Talk:Jeffrey Sinclair

Separate article?

Being as they are the same person, and Valen appears as himself for about 10 seconds, a separate article seems frivolous. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

of course, agree--141.140.152.91 21:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a rather silly idea, I have to say. Should we delete Darth Vader and just redirect that to Anakin Skywalker as well? Tarc 15:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Darth Vader had a substantial impact and role as a villan in three films, Valen had about ten seconds of screen time, and other then that was refered to as a Mimbari religous figure in abesentia (SP?) That said, merging Anakin and Vader into a single article certainly isn't completly unreasonable, as ideas go. They are the same character, before and after a traumatic event. But, yeah, seriously Valen should probably be merged with Sinclair. The only reason not to would be because of fear of spoilers. "Who's this Valen figure they're talking about, and why does wiki point me at Sinclair!?" (StarkeRealm 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

This seems to be more about the Valen article than this one, so I've made a case for a useful "Valen" article at the existing Talk:Valen#On spoilers and formatting discussion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Departure of Michael O'Hare from B5

Just out of curiosity, is there any subsequent commentary about his leaving B5? JMS's posts on the USENET discussions, as archived by the Lurker's Guide, appear to be the only sourcing for this. Is there anything third party that's appeared, such as reporting or an interview with Michael O'Hare?

Wellspring (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, IIRC didn't JMS say that Michael had some other projects he wanted to do at the end of Season 1 and it seemed that JMS could find a way to make the story fit ? I don't remember JMS saying that he wrote himself into a corner. Kegon (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

According to JMS, both things happened. O'Hare was worried about being typecast and didn't think the character was going anywhere. JMS felt that he'd made Sinclair the foil for other characters and that instead of developing the character he'd ended up creating something too stiff and remote (not Sinclair's fault, a consequence of writing a central authority figure while introducing an ensemble cast). He also said that he could get a much better progression for the plot with a new commander by making the three-one dynamic with Sheridan and Delenn.

It's in the lurker's guide. That interpretation is supported by the very kind words from each during and after the separation, and by the very nice send-off we saw for Sinclair in War Without End I/II. I'm just being pedantic and wikipedian and seeking out some independent source to support it. Wellspring (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:B5 sinclair.jpg

Image:B5 sinclair.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Grey council knew Sinclair was Valen ?

It was here that the Council learned to their profound shock that Sinclair possessed the soul of Valen, a hero of the Minbari who led them to victory 1000 years ago against the Shadows. It was concluded by the Grey Council that Minbari souls were being born into human bodies.

That doesn't fit with my memory. The grey council tested him with the triluminary, that confirmed he was a "child of Valen" and led them to conclude that Minbari souls were being born into human bodies. Wasn't it later confirmed that "scientifically" the triluminary had detected some of Valen's DNA (being that Sinclair = Valen) and this is the reason why. This is further backed up by the plot in Season 4 when Delenn receives a 900 year old note from Sinclair telling her this fantastic story - she was on the Grey council when Sinclair was captured - why would it have been a shock to her ? Kegon (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your quote from the article is directly attested in the movie "In the Beginning". While the viewer can guess what really happened, I think you're confusing what we as the viewer know from what the Minbari knew or could figure out. Of course, Sinclair had Valen's soul-- he wasn't Valen reborn, he was Valen. The Triluminary detected Sinclair's (and later Delenn's) DNA, not their souls, but the Minbari didn't know that. They got the Triluminary from Valen, it was far beyond their technology, and I doubt that they would have tried to reverse engineer or disassemble it.

I don't think Delenn was actually surprised so much as she was sorrowful about what she found in the note-- it was a crisis of faith and sadness for losing her friend all wrapped up in one. The others on the Grey Council didn't understand until much later, after Sinclair was gone. And they worked to suppress information (like Valen's human origins and his Minbari descendants) after they realized what had happened.

Wellspring (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this article implies that Minbari souls were NOT being born into Human bodies. Ok, so in season 4 we find out that the triluminary detected Valen's DNA in Delenn, but it doesn't explain why it's been said that the Minbari scanned other prisoners at the battle of the line only to find that they too either had whole or partial Minbari souls (Mentioned, I think, in "The Price of Peace" which is the prelude to "To Dream in the City of Sorrows"... which has been deemed canon by JMS, though its events are not mentioned in this article).

While I can't say I like this rather bland interpretation of events, I would think it should have some basis in a statement or clarification by JMS before it's put in the article.(94.159.164.124 (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Minbari not born of Minbar

Changed "a Minbari not born of Minbari" to "a Minbari not born of Minbar" since the quote is of the planet/origin of the race Minbari Mementh (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interpretation of the quote, not the quote itself. Quotes must follow the original, not our opinion of what it should be. I don't have the time right now to confirm it, but I'm pretty sure it was "a Minbari not born of Minbari". (It's my understanding that this was like saying "a human not born of humans", not "a human not born of Earth", but again, what matters is what was said, not what we think.) Can someone dig up a cited reference to resolve the question? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The same change was done on the Babylon 4 page as well. I haven't found an online source for the quote yet, but it was worded "of Mimbari" not "of Mimbar" in Sinclair's last episode, ...Without End part 2. Does that help? It may not be grammatically right but we do use exact quotes, correct? Kresock (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I double-checked this when I re-watched the series recently. Lennier says it in passing during the episode "Passing Through Gethsemane". Later Marcus says it again in "War Without End, Part 2". I remembered it as Minbari not borne of Minbar also, so it was very jarring to hear it correctly stated. The quote is quite clear if you want to re-watch either episode.

As for grammar, "Minbari" in this context refers to Valen not being borne of other Minbari; that is, he was a Minbari with human parents. Wellspring (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Valen *need* to be Sinclair and *only* Sinclair ?

Perhaps a silly question, but has it ever been addressed by JMS or others whether Valen could *only* be Sinclair ?
Consider the situation at the Battle Of The Line: essentially the Grey Council pick a random human to study, which just happens to be Sinclair...
What would have happened if - purely by chance - they had picked a different pilot and Sinclair had been killed in the battle ? Would that mean that Valen had - paradoxically - ceased to exist ? Or would *whichever human pilot they randomly selected* eventually go back in time and become Valen ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.122.215 (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a silly question at all, but one that cuts right to the heart of a lot of time-travel SF. While I don't think jms ever addressed it, to my interpretation, the death of Sinclair would cause a temporal paradox. If Sinclair is killed at the Battle of the Line, he does not become Valen. Without Valen to form the Grey Council, the Minbari descend into infighting and civil war, and never become the power that they were in 2245. With weaker Minbari, the Earth-Minbari war doesn't happen, and Sinclair lives, though without the connection to the Minbari that makes him become Valen. Schoop (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)