference to her) in Smallville is an opinion, and a non-notable one until a reputable source actually puts it forth. Don't conflate fact with your opinion, please. And without a direct statement from Stardock, there's no way you can ever know it isn't coincidence. Not only that, but it's a liability, as stated earlier. You are basically suggesting that Stardock used the intellectual property of The WB/DC Comics without permission. Do you realize what kind of situation that can put Wiki in? The fact that you treat this so flippantly suggests that you don't. And the game is notable, yes. That's why it has an article. Not sure how that means it should be mentioned in this one. The opinion that the Chloe Sullivan's are related is not necessarily notable. And the current phrasing, while a good attempt by GreenReaper to bring some peace to this, is a violation of WP:NPOV, so I plan to pursue this discussion through mediation or an RfC if that fails. Finally, accusing me of bullying is a violation of WP:GF. I've already warned you once against it. You really, really need to take the time to familiarize yourself with Wiki policy before you make accusations. - Debuskjt 04:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The ame WP:GF policy you yourself are in violation of? And to say there is no way they could have any connection whatsoever is like saying the sky could not be blue. There is no NPOV violation. Especially not after GreenReaper revised it. You may disagrere wioth my assumption that they are the same is one thing. Your refusal to accept any rteference at all is bullying. That is not a persoanl attack, it is simkple fact. Pleae note that you are the onyl one who seems to be unable to accept any sort of reference at all. You want to file any sort of grieveance, go ahead. I am trying to be cooperative. I don't mind my words being changed, or the way the reference is persented. But this is obviously the same character at best, and at worst a spoof. To hide the fact that the possibility exists is itself a NPOV violation, and it entails the emotion of facts. And you want to knwo why I callk you a bully? Because you fit the definition of a Wikipedia bully. Anything you disapprove of must go. This article is you personal pet, and god forbid somebosdy else try to work on it. The major thing is you are unwilling to compromise. I would follow that WP:GF link you put in place to the humor page WP:BF. While humorous, it describes well what a violator of GF policies are. If you want me to stop calloing you a bully, stop acting like one. You don't have to admit I'm right, but at least be willing to meet me halfway.TheGreenFaerae 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if I can do this point by point...

1. How is this article my pet project? The vast majority of its current form was written by User:Johnnyfog without objection from me. I was only tangentially involved in the row over the Chlois Theory, and only then because I objected to certain edits that (surprise) didn't meet Wiki policy on original research.
2. You made no edits to your original edit after I pointed out policy issues, though I stopped reversions to mediate. I don't see that as a willingness to compromise. You have yet to even acknowledge that there are problems with policy. However, you have now called me a bully, a vandal, controlling, and accused me of deliberately attempting to hinder any development to this page. Am I not to take those as personal attacks?
3. I have repeatedly stated that my issue isn't with the logic you use to argue that they are related. My problem is that we currently have no way to state that which isn't a violation of Wiki policy and isn't a legal liability.
   1. Herein lies the issue with GreenReaper's edit. It presents the facts about the Chloe Sullivan in The Political Machine and asks the reader to make up their mind. And it's sourced through the photograph, all of which is fine. The problem, though, is having it in a section called "Possible spoofs" (or even in this article), still suggests that it is a reference, not a coincidence (this is called weasel word), with no evidence to support it, based on an editor's analysis of the Chloe Sullivan in The Political Machine. That is original research (though it obviously wasn't his intent).

So fix it. I don't particularly like it, either. What should it be? GreenReaper 08:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Other uses of the name Chloe Sullivan" that doesn't attempt to present any claim about a relationship? - Debuskjt 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Another option is a disambig at the top of the page, like {{Otheruses4|the character Chloe Sullivan from [[Smallville (TV series)|Smallville]]|the blonde, female character by the same name in ''The Political Machine''|The Political Machine}} - Debuskjt 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I like the first better than the second, which would suggest to me that the character was not the same. Anyone else have any ideas? GreenReaper 19:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. For the record, I do think Stardock based their character on Smallville's Chloe Sullivan. That is my personal opinion; without any way to prove it definitively.
2. You have yet to put forth an alternate source (much less one that meets Wiki standards on reliability), so I don't see where I failed to accept any source at all. I made several suggestions of sources that would work if you could find them. What other source are you suggesting we use? Or are you still claiming a bulletin board is reliable despite is explicit exclusion as a reliable source twice in WP:RS and that a screenshot is a reliable source for your analysis?
3. I being the only other editor vocally pointing out policy violations in your edit doesn't amount to much. No one besides you is vocally contesting that it isn't, but I never saw you stop reverting the article to gain consensus before adding contested material back to the article. - Debuskjt 06:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

aslo your charge that shoudl the charcaters be the same, a copyright violation ahs taken place is assumption. There is nothign saying WB did not give permission for the character to be used. It is entirely possible that WB did license the character as a form of publicity. Also, it could fall under parody laws which protect against potential copyright violations in the name of parody. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Parodies are protected as seperate from the Spource Material in which they parody. it is the reason films like Scary Movie can exist. Yuo should study a bit of case law.

Didn't you claim that this wasn't a parody, since the presentation of Chloe Sullivan in the game isn't satirical? TPM also doesn't acknowledge the IP of WB/DC Comics, so it isn't licensed. - Debuskjt 06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Adn you want an RfC form, here you go: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debuskjt

You can see my response there. - Debuskjt 06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I'm tired of repeating myself. You know what you're doing is wrong. You know you're being a bully. Now I apologize for the mislabelled vandal remark. You weren't being a vandal, and I am sorry. But you are being a bully, that much is plain and sijmple. I am willing to compromise in that I'm willing to accept an edit similar to GreenReaper's. Your refusal to admit the possibility and accept it as an addition is where you are unwilling to compromise. But you know what. The facts are here, flat out and simple. I've filed the appropriate forms, so I'll let the powers that be decide. You know what you're doing is wrong, and I'll leave it at that. I hav3e better things to do than keep reiterating common sense arguments for somone who seems to lack it.

Debuskjt, maybe you should cool off fom it for a bit. You seem to be taking this a little personally, like having it is offensive to you. The page seems ine to me, and your argument against the use of possible spoofs, that it "suggests" something you find wrong, is your own interpretation, the same thing you have been condemning TheGreenFaerae for. While I would not agree with his original version, the use of Possible Spoofs as a replacement term works perfectly. The other stats of the character -low experinece, high comeliness, intelligence, and charisma, all seem to describe the Smallville character. It is quite obvious that it is a probable reference. Possile Spoof works better, hough, as NPOV avoidance. Personally, I think you should follow GreenReaper's advice on the RfC page and back off a bit. TheGreenFaerae should do the same. Leave it to the other editors to fix it if they agree that it is a bad addition. That's the beauty part of Wiki. If an addition is bad, it is not the job of a single editor to fix it. I would suggest that the both of you stop editing the aticle, remove your involvement, and leave it to other editors like GreenReaper, who have no personal investment.TheSonofSerenity 22:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? At this point I'm willig to accept that, if Debuskjt is. My main problem with it is he seems to be the only one fighting it. So I would be mroe than willing to lose my editing privelages if it would mean Debuskjt would stop his vendetta as well. I am willing to put it in thwe hands of other editors, if Debuskjjt is willign to do the same. TheGreenFaerae

Chloe and Lois's name

Chloe never officially used the name Lois Lane because the article is wrote was never published. Max Taylor was killed before the article went to print, so the name never got to be used by Chloe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.173.228.59 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

User:MMSullivan has pointed out[2] this page, which contains a quote by Allison Mack about her character's use of the pseudonym, so I have reverted the reversion of those edits. – mcy1008 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But Allison is wrong. If you watch the episode Delete it clearly shows that the article never got published hence she never wrote under the name. The producers of the show forget stuff all the time and I am pretty sure the actors do too. Rewatch DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.122.151 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Actress who play the character of Chloe Sullivan

would know better than anyone!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.158.119 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just like to point out that, although she didn't get to use it as her nom de plume (since it wasn't published), she did get to use it as here alias (at least one other person knew about it). DonQuixote 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A pseudonym is distinct from an allonym, which is the name of another actual person. An alias is also a pseudonym but Chloe using Lois's name wouldn't be an alias, but an allonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.228.59 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a distinction between pseudonym and allonym, but an alias is simply an assumed name--which is either. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alias DonQuixote 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So if it's still an alias even if she never got to use it, then we should keep it, I suppose... – mcy1008 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring the article

We basically start this article afresh. It goes into too much detail and doesn't come near good article standards or fully meet the criteria of WP:WAF. We should work towards splitting this into several neat sections "Characterization" (covering personality, journalism skills, Lois-isms, etc.) "Character history" (an overview of her fictional history in the series), "Powers and abilities" (should focus on her skills until Phantom airs) and "Romantic interests".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Meteor Freak

Meteor freak is similar to being a mutant. If you look up mutants from x-men they are classified under species as Human mutant so it makes sense to classify Chloe as a Meteor Freak because that is what she is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.173.228.60 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

You think too much! Where is your proof that Chloe is a Meteor freak! For all we know she only has Kryptonite in her bloodstream, she is not a Mutant, she is only infected! So Chloe is Kryptonite infected "Human" !! Meteor Freak is not a species! MMSullivan 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mutate, maybe.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In Progeny Moira power is that she can control other Meteor Freaks including Chloe. Al Gough, Steve Deknight and other writers of the show have stated that Chloe is a meteor freak.

Chloe is a Kryptonite infected " Human" !! "Krypto Freak" is not a Species! MMSullivan 15:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)