Contents 1 Liara's image? 2 Unknown Names 3 Shadow Broker and SR2 4 Anderson's Clothes 5 Blasto... 6 Gavorn on Illium. 7 Discrepancy 8 Move Proposal

Liara's image?Edit

I know this is a contentious subject, but is there any real reason that the bit about Matriarch Aethyta looking at that picture keeps getting changed back to "a photo of an asari" instead of a photo of Liara. You folks know me. I'm all for busting speculation. But this one seems legit to me. I'd be inclined to support the "photo of an asari" bit IF the picture wasn't the same picture that a Commander Shepard who romanced Liara in the first game has on their desk. It is the very same picture though, which leads me to favor stating it's a photo of Liara. SpartHawg948 01:45, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow. Still haven't played the DLC, so I was assuming it was just a helluva coincidence. But if it's the exact same picture, then that seems pretty definitive. -- Dammej (talk) 01:48, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Same picture. SpartHawg948 01:49, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, if two admins say that's Liara, good enough for me. I haven't yet seen the image myself, I assumed that the graininess of the video footage would make it difficult to tell for sure and that the users who kept adding this in were jumping to conclusions. It seems it was I who jumped first. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:53, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

That's the issue, though. Right now, one admin says it is, one says it isn't. I'm attempting to rectify this. SpartHawg948 01:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Did he just call me an admin? You warm the cockles of my heart need to get some sleep, Commdor. :P -- Dammej (talk) 01:55, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm just hallucinating. I swear the comment just above my earlier one was signed by Lancer. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:56, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case I'll amend my above comment. ;) -- Dammej (talk) 01:59, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok I'll take a quick break from the dossiers and say. Personally, now that I've had more time to look at it, it is the same image, so yes I'd have to say it's Liara. However we still don't know that she is Matriarch Aethyta's daughter, so that's speculation. Maybe she came to like Liara while she was on Illium, two years is a long time, and you have to guess that Liara would have probably stopped by Eternity at least once. Lancer1289 02:06, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a different picture to me, especially since the asari in it is moving rather than being static like in Shepard's photo. But I digress, I'm just a nameless contributor so I have no say in the final outcome of this article.

Yeah, there was definitely no movement in the picture. None at all. Not sure what you saw. SpartHawg948 19:10, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at it several times(looking at the video as I write this) and the asari in the picture is definitely moving. It's small movement, nothing huge just head movements, but it's there. To further illustrate the movement, if you look at the orange-whitish thing on the right of the picture, looks like the side of a fish tank, you can see bubbles moving upwards as you play the video. Also, it's not the same picture. The one on Shepard's desk is much closer up to Liara's face, taking up most of the frame. The one the Matriach is looking at is wider, less zoomed in, shows the fish tank type thing in the background whereas you don't really see anything in the background of Shepard's photo, and as I've said there is slight movement from Liara and the fish tank. I'm not saying it's not Liara, not at all, I'm just pointing out that they're two different photos.99.33.39.200 20:12, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

No rest for the weary (for another two hours). I've still got the CDN to update. I figured out a while ago I can view the next day's CDN reports early by changing the timezone setting on my 360, so I could get it over with now, but that feels like cheating. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:03, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was never arguing for this being interpreted as evidence that Liara is Aethyta's daughter, just that it is Liara in the picture. SpartHawg948 02:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Noticed it too: Liara turns her head slightly (to her right) in the "photo", and blinks. (It still does seem to me to be Liara, in that her facial features and shape (best I can tell in these blurry images) are identical to those in Shep's photo of her). It's really bizarre that she moves. Has Bioware gone "Harry Potter"? --AnotherRho 19:34, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Names Edit

Who are Fred Mazzei and Urdnot Torsk? Are they in the books other EU material? Or are they completely new people that the SB has been keeping tabs on? Does anyone know? I don't see pages for them on this wiki yet. Optimystic8 20:51, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, they're random characters made up for the DLC. Unless more information is gathered on them (such as in a book, future DLC, or ME3), don't expect an article to be writ about them. Tanooki1432 20:56, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yes we ahve no further information on them, so they don't need pages just for some links in the archive. Maybe when we get more information they can have pages. However now, I can't see the justification for their own articles yet. Lancer1289 20:59, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting we write pages for them; I was merely inquiring as to whether they were mentioned in any of the EU materials, as all I have are the games. Optimystic8 23:19, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Fred Mazzei and Urdnot Torsk aren't in any of the novels or comics (this isn't Star Wars, so not sure if the EU label, which is pretty exclusive to SW, IIRC, is appropriate), nor, for that matter, is keeper 20. SpartHawg948 23:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Especially about that keeper 20 is realy something that we can't know fo sure. It looks like the one you see in Thane's mission BUT places like that are everywere on the citadel and that (the one you see in Thanes mission) might be any keeper.

AFAIK, Fred Mazzei is Kelham's lawyer and Urdnot Torsk is the Urdnot's shaman.

In Thane's L.M. there is no mention about Kelham's lawyer's name. Neither the shaman's name. On the other hand Urdont Torsk wears the same armor as the Shaman and Fred Mazzei wears the same clothes as Kelham's lawyer but thats not enough. I personaly beleave that Fred and Torsk are the lawyer and shaman, but for here we need proof.

Also in the video killing the human Torsk is with Fortack in his "lab". As you can see here, Fortack's Database can be seen clearly. Here is the lab ingame. SoulRipper 13:24, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Image 1, Image 2 - That's from game files... proof enough?

And apparently you haven't played Thane's mission enough, because Kelham says his laywer name - Freddy. And why would BioWare add unknown figures into the video archive?

And apparently you don't have proof. Those images don't like to anything excpet lists, and even then, we don't have enough proof to confirm either. We need hard proof, i.e. not form game files, and from the game itself for proof. That isn't enough. Also BioWare introduced Vasir in Cerberus Daily News and if someone wasn't reading that, then she was a complete unknown when people started LotSB. Small characters can be inserted for future packs or news items. This isn't enough for proof. Lancer1289 14:02, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Lancer thats not entirely accurate. Here: Image1 Image2. And the images he uploaded show that there are some "Freddy" videos. Those files are game files not just lists.

Thats proof enough for me. SoulRipper 14:24, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Not enough for me however. It is based on using a first name and similar clothing. That just isn't enough as Fred could be anyone, and not just Kelham's lawyer. If Kelham had said his full name, then you'd have something, but, to me anyway, a connection based on a first name and similar clothing, that can be seen a number of other humans, is stretching it. Lancer1289 14:34, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Player can meet all characters shown in Video Archive, so why should Fred Mazzei be an exception? (well except Keeper 20, but he does not have a name and they all look the same)

"why would BioWare add unknown figures into the video archive" Why indeed? Thoughts, Keeper 20? SpartHawg948 18:50, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

OK, that was little off, but only really shortsighted people wouldn't see that Fred Mazzei is Kelham's lawyer...

Or that, without confirmation, we can't just assume that they are and state it as such in the articles... SpartHawg948 19:31, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed asumptions are very scary things. AM I shortsighted, no becuase there really isn't another answer, unless something comes up in CDN in the near future. However, we need facts, not speculation in articles. Lancer1289 20:15, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

In the archive there is Kelham and his lawyer. Developers themselves confirmed this by naming his videos Freddy and actually making Kelham to say his name in Thane's mission. But if you don't think this isn't trustworthy enough, have it your way...

At least you could accept the fact that Shaman's name is Urdnot Torsk...

Right... because it is, of course, logial to assume that there is one and only one human named Fred on the Citadel. Kelham calling his lawyer "Freddy" is not confirmation that "Freddy" and Fred Mazzei are one and the same. It's not that I don't think it's trustworthy, it's that there isn't confirmation. And now, I'm not going to accept that Shaman's name is Udnot Torsk. Want to know why? Because, according to the Shaman himself, he has no name other than Shaman. He used to have a name, and that name may very well have been Urdnot Torsk (though I kind of doubt it), but the Shaman tells you (after Grunt's loyalty mission), that one of the steps to becoming a Shaman is giving up his name. So no, I don't think I can accept that Shaman's name is Urdnot Torsk, since Shaman himself contradicts this in-game. SpartHawg948 22:35, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but Shaman still has official name, even though nobody calls him like that. OMG, I knew I shouldn't post anything here...

No, his "official name" is Shaman. He says so himself. He calls himself Shaman. Everyone else in the clan calls him Shaman. Either the Shadow Broker is woefully ignorant of either the details of the Shaman's life or krogan ritual, or Urdnot Torsk is not the Shaman. Or, one could always argue that, even though Shaman no longer uses his old name, the Shadow Broker still uses it, but that would be speculation, as there is no confirmation that Shaman is, or ever was, Urdnot Torsk. SpartHawg948 08:09, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

BioWare added those figures into Video Archive for those who can take a hint of who they are. The others... are the editors of a wiki :)

Like you? After all, you are editing a wiki every time you post a comment! :P SpartHawg948 08:17, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't write/edit any articles...

Ok... so? You still edit a wiki! After all, you said "The others... are the editors of a wiki", not "The others... are the editors of a wiki who write/edit articles"! Can't change the categories after the fact just because you accidentally put yourself in the wrong one! :P SpartHawg948 19:48, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I think you writers (of articles) do a great work (and good reading too), but sometimes (like this one), you're really stubborn...

Yeah, we can be stubborn with our silly insistence on little things like "facts" and "evidence". Comes with the territory when accuracy is the goal. SpartHawg948 02:55, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think what the admins might say is, yes, in some cases there is an obvious coincidence (or "evidence", for example: humans, same clothes, same hair color, both at Citadel, involved with dangerous situations/individuals, designers refer to both by the name "Freddy", etc.), but not explicit or "factual" identification (this guy named Fred Mazzei is the same Fred who is lawyer to so-and-so, or, so-and-so's lawyer is named Fred Mazzei, or manifest identity of photographs, etc.). There may be a likelihood that, in the fictional world of Mass Effect (where nothing exists that wasn't intentionally designed by one or more of the various makers), those coincidences are meant (in the private thoughts of the designers) to hint at an identity which the player/reader might detect. But until we are made privy to those private thoughts, either through their direct statements or through in-game identifying facts, this Wiki cannot report the coincidence as though it were an identity. Clarity with the facts helps the reader to judge for him- or herself. --AnotherRho 21:22, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that reporting them as definitely being Kelham's lawyer or the Shaman would be confusing for the Wiki. Could the moderators at least allow a statement, maybe in a Trivia section, that Fred and Trosk have exactly the same character designs and clothes as Kelham's lawyer or the Shaman, have similar names, are in the same locations, are associated with the same people and so forth, but have not been definitely proven to be those people? It would save people like me some time spent searching for their names on Mass Effect sites and coming up empty. I only just happened to stumble across this discussion; otherwise I still would've been lost. Just including a disclaimer would cover the fact that it's not a definite thing.

But they don't have similar names (the Shaman says he has no other name, and the only mention we hear of Kelham's lawyer's name is "Freddy"... hardly uncommon), nor do we know they are associated with the same people (other than Torsk and the Shaman being in the same clan, a fairly large clan, from what we're given to understand), and model and clothes reuse is common in these games. Notice all the NPCs who look alike? There really isn't enough to go by here, certainly not enough to put in a "trivia" item that is really just assumption and speculation. SpartHawg948 03:51, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, putting a mention is just pure speculation, no other way of cutting that one. We have no knowledge that they are Kelham's lawyer or the Shaman for clan Urdnot. As Spart said, Urdnot is a very large clan given the information we have, so two people having the same clothing style, is certainly not out of the question. Also while Freddy is a nickname for someone named Fred, we have no proof that Freddy = Fred. The trivia would again just be pure speculation and basing it on visual comparisons, given that how NPC's all do look alike, there is no getting around that it is speculation. We don't do disclamiers and we also have a policy about speculation. So now this is both active moderators saying no to this. Lancer1289 04:29, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

That's true. I hadn't even really thought about it, but Freddy and Fred don't even necessarily represent the same name. Fred is a name in and of itself, or can be short for many other names. And both Fred and Freddy can be short for Frederick, Frederik, Friedrich, Frederico, or Alfred, and I'm sure there are other names I'm missing that are shortened to Fred or Freddy. SpartHawg948 04:38, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Shadow Broker and SR2 Edit

So the Broker has vids of the SR2s armory. Does this strike anyone else as disconcerting? The SR2 "spy" devices go directly from EDI to the Illusive Man (so, less likely to be leaked vids of Cerberus-installed devices). Shadow Broker's got other guys on the inside of Cerberus with access to top-secret building projects, I guess? --AnotherRho 20:20, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

It is a little disconcerting, however given the Shadow Broker's nature, it really isn't surprising when you think on it. He could have intercepted the lower encrypted files and video feeds from the SR2, but the high encrypted ones, are probably there, but heavily encrypted. Lancer1289 20:26, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think the level of info in the Illusive Man dossier is rather more disconcerting, and seems to point to the Broker having a mole high up in Cerberus -- which means he wouldn't necessarily need any direct access to any of the Normandy's monitoring devices.

I dunno... knowing the Illusive Man and how he operates, (and I must point out, the following is pure and unadulterated speculation) I like to think that he is actively engaged in feeding the Shadow Broker disinformation. The Broker thinks he knows what is going on with TIM, but in actuality, TIM is feeding the SB info that he wants known, some of it true, and some of it likely demonstrably true to keep the SB from getting suspicious, and some of it false. SpartHawg948 22:27, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Anderson's Clothes Edit

I tried to edit the part about Anderson and how his clothes are different in one of the three videos. The video with him taking out a krogan obviously has him dressed as Captain Anderson and the other two he is clearly dressed as Councilor Anderson. I believe it is important to note that in the article because it is a fact. Epzo 21:14, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't. First, isn't he dressed as an Admiral in the krogan video? Makes more sense than him being dressed as a Captain. Second, we've seen no evidence of a Councilor's uniform, merely civilian clothes that Anderson happens to wear if he is Councilor. As they are civilian clothes, he could just as easily wear them while serving as an Admiral. It's not really fact, and it's not really relevant or worthy of note. SpartHawg948 21:16, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Admiral. Even though the subtitles and Shadow Broker VI say Captain. Anyways, If he was chosen to be Councilor he still shouldn't be wearing a uniform period, or if the other decision was made he shouldn't be out of uniform either. Either way it should still be trivia at least. Epzo 01:48, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

But why shouldn't he be wearing a uniform if he was chosen to be Councilor? I don't recall anything saying that he had to resign his commission if he was selected to be Councilor. Often times military officers will be selected for civilian government positions and will still wear their uniforms to these jobs. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden is a prime example. And as for "if the other decision was made he shouldn't be out of uniform either", I'm sorry, but that's just plain ludicrous. There is such a thing as being off-duty, after all. I know from personal experience. People who are in the military don't go around in uniform all the time. As a matter of fact, we actually see Captain Anderson out of uniform in the first game! If he can do it then, why wouldn't he be able to in the second one as well? SpartHawg948 08:34, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree, this really isn't trivia worthy considering we do see Anderson out of uniform in ME. Spart has already pointed out that military personal can be out of uniform if they are off duty, so maybe Anderson met when he wasn't on duty. Lancer1289 15:56, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Blasto... Edit

... is telling Emily Wong how a hanar spectre can pursue and destroy two vehicles filled with enemies :))

Take this to the forums or a blog post as this isn't what a talk page is for. Lancer1289 16:40, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Gavorn on Illium. Edit

I know it looks like Illium but I'm pretty sure the VI and subtitles both say he's on Omega. Can anyone prove it either way or should I just change it?Garhdo 00:23, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. Both the drone and the subtitles say "Omega". See here at 4:48 for proof. Article will not be changed accordingly. Lancer1289 00:35, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy Edit

Elias Kelham doesn't wipe his hands in the turian dragging away video, even though I'm...not 100% sure which one he is in it. But one dude stands with his hands crossed over his chest and the other guy just leans down, grabs the turian and drags him off. Just wanted to clear that up. -- Somarinoa 07:33, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Move Proposal Edit

I suggest a move/renaming of this article for three reasons. First, it makes the title more specific as opposed to the generic "Video Archive." Second, it gives it the same format as the Shadow Broker Dossiers article. Third, related to my first point, it hopefully makes it easier to search for this article. If you search for "Shadow Broker videos," this article under its current name doesn't appear until more than half way down the second page of search results. TheUnknown285 (talk) 03:40, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I support the move. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 03:46, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose. "Video Archive" is the exact in-game name of this terminal, and in-game names are always preferred. The article's intro text explains what the Video Archive is in ME2, and the related section on the Shadow Broker Base article does the same. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:49, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

I support. For people who haven't played the DLC, they can still see this information on the Shadow Broker page. Otherwise, they may never know that this was part of that. For example, I didn't even know this was a part of the Shadow Broker DLC and I BOUGHT the DLC much later. --Sperez2012 (talk) 21:33, July, 21, 2012 (UTC)

It clearly states in the intro section that the Video Archives are found in the Shadow Broker Base, which is only available as a location in the LotSB DLC. Again, exact in-game names are always preferred over fan names. If searching for this article is so difficult, then we can create redirects and clarify links in other relevant articles. A move should not be the first option we choose in this case. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:39, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I should have checked the page before I said anything. It makes more sense the way you stated. (I'm still fairly new at editing wikis :P ) --Sperez2012 (talk) 21:47, July 21, 2012

I oppose, for reasons already stated by Commdor. Arbington (talk) 03:50, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

oppose. what for (although redirects for the relevant search terms would be nice). T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 04:44, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose the move for reasons already stated. Lancer1289 (talk) 04:51, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

If we can get it so that it is easy to find this page, then I'll withdraw my request. However, if that cannot be done, then I'll stand by it. TheUnknown285 (talk) 15:44, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

The move proposal is rejected 2-5. The article will not be moved. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:33, July 29, 2012 (UTC)