Speculation removed from the article:

Although on-screen dialogue by Geordi La Forge indicates that B-4 is very likely a prototype and "something built prior to Data" (Star Trek Nemesis), it isn't entirely clear whether he was a predecessor of both Data and Lore, or whether his lack of positronic development indicated that he was a "stripped down" model built after Lore for the purpose of testing out new systems to be implemented in Data's final design. This is a possibility that might be implied by the fact that La Forge was willing to conjecture B-4's status as a prototype for Data, but was unwilling to conjecture B-4's status as the prototype for the earlier android, Lore. With Dr. Soong now dead, this question may never be answered.

--Jörg 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What's speculative about it? I pointed out an ambiguity in the canon that hasn't ever been explained. Currently, the page implies that B-4 is the prototype for both Data and Lore, and that's speculation. The above could stand to be reworded so it doesn't sound like it's implying that the alternative to the speculation present in the article is actually the case, sure, but removing it from the article as "speculation" is a little absurd, as there is nothing speculative about it. What is speculative about pointing out that the canon isn't clear about whether B-4 is the prototype for Data and Lore or just Data? What is speculative about observing that La Forge did not mention Lore's name when stating that he thought B-4 was a prototype? Since when does a passive observation of facts and noting the vague ambiguity of those facts qualify as "speculation". Why is this bit of obvious non-speculation removed while true speculation (that B-4 is the prototype for both androids) still on the page? --Syrak 16:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We are here to list the facts, not to extrapolate on what was said, or even worse, on what was not said. Additionally, the "ambiguity" was added to the main part of the article, where it didn't belong. If there are speculations in the article, especially in the main part, they have to be removed. --Jörg 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)