 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Chuck is God?
editSo the Prophet ended up being god in the end? It looked like that way to me after he disappered and all. After all he was the one behind Sam and Dean's story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly hints at that, but without a definite answer or reliable source stating it, it i speculation. Ωphois 03:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Eh oh well then, I feel at least that should be put into the plot summary though as it does suggest it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is original research, though. If you have a reliable source noting the implication, then it can be included. We cannot add our own observations like that. Ωphois 03:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with plots is that every person takes them from a diffrent point of view in sit's like these. Plots are almost impossible to cite. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is why a third party, reliable source is needed that states the implication. Ωphois 05:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I came to the same conslusion that it could have been God or an Arch Angel, but from there to a statement that that was God, is a stretch. I'd like to leave it as a suggestion, because that is what it is. I'm therefore changing the text to imply that it's only a suggestion. --Leidegren (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- A suggesion I feel would be best yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it has once again been removed as speculation. As I have said numerous times, a third-party reliable source is needed before it can be added. Ωphois 15:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay if you can find sources for the entire plot summary please add them, once you do that then I can see the statement being removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- An episode itself can count as a source for plots, but adding something that it not explicitly stated in the episode is original research. Sorry, but if you continue, I will report you to admins. Ωphois 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough I will look for a secondary source for the claim. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- An episode itself can count as a source for plots, but adding something that it not explicitly stated in the episode is original research. Sorry, but if you continue, I will report you to admins. Ωphois 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay if you can find sources for the entire plot summary please add them, once you do that then I can see the statement being removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it has once again been removed as speculation. As I have said numerous times, a third-party reliable source is needed before it can be added. Ωphois 15:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- A suggesion I feel would be best yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I came to the same conslusion that it could have been God or an Arch Angel, but from there to a statement that that was God, is a stretch. I'd like to leave it as a suggestion, because that is what it is. I'm therefore changing the text to imply that it's only a suggestion. --Leidegren (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is why a third party, reliable source is needed that states the implication. Ωphois 05:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with plots is that every person takes them from a diffrent point of view in sit's like these. Plots are almost impossible to cite. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is original research, though. If you have a reliable source noting the implication, then it can be included. We cannot add our own observations like that. Ωphois 03:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Eh oh well then, I feel at least that should be put into the plot summary though as it does suggest it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Would this count as something? [1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you found an additional source like that, maybe from a critic or something, you could add it as "Chuck disappears, leading some viewers to speculate that he is God". To add that his vanishing directly implies the fact would need a quote from Kripke or one of the writers. Ωphois 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I found another article that has fans speculating this, too, so I included it in the characters page for Chuck. Until one of the writers says so, however, it cannot be included in the plot summary, as that is not the place for fan speculation. Ωphois 05:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Image
editI didn't know it would be such a big deal to switch out a stupid image. Whatever.Hellboy42 (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)