FANDOM


This is the talk page for Matriarch Benezia.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
chatroom, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Matriarch Benezia: proving that there is a market for a mass effect bra. --Tullis 18:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

ahahahahahahaha :D --kittenofdoom 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I could insert some corny comment about her having plenty of Mass to Effect or something, but I'll hold off :) Thanks Tullis, that comment made my day :) --LeathamGrant 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


ReligionEdit

How ironic that a teacher of religion would describe the horrors of indoctrination.

Ehh, I don't really get it, but anyway, the real thing is that "the light comment" really remarks on the fact that there is no "light at the end of the tunnel" and as such this game could be said to indirectly dispute all religions in existence. A bold and dangerous move, thankfully what they did was a bit more subtle than a simple blatant statement. As for me, I prefer to believe that when I die I don't just become nutrients for the Earth. --Delsana 04:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph SpoilerEdit

For the sake of clarity, this is the paragraph, occurring before the spoiler warning, under scrutiny:

"Matriarch Benezia was a very powerful asari biotic and spiritual leader among her people. She was also Liara T'Soni's mother, though the two had not spoken in years. When the evidence that proved Saren Arterius was responsible for the Eden Prime attack also proved Benezia was working alongside him, it surprised those who knew her, as Benezia's actions seemed to be completely out of character."

This passage contains numerous spoilers. It persistently uses the word "was" (cf."was a very powerful asari biotic" and "was Liara T'Soni's mother"), rather implying strongly that Benezia is dead. This indisputably reveals important, "spoiling" aspects of Mass Effect's plot.

Moreover, the paragraph states that evidence was eventually adduced that proved (presumably to the Council) that Saren was responsible for the Eden Prime attack. This constitutes yet another revelation of an important plot aspect that would be unknown to a new player who had played Mass Effect for even several hours, "speed running" notwithstanding.

The "the Eden Prime attack also proved that Benezia was working alongside him (Saren)" remark further reveals, rather obviously, that Benezia is in league with Saren. This is something which, as before, discloses an important plot aspect of Mass Effect, with a risk of "spoiling" the story for a player who has recently begun the game.

Thus I propose the paragraph be again amended to remove these spoilers. Arguably, the latter two spoilers are not so significant; however, the strong implication that Benezia dies is clearly unacceptable before the spoiler warning. If I do not receive a response to the foregoing soon, I will change the offending paragraph regardless; unannounced spoilers are more pressing than most article issues. --Heliossoileh 22:22, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to remove all that it would really help to propose what would go up in it's stead, rather than just saying it needs to be removed. I don't really think that the latter two need to be changed, and the first one is a simple enough thing to do. SpartHawg948 22:27, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
You will find in the article's history that I did proffer an alternative paragraph. It was, as is custom, removed without sufficient explanation. ;)--Heliossoileh 22:38, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
But it wasn't an alternative paragraph. It was just the removal of the stuff you mentioned above. We really need more than a one-sentence blurb for a major character like this. Also, JakePT DID offer an explanation, and it does seem sufficient to me. He could have just undid it w/ no explanation whatsoever. SpartHawg948 22:45, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid it was an alternative paragraph; note that I never maintained that my alternative was equal in length to the original paragraph. Commenting on what is "needed" is a red herring; you implied that I had not proposed an alternative, when I in fact had.
Your opining on the sufficiency of JakePT's explanation is, as politely as possible, of no interest to me. What he "could have done" is, of course, irrelevant to the sufficiency of the explanation in question. I now consider the matter closed.--Heliossoileh 23:27, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
...sigh. Such civility on the wiki these days. I merely maintained that simply removing content from an existing work does not an alternative make. I could take the Bible, remove everything but the books of Genesis and Revelations, and call it an alternative. Would it be? No, not really. And calling a valid point a red herring? Really? I was simply pointing out that we maintain a standard here for articles on prominent characters (ie Characters). I was hardly attempting to divert attention from the real issue, as the length and content of the intro paragraph are pretty inextricably intertwined. Regardless, I wouldn't call one of your points a "red herring" so I would ask the same courtesy in return. A modicum of civility goes a long way. As for my "opining on the sufficiency of JakePT's explanation", I guess it's ok for you to opine ("It was, as is custom, removed without sufficient explanation.") but not ok for me to present a different point of view. So much for the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Oh well, that silly notion had a good run, I guess. SpartHawg948 23:34, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Although I previously stated that I consider the matter closed, I believe responding to the above will be beneficial to you in your future interactions with other editors on this wiki and beyond. To begin:
"I merely maintained that simply removing content from an existing work does not an alternative make."
It appears you are using an idiosyncratic and ad hoc definition of "alternative". Whilst I did simply omit material in order to create my introductory passage (or less preferably, "paragraph"), the two passages in question are surely not identical. One may select one or the other to begin the relevant article; they are "alternatives"(conventionally defined). Whether they are “alternatives” as defined by yourself is of only academic interest. Perhaps by “alternative” you mean, "adequate alternative (conventionally defined)", or some cognate phrase; but this is presently an area of confusion.
"And calling a valid point a red herring? Really? I was simply pointing out that we maintain a standard here for articles on prominent characters (ie Characters). I was hardly attempting to divert attention from the real issue, as the length and content of the intro paragraph are pretty inextricably intertwined."
Recall that the original issue was whether my introductory passage constituted an alternative introductory passage. Consider the following:
"The fallacy of irrelevant thesis is an argument in which an attempt is made to prove a conclusion that is not the one at issue. This fallacy assumes the form of an argument that, while seeming to refute another's argument, actually advances a conclusion different from the one at issue in the other's argument...The fallacy goes by a variety of names: irrelevant conclusion, ignoring the issue...and red herring. The fallacy of irrelevant thesis derives its persuasive power from the fact that it often does prove a conclusion or thesis (though not the one at issue)...Not all fallacies of irrelevant thesis stem from a conscious effort to distort, however. Pressed for time, or lacking detachment, we may regard certain facts as relevant that we would otherwise recognize as beside the point." (S.Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 6th ed., New York: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2000, 190-191.)
You averred that:
"But it wasn't an alternative paragraph. It was just the removal of the stuff you mentioned above. We really need more than a one-sentence blurb for a major character like this."
This can be easily interpreted as an abbreviation of an argument somewhat like the following, where our universe of discourse is roughly "all the introductory passages to major character articles on the Mass Effect Wiki":
(1) For any x, if x is satisfactory("S"), then x is longer than one sentence("L").
(1')(x)(Sx--->Lx)
(2) If Heliossoileh's introductory passage to a major character article on the Mass Effect Wiki ("h") is satisfactory then it is longer than one sentence.
(2') Sh--->Lh (Universal Instantiation)
(3)Heliossoileh's introductory passage...etc. is not longer than one sentence.
(3') ~Lh
(4) Therefore, Heliossoileh's introductory passage is not satisfactory.
(4') ~Sh (Modus Tollens)
This argument is unsound, owing to (3)'s falsity. Nevertheless, even if this argument were sound, its conclusion would be irrelevant: your contracted argument was made in the context of your claim that my claim that my contribution was an alternative introductory passage ("alternative paragraph") was false. The conclusion that my introductory passage is not satisfactory is scarcely relevant to debate about my introductory passage being alternative. Thus, you commit the informal fallacy of Irrelevant Thesis, i.e. Red Herring, unless your definition of "alternative" mentioned earlier has lost all semantic relatedness to its conventional definition.
Pressing on:
"Regardless, I wouldn't call one of your points a "red herring" so I would ask the same courtesy in return."
I don't find the mentioning of an informal fallacy within your prose discourteous.
"A modicum of civility goes a long way."
Quite so.
"As for my "opining on the sufficiency of JakePT's explanation", I guess it's ok for you to opine ("It was, as is custom, removed without sufficient explanation.") but not ok for me to present a different point of view."
I do not know what is meant by "ok", and so am unable to respond.
I would like to conclude by exposing another informal fallacy I believe to be present in your response, that of "Poisoning the Well":
"The final sort of personal-attack fallacy that we will consider is known as poisoning the well. In such arguments an attempt is made to place the opponent in a position from which he or she is unable to reply...The very attempt to reply succeeds only in placing someone in an even more impossible position. It is as if, being accused of talking too much, one cannot argue against the accusation without condemning oneself; the more one talks, the more one helps establish the truth of the accusation" (Ibid., 224-226).
of which this seems a lucid example:
"...sigh. Such civility on the wiki these days."
I also apologise for any technical errors made above; I am writing this reply whilst fatigued.--Heliossoileh 02:29, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow... now I'm being accused of "poisoning the well". How 'bout that. Kind of goes back to the point of my last post. I'm not going to do the whole dissection thing, as it seems kind of silly and definately takes up way too much space on a talk page (although I should point out that these are my opinions and, as always, to each their own, within the bounds of the existing laws/rules, of course). Allow me to be more specific: In the context of the format we maintain for significant articles (again, referring to the articles of the prominant Characters), a one-sentence blurb does not constitute a viable alternative. Better? Bearing in mind that I was speaking in practical and not literal terms (meaning a viable alternative and not the textbook definition which is one of a number of choices) this would again invalidate calling my point a "red herring", as the intent was clearly not to divert attention from the real issue.
  • Bearing in mind that, again, I was speaking in practical terms (being a maintainer/environmental compliance inspector by trade I do prefer speaking in practical terms whenever practicable), my argument was not unsound, which is why I asked for the same courtesy I showed you.
  • As for "ok", that is of course a colloquialism which has multiple meanings based upon usage and context, but in this case has one practical meaning, which is "acceptable". It was acceptable for you to express an opinion about the sufficiency of JakePT's edit summary, but when I attempted to express my opinion on the same subject your response was "Your opining on the sufficiency of JakePT's explanation is, as politely as possible, of no interest to me." This type of language is, of course, hardly conducive to an open discourse. You made it clear that differing opinions on the matter where not going to be taken seriously, which tends to make people rather reluctant to offer differing opinions, hence my mentioning the apparent end of "the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints". And while you did say "as politely as possible", this is of course the same basic concept as the "no offense" fallacy, which leads some people to believe they can say all sorts of offensive things, either precede or follow said offenses with "no offense", and the recipient will have no legitimate cause for offense. Cloak it in any niceties you like, "your opposing opinion is irrelevant" (paraphrasing of course) is still very impolite and incendiary.
  • As for poisoning the well, I honestly think that if an impartial observer were to compare my last post with your last and were asked which better fit the definition of the term, mine would not stand a chance. I did, however, enjoy responding to this, even if your last post did seem to lay the condescension on a little thick. Made me feel like I was in college, getting spoken down to by one of the elites from their ivory tower... :) SpartHawg948 03:05, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Since you have not understood much of what I've written, I'll leave the discussion here (permanently, this time!) --Heliossoileh 14:23, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. To each their own. I think my responses show I more than understood your comments, while in return I had to explain the meaning of the term "ok" as used in a sentence in which context and meaning were readily apparent. Probably better to end this, as it got pretty pointless as soon as the comments turned away from improving the article to criticizing others for less than perfect word usage and for expressing differing opinions. So I'll reiterate my original point. I agree it would be nice to lose the spoilers, but we need a viable alternative first, so if you have one, great! Post it here and we can take a looksee, but it is always greatly appreciated to have a viable alternative (that meets standards) offered up as well, instead of just being told 'all this should go'. SpartHawg948 20:25, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


So...Many...WORDS!!!--Kamikaz 20:36, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

LOUD NOISES!!! SpartHawg948 20:48, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
AAAHHH!!!--Kamikaz 21:55, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!!! SpartHawg948 00:07, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
I WANNA YELL TOO!!! TheEverAlertAndSilentStep 01:22, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think the Matriarchs should have their own page. Edit

If Justicars can have their own page, why can't Matriarchs? MEfan217 22:39, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Because the Justicars are an organization, and Matriarchs aren't. It's the same reason that the Migrant Fleet has its own page, and quarian children don't. SpartHawg948 22:44, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no reason for the Matriarchs to have their own page. It is stage in the asari life cycle, not place, organization, or something important. Lancer1289 22:46, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia: Star Trek actors Edit

If you look at the credits you will notice that Dwight Schultz is listed. He was the actor who played Lt. Barclay on Star Trek: The Next Generation. So that would make three.

Ok... relevance of the above comment to the Matriarch Benezia page? SpartHawg948 03:20, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • (Oh, and I must point out that it the "So that would make three" comment refers to actors who have appeared in both Star Trek and Mass Effect... you're missing at least one, possibly more). SpartHawg948 03:23, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

The relevance is that if you are going to have a fact in the trivia section it might as well be accurate. Marina Sirtis, Michael Dorn, and Dwight Schultz are the ones I know about but there are probably more.--174.21.69.174 04:47, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there. Unless I'm missing something, the last trivia note isn't in line with the current voice actor trivia policy which was created after this was put there, probably around six months give or take. However, I could also argue that the only reason there is a third trivia note, is because the second one is there. If we really wanted to modify that I think the two need to be combined because the second really isn't in line with the trivia policy either, again unless I'm mistaken. However if the second goes, then the third has to go as well. I'll leave that up in the air for now.
As to the real issue, Barclay wasn't one of the major characters in either TNG, DS9, or Voyager. He is a reoccurring character only and Troi and Worf have much more prominence than he did. However again I fell that needs to go given the policy. Lancer1289 04:56, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • If it is against current policy then it probably should be removed. If not, then I think even though Barclay isn't one of the main characters a nod could be made to the fact that there are more than two. (i.e. Marina Sirtis also is one of several actors...)--174.21.69.174 05:11, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, if we're talking people who played main characters in Star Trek, there are three, though Dwight Schultz is thankfully not among them, as IMO Barclay was one of the worst characters in the franchise. As has been mentioned, there are Mirana Sirtis and Michael Dorn, and then of course there is Armin Shimerman, who appears in Mass Effect as Fai Dan and the salarian Council member. SpartHawg948 05:34, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Now how did I forget about that Ferengi. Maybe because you don't interact with Shimerman's characters, or they weren't as memerable to me as much as Sirtis' and Dorn's characters were. And the thing is I liked Quark. Always up to something. Lancer1289 06:07, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia: Death Bit Edit

I do not believe the snippet about the way her corpse appears to be defeating the illusion of death to be appropriate for trivia there. I could entirely be wrong. --Aryn2382 08:05, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I'd held off on removing it (not sure why), but I totally agree with you. SpartHawg948 08:08, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Why would it be removed?

As to why it would be removed, given the trivia guidelines, something like that regarding what's more or less a bug, or glitch, doesn't fall under the trivia guidelines under the Manual of Style here. Trivia, in general, tends to follow towards information that's considered impactful or interesting. With some respect, does the fact her corpse has blinking eyes (likely a bug, and only seen with camera manip and working it around) really follow that? --Aryn2382 16:53, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Well as you said, trivia should be something interesting and, regardless of whether or not it's a bug or if it's just that they didn't realize they needed to shut her eyes, it is pretty interesting. When even I personally see bugs or glitches in trivia, or anything I didn't know, if they're possible to try I personally like to do them - but that's just me. I think it's interesting because at first if you see her blinking after she'd already died you have the "o_o omg she's alive!" factor, even though she isn't.

This is where subjectivity comes in though. The policy states that trivia should be impactful and/or interesting. You find it interesting. Others, such as myself and (presumably) Aryn2382, don't. SpartHawg948 03:38, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked neither my opinion, nor the pair of yours, counted for everything. But fine, go ahead and remove it. I'll just refrain from putting anything ever on here again because anytime I try to do anything someone sees something wrong with it and has some reason to remove it. -_-

Better yet, I'll remove it so it stops being so bothersome for you.

If your opinion doesn't count for "everything", then why add a purely opinion driven trivia item that isn't even really trivia? I'm not saying my opinion counts for more than yours. I am saying that, currently, there are more opinions favoring the removal of the item than there are for keeping it. And that does count around here. If it wasn't like that last time you checked, you must not have checked in the past few years. Look, I'm not trying to cause trouble or to target you or anything, which is why I don't understand the attitude all of a sudden. But this is a wiki. Anyone can edit, and anyone can remove. As such, we tend to place more credence on the side with more support. If you aren't willing to accept that sometimes your edits will be removed, and that sometimes the community may disagree with you, well, there's nothing I can do to help you then. That's the nature of the Wiki system, after all. SpartHawg948 05:30, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Two things: 1.) Don't put words in my mouth, I don't recall saying I haven't checked it in a while. It still does it considering I look whenever I head to Noveria. 2.) It isn't -sometimes- my edits get removed, it's all the time. Every single one because people like you don't enjoy seeing things not that every single person will care about.

Don't get all snarky with me there, pal. Did I ever say that you said you hadn't checked in a while? Seriously, did any of my comment "put words in [your] mouth"? Nope. I said "If it wasn't like that last time you checked, you must not have checked in the past few years." (note the presence of "If" - wasn't putting those mean old words in your mouth) which was in direct response to "Last time I checked neither my opinion, nor the pair of yours, counted for everything." So calm down. Nobody is putting words in your mouth, though you appear to be putting some into mine. Thanks, by the way.
As for "all" your edits being removed, I see exactly two edits to your credit, other than the talk page edits here. One was an edit to Oriana, which deserved to be removed, IMO. The other one is to the Benezia page. And who removed that one? It sure wasn't me. It was you. If you've only made two contributions, and both of them were minor trivia additions, then there's a decent chance they'll both be undone. Accumulate a few more edits, and then you'll have grounds for concern if all your edits are undone. Again, that's how wikis work. SpartHawg948 15:42, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming that every edit I've made was with this account, that assumption is wrong.

I'm not assuming. I'm working off the data I have at hand. I didn't say you'd only made two edits, period. What was that you said about words in mouths? I said that I could see exactly two edits to your credit. This indicates that, on the profile you are currently using, I only see two edits. No assumption was made that this was your only account. In fact, given that only one edit to the Benezia page was made, and it was to remove the trivia item, I knew for a fact that you'd used other accounts. So again, don't put words in my mouth (you sure didn't like it when you incorrectly assumed I was doing it to you), and don't ascribe to me thoughts and opinions I don't have and have never expressed. SpartHawg948 05:45, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Speaking as one of the guys around here who noticed it, I put it up for discussion of whether or not it's trivia-worthy based on what's said, bug, glitch, or not. It's interesting, in a subjective way, sure, but would it be in the same category as the other kinds of trivia there? Good question. I mean, I don't consider it especially noteworthy, but others might. Also might help to actually.. setup an account, sign things, that sortof thing. Might just be me. :/--Aryn2382 06:38, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

@SpartHawg948 I wasn't aware calling something an assumption was "putting words in your mouth." Also, if you could see who was making edits like you claim to be able to, then you'd see that it wasn't taken off by an account. I never claimed to have more than one account, that would be an assumption right there by the way. You assuming I have more than one account. Being signed out & posting/editing isn't the same as being logged in doing things.

No, I know you are using more than one account, as I was using the term account to refer to unregistered accounts, aka IPs. You yourself flat-out stated that you used multiple unregistered accounts to post the information. So no, it's not an assumption, it's a statement of fact. You are using multiple unregistered accounts to post. It is in fact you who is assuming (yet again), by assuming that when I said "accounts" I meant registered accounts. SpartHawg948 02:07, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • In the interest of humoring you though, Kyrosnag, since that appears to be your registered account... let's review all these edits of yours that have been undone. There were the edits to the Mass Effect 3 page. These were undone due to unreliable sourcing. You yourself admitted as much. You were also warned, twice no less, by an admin about violating site policies. Pretty straightforward: It was unsourced speculation, and was removed as such. Then there were the edits to the Oriana page, which violates standing site guidelines for name trivia. Simple as that. Removed for being in violation of site policy. Then the edits to this page. And you removed that yourself, didn't you? Now, was that it, or have I missed any? SpartHawg948 02:22, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.