Talk:Oathkeeper

The "Night's King" rumors

A few (IP) editors have changed/added to the end of the plot synopsis with regards to a potential plot slip by HBO (seen here as "the Night's King"). HBO then either changed or corrected their synopsis (here) to read "a Walker". While it is obvious that the creature is a White Walker, whether or not it is the "Night's King" has yet to be officially confirmed or even addressed by HBO outside of their original plot synopsis. As such, any and all mentions of the rumors added should be removed (much in the way speculation about Iwan Rheon's character's true identity was removed until he was officially revealed as Ramsay Snow - prior to which, he was called "boy" per HBO's casting information). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I could get behind saying "This is the night's king" or "This was later revealed to be the Night's King" if such is established either in later episodes or in outside articles. Even something like, "Reviewers from [source] have speculated that this may be the Night's King" [reftag] would be acceptable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Lede section doesn't always require citation.

(I've moved this discussion here from my user talk page, as the matter is of a procedural nature and not a personal one. My response is below. - -JS)

Dear Jack, You've just reverted my edit on Oathkeeper, and I would like to direct you to WP:LEDE. Kindly study it. The citation in that section only need to be there to support extraordinary/big/controversial claims. Besides that, it only needs to summarize the over all content of the article. And in Oathkeeper, we clearly have the origin of the title. If you are not convinced, kindly take a look at "Fire and Blood", which is currently a good article on Wikipedia. The article refers to where the name of the episode came from without openly discussing it below. For Oathkeeper, it requires no other citation, as the plot summary below is already supported by the show itself, and the lede section is in turn the summary of that section. Also the lede section still requires expansion. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to contact me, thought the article's talk page might have been a more appropriate place to address the issue; the difference in location is determined by whether the disagreement is one of either a personal or editing nature. Our disagreement is of the latter kind.

The problem here is that, while material in the Lede does not necessary need referencing, it does when a claim is made that is not noted within the body of the article or cited elsewhere in the article:

• "…significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article…"¹
• "…it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.""²

In this case, the "allusion" is neither referenced nor mentioned elsewhere, so it needs citing or removal. I chose to remove it before, but I will instead tag it as needing citation.

As well, referring tio a GA, while helpful as a comparison, is not solely sufficient as an argument, as the article being compared to is not of FA quality. And, to be sure, Other Stuff Exists. Not all of it is going to be representational of what is best for the article.

I am going to port this conversation over to the talk page for the article. That's where it belongs, really. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if the matter has been resolved with the inclusion of a reference from Slant Magazine, though the review of the article is not one of the staff writers. That last bit is a cause for concern, but maybe - if the publication is what gives the writer notability and reliability - we might be okay. Opinions? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the IP editor is not a regular, and we probably might not be able to ask for his input again. I neither agree nor disagree with the inclusion of the reference added, but I can see that it solves the problem. So, in order to get things going, I'm going to defend his case a bit. A reliable source doesn't have to be in its extreme highest quality; I've learned that while I was editing. It only needs to be reliable within reason.

To quote the policy: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." Slant ref definitely does not fit the questionable ones. The article, though not written by staff editors, is clearly not a user generated post. It has its own page and is listed as a feature here http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/categories/94 . It has been formatted, credited, and pictured very properly. Not even a misspelling is present. From the looks and the weight the magazine has given it, I think the editors allow it to be there. That means it is subjected to editorial insight.

It has what WP:SOURCES asks for. Maybe not like Times or NYT quality, but Slant, which approves it, is definitely well-known and notable. The article itself doesn't seem bias. The sentence about the title is also a small statement of fact. "Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proofs", and this the statement in question is far from extraordinary. The material is good within reason. It supports both clauses of the sentence. I can't see why we can't use it.

Regarding Otherstuff, I would like to point out the part that you didn't quote:

"While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."

When things are considered "good" or "featured", they're so for a reason. Dismissing everything they do and insisting on doing everything our way seems rather convenient. This article is far from being a good one. So if it means doing in their way, why not? I can't see why we should ignore it because they do it. Also, I appreciate the attempt to tag citation needed instead of removing. Many anon or new editors will find the atmosphere unpleasant to start contributing when faced with aggressive removals. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

'Adaptation' section removed

I've removed the following from the article:

Adaptation

Some of the content from this episode also appears in chapters 57, 61, and 72 of A Storm of Swords (Daenerys V, Sansa V and Jaime IX).

The scene at the end of the episode, which shows what the White Walkers do with Craster's sons, does not appear in the novel.

Simply citing the books doesn't count as Reliable Sourcing. True, the books are the source material, but the consideration that deviations from them is noteworthy is not our call to make. We leave that to the aforementioned reliable sources. If a source (and creepy westeros fanblogs do not in any way count) states that these differences are important, then we can note them. Until then, we cannot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian is referring to the text that Darkfrog24 added back; Jack Sebastian removed it here.

Besides this IGN source I added to the article's Reception section to aid me in noting differences in the source material compared to the "Oathkeeper" episode, there is this IGN source, and I'm certain there are other WP:Reliable sources for the material. I don't know about a WP:Reliable source for noting the chapters, however; perhaps westeros.org is one of the exceptions noted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources, especially since it's fiction we are discussing in this case? Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Breaker_of_Chains#Novel_itself_as_a_primary_source; the novel itself is a reliable source for the content of the novel. Introducing a comparative analysis of how the scenes are treated differently in both media is original research without a secondary source, but merely citing that something happens in a chapter in the book is not different to writing a plot summary using the work as the primary source, which is allowed per MOS:PLOT. Diego (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect, Diego: this is being discussed in that article's talk page. It is not something in the past. In response, the novels are indeed a source for material about the books themselves. The issue here is drawing a comparison (and indeed, the very idea that these differences or similarities are at all notable) without a notable, reliable source having done so. We, as editors, cannot do so. That is certainly NOT allowed by mos:plot. If a source does not explicitly note a difference, then it is not notable enough for inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I invite anyone interested in this discussion to come on over and lend your two cents' worth to the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd also point out that no one has ever initiated a discussion regarding the usage of Westeros.org as a reliable source. I've done so here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you using the word "notable" as in WP:NOTABLE? Because that has nothing to do with the rules governing the content of an already existing article. If you're talking about what editors consider relevant for an article, that's open to editorial discretion, i.e. WP:CONSENSUS, and I don't find your arguments ("because it MUST be so") convincing at all; considering that there are policies allowing editors to make comparisons in other areas, I can't see why it should be strictly forbidden here as you say. (BTW deciding what parts of a work we want to report in a summary IS allowed by MOS:PLOT, and making a comparison is not forbidden by it). Diego (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I am pointing out that neither you nor I nor anyone else editing within Wikipedia is of suitable reliability to offer interpretations of any sort. And while there is discretion as to what information is considered relevant, the point upon which any discussion of that sort is whether the information originates from within the editor's imagination or a reliable source. Consensus has zero to do with it (though WP:FRINGE does serve as a a bit of a caveat).

Lastly, your misapprehension of MOS:PLOT as allowing the inclusion of synthesized OR is simply broken. According to you, if we note a difference between the book and movie forms of information, we should definitely include it in the article. That's a slippery slope, as determining whether that info is trivial or Sherlocking would depend on a gangbang of fans arriving at the Wiki gates to create an illegitimate consensus based on their view of what is obvious. Imagine that applied to Triumph of the Will. And yeah, I know that's a variant application of Godwin's Law, but you are smart enough to get the point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC).

Jack S, I was careful to phrase the section so that it contained no comparison or analysis. I was also careful to use a secondary source in addition to the primary source. We're good to go. However, if you'd prefer to phrase the section more like, "Danyeris chooses someone to fight the champion in chapter #" and "Sansa talks to Petyr in chapter #," that would be fine with me. As per WP:Primary, straightforward descriptions of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the material are permitted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I know you are trying to be careful, but there is no perfuming a pig; we cannot be the cones drawing connection between events in the book and events in the series. A reliable source needs to do that, as making those sorts of connections are Original Research, plain and simple. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, we're not trying to say how Cogman changed or reinterpreted Martin's vision or why he made Sansa more or less assertive than in the book. We're only telling the readers where the same dialogue and events show up. "The scene with the white walkers does not appear in the novel" and "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter Z" are not OR. They're just facts. Please confirm that you've seen WP:Primary.

Let's look at it this way: What this article needs is a way for readers to find out what parts of the book to reread to find the content also seen in this episode. How would you phrase something like that if not "in chapters X, Y, and Z"? Don't just delete content left and right; make a suggestion about how the section could be improved to fit your interpretation of what Wikipedia should be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see my earlier comment re: perfuming a pig. We cannot do it, because it is you pointing out the differences. As this topic is continued int he section below, I'll confine most of my comments to there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Clear violation

This edit [1] is a clear violation of citing a source. It also illustrates a serious lack of understanding of citations and the use of sources. Citing a source requires the text in question to be in the source, either literally or in the author's original words, otherwise it's a clear misattribution of the text to the source. This is basic knowledge and there's no arguing around this point. DonQuixote (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Primary, "straightforward descriptions of facts" can be made about primary sources by citing those primary sources. It specifically mentions using novels as sources for information on their own plots. "This scene isn't in the book" is a straightforward description of a fact and it can be verified by any educated person with access to the source. That is textbook correct use of a primary source on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"Straightforward descriptions of facts" means facts that are mentioned in the book--it does not mean facts about the book. This is basic stuff that you should have learned in school. "This scene isn't in the book" can only be made by secondary sources not the primary source itself because it says no such thing. Full citations require citing the page number. I challenge you to cite the page number, otherwise--it's a gross misuse of citation. DonQuixote (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:Primary does not say that it only means facts included in the book. "This scene isn't in the book" is a straightforward fact about the plot that can be verified by any reader and so it is permitted. If I can say "Johnny Tremain is set in the 1700s," then I may also say "Johnny Tremain is not set in the twenty-first century." They are both straightforward facts.

As for pages I cite all of them. None of the pages in the book contain that scene. This is evidence in support of the statement "This scene is not in the book," and it does not require any interpretation or analysis. I must also add that most citations don't include page numbers.

DQ, I have cited policy in support of my position. Your turn. Show me where Wikipedia policy says that I may not use a primary source to say "This isn't in the book." Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

From WP:STICKTOSOURCE: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

The book does not express in any way what you are citing it for. The book does not say that the scene was not in the book--you're definitely going beyond what's expressed in the source, and you're definitely using it in a way that is inconsistent with the intention of the source.

Also, "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." (emphasis mine)

And "This is evidence in support..." implies original research. If you were actually citing the source correctly, then you would be able to cite the page number. It is for this reason that I challenge you to cite the exact page number. Most citations not including page numbers doesn't negate the fact that you need one to verify your information (and those other citations can easily be amended to include the page number for verification because they reflect what the sources actually say).

So yeah, cite the page number. DonQuixote (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I cite pages 1 through 1216 inclusive of the U.S. paperback version of A Storm of Swords. Saying "This scene is not in the book" is sticking to the source. It's like saying "Thomas Jefferson does not appear in Johnny Tremain."

"Best practice" does not mean "this is the only thing you are ever allowed to do." Best practice is to use only secondary sources, but primary and tertiary are also permitted. The passage also says that I am allowed to "summarize what they say in [my] own words." "This scene is not in the book" fits this.

If you were actually citing the source correctly, then you would be able to cite the page number. This is the mystery in your position. Which Wikipedia policy states that the absence of a page number means that the source was improperly used? It's not clear why you are using this to say that I must not cite a primary source in this case.

And no, I did not imply original research when I said, "This is evidence." You inferred it, in this case incorrectly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what bothers me more: your complete misapprehension of our referencing policy or your willingness to edit-war the matter in the actual article. (By the way, the latter needs to stop, pronto).

This is our policy: any connective statements you make in an article (such as comparing a novel to the same material in another medium, like a tv episode) needs to be cited to a source EXPLICITLY making that comparison. We as editors cannot do it. We cannot cite it to a fanblog, where such endless, crufty discussions take place. Wikipedia is not a blog, or a useless collection of trivia.
In short, you cannot use the books to point out what is or is not in the episode, or vice versa. This is because it would be YOU doing the 'pointing out'. A reliable source needs to do that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A dispute resolution has been filed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#talk:Oathkeeper#Clear violation. DonQuixote (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, the statement, "This scene does not appear in this book" does not involve any comparison. It is a straightforward description of a fact that can be verified by anyone with access to the source material, as permitted in WP:Primary. I'm not using the book to point out what was or wasn't in the episode. I'm using the book to point out what was and wasn't in the book. For that, this source is very reliable.

As for who has to stop reverting, how about you knock it off. It's a reference tag for a primary source for material that is also supported by secondary sources. There are several ways in which having this tag present helps the article, not the least of which it's the most reliable source possible for this material and it's the one in which I found the information. Show that this tag harms the article or stop deleting it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already said - without equivocation - that it does involve comparison. What you are seeking to do is to describe something that happens in one medium that does/does not occur in the other. That - by definition - is a comparison. It doesn't matter in which direction you compare it (ie., book to tv or tv to book), it is still comparison, and thusly OR.

You have yet to produce a single shred of reliable sourcing that makes this an issue I submit that until you do so, your effoorts in this conversation are beating a dead horse. You have two very experienced editors telling you that you are wrong, and you refuse to get the point. I suggest that you either seek escalation of the matter elsewhere, a change in policy or learn to live within the scope of the policies and guidelines that the rest of us editors do.

Of course, you can still roll up your sleeves, go out and find the requested reliable sources that discuss the comparison you with to make. Without it, you are dead in the water. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"Single shred of reliable sourcing"? "Go out and find the requested reliable sources"? I cited the novel and two web articles. Accusing me of being too lazy to "roll up my sleeves and find sources" is inappropriate.

You keep saying that the statement "This scene is not in the book" involves comparison, but I can see what I wrote, and it does not. Why don't you explain why you think this is a comparison. Repeating yourself is not going to help. No your position is not so perfect and obvious that other people can automatically see your perspective. If you want to explain your take on the matter, I'm willing to hear you out, but so far you haven't made much of a case.

WP:POINT states "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point." I don't see what it has to do with this issue. We're arguing about the inclusion or exclusion of a reference tag. I'd be surprised if it disrupted the reader experience. Did you mean to cite some other policy? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You know what, that was unfair of me to suggest you were being lazy. You are not, and I apologize, Darkfrog; I recognize that. Perhaps that comment was borne of the frustration of telling you repeatedly how to solve your problem here, and you arguing a non-defensible point. The novel is an excellent source in an article about the novel. It is not an appropriate source about matters occurring in the episode. You are stating something that occurs in the episode does/doesn't occur in the book; that is a comparison, even if you do not call it that. You must have a source that does that makes the comparison, and that source must be what is agreed to be reliable. Westeros.org is not one, judging from the comments received when the question was posed at the RS noticeboard.

So understand that I am not suggesting an alternative edit, because we cannot make the edit. A reliable source needs to do so, and then we can, and attribute the comparison within the article.

Lastly, I used POINT to illuminate how your repeated reverts in the article are not only pointless (as they are going to be reverted immediately) but disruptive, as it makes it more difficult for opposing parties to find a resolution. A bit of that difficulty presented itself in my ill-advised 'lazy' comment above.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Accepted.

When you said "I told you how to solve your problem," what were you talking about? I haven't seen you or DQ suggest a way of phrasing this information that would be consistent with your interpretation of WP:OR. Did you mean something else.

I haven't been using the novel as a source about the episode. I've been using the novel as a source about the novel. Maybe you could say why you think the novel is being used as a source for information about the episode.

I really do not see why the statement, "This scene with the white walkers does not occur in the novel" is significantly different from "The novel includes a scene in which Jaime visits Tyrion in prison" or "In the novel, Sansa finds out her jewel was poison." They are all straightforward descriptions of facts that can be confirmed by anyone with access to the novel. If such statements were not permitted, then there would be no plot sections or differences-from-the-book sections on Wikipedia, but in fact there are many. Would you prefer it if the sentence were phrased, "The novel does not contain a scene in which white walkers turn a baby's eyes blue"? That seems to address your issue, but it's hard to tell why you find the content objectionable.

The way I see it, Jack S, Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that forbids me from disagreeing with you. It does have a policy permitting me to use primary sources for facts. For you to tell me that I may not alter content that is under dispute while you go into the article and do that very thing troubles me considerably.

There is precedent for using a novel as a source in an adaptation section: [2] You'll find more if you look. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The way to solve the problem is to find a reliable source that makes the connections between events in the book and series. No one cares if you source the book in an article about the book. We do care if you are trying to connect events between the two mediums because you need to make evaluative judgments. You are being the filter by pointing out that white walkers didn't breakdance in the books but do in the series. You think you are just pointing out the obvious (ie. 'this happens in A but doesn't happen in B)' is totally fine and not at all original research. It is, though. Firstly, you are asking us to believe that what you are pointing out is of value, editorially. Outside of the plot, the only information of value is that which is referenced to a reliable source. Secondly, you are evaluating the info as missing or containing something. You as an editor do not get to make that call. Ever. So, it doesn't matter how you phrase it; it will still be uncited and unusable by Wikipedia.

If you feel like this is not working for you, let's head over to the DRN discussion regarding this problem. The same sort of issue has reared its head with Diego at "Breaker of Chains", and hopefully, resolving the matter there will have a ripple effect on the problem here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Only the content attributed to the source must be about that source. It's not at all rare to mention more than one thing in an article. In this case, "Scene X is not in the book" is completely independent of the episode. No comparison or connection is being made here. I could just as easily say, "George Washington does not cross the Delaware in this novel" or "This novel is not set in the present day" or yes "The white walkers don't breakdance." The question is whether the material is relevant, not whether it has been properly sourced. If relevance is your objection, then stop claiming OR and argue that.

"You are asking us to believe that what you are pointing out is of value editorially." That is true of every character of text in this article. That does not make any of it OR.

"you are evaluating the info as missing or containing something." What are you talking about?

If I feel that what's not working for me? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think its best to expend our energies in DRN; you are extinguishing my Good Faith in you, and neither one of us wants that. I could point out where everything you have just said is dead wrong, but what's the point of doing it here, where you just say, 'no I am not!' Then we end up no closer to a solution than before. There isn't going to be any compromise on my part, because you are simply wrong. I don't feel you are wrong, DG. I know it. Problem is, you don't know it yet.

Let the vast majority of experienced editors reiterate what I and DQ have said - maybe in some highly magical way that helps you to understand - and we'll go from there.

Again, I'm not doing anything that you're not doing. You say I'm wrong. I say you're wrong. Don't act like I'm breaking Wikipedia's rules by not preferring your opinion to my own. As for you not being interested in compromise; yes, that's clear. You haven't offered one proposal for how this content could be phrased to address your concerns and you don't seem interested in other people's suggestions.

The thing that I don't understand is why you don't think that "X does not appear in the book" is anything but a straightforward fact, easily verifiable by any reader. Speaking of which, I don't think I've asked: Have you read the book? Have you actually seen the content that I'm talking about and do you actually believe that it specifically is not straightforward and verifiable? Speaking generally is okay too, but it does make a difference. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly, our policies and guidelines are not "my opinion." Or difference of opinion is based solely upon your misapprehension of basic rules of citation. As you have admitted that you seek to compare the episodes to the books, you are readily admitting that you are synthesizing the data between the two and completely misunderstanding how the terms primary and secondary sources are different from outside of Wikipedia.

In answer to your question, yes, I have read all of the books to date, and have seen the episodes as well. I suspect almost everyone editing GoT articles has done so, so the very act of asking is somewhat insulting. Additionally, you seem to be encountering the same difficulty that a lot of very new users do: you think that because you personally believe something to be true that that equates with verfiable. The litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Using a primary source to say something happened in a book works only for articles or discussions about that book. It cannot be applied elsewhere. This is why I suggested you seek out a reliable source that discusses what you wish to include. Without it, this thread is mostly dead.

You can use a primary source to describe a thing (describing a novel in an article about a novel). You can not use a primary source to describe one thing as it relates to another, different thing. To do that, you need secondary sources. But of course, you already know this, as DQ has patiently explained to you on at least one occasion. Do yourself a favor, and ask around. I don't see you seeking to resolve the problem at DRN. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

When you say, "This policy doesn't really mean that; it means this instead," you are giving your opinion.

No I haven't said that I'm comparing the episodes to the books. I have repeatedly said that I am not saying that the book scene was longer or shorter or showed this character differently, though that should be obvious from the text itself. My goal is to inform readers of where the counterpart material from this episode can be found so that they can reread those parts of the book if they want.

I certainly don't mean to insult you by asking if you've read the book. Like I said, not having read the book doesn't mean someone's not allowed to contribute here or to comment on the use of books in general as primary sources.

The text that I've added is 100% verifiable and the sources are cited. Open the book and there it is. It doesn't get more verifiable than that.

This is not the first article to use a primary source other than its own immediate subject. See Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), among others.

I didn't not use the primary source. I did use the primary source. If you interpret, "Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y and Z" as a comparison, which it is not, then we can change it so it reads, "Event x happens in chapter X and event y happens in chapter Y." No one is stopping you from changing or improving the text so that it suits your interpretation of the rules, but just deleting sourced material without good cause is a problem. While you're at it, stop telling other people not to revert changes to disputed sections while you are reverting changes to disputed sections.

As for my not "seeking to resolve the problem at DRN," you will find that I added my description of our dispute there days ago. It's right above yours. Our part now is to wait for someone other than the three of us to think that this issue is worth their time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Darkfrog, you said:

"My goal is to inform readers of where the counterpart material from this episode can be found so that they can reread those parts of the book if they want."

Well then, mission accomplished. No need to swim in an ocean of OR. A simple see also allows the reader to explore on their own, without having pre-chewed information assessed and weighed for them. Drinks all around. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mission not accomplished, I'm afraid. The paperback version of that book is over a thousand pages long. "Just reread the whole thing" is not practical. If you said to your professor, "I was out sick last week; what did we cover?" and your professor said "Reread the whole textbook," would you consider that mission accomplished? Now imagine that your textbook, like Storm of Swords, has no chapter titles, index or table of contents. "Reread these chapters" is more like it, and absolutely no OR is required to list them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What makes it OR is that you are piecing together what parts of the novel appear in the episode. Ie. you are interpreting what bits they used, and along with that, that these differences are noteworthy. That is original research. That is synthesis. That is why it cannot be in the text. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not guessing at what bits they used; I am observing which parts of the book and novel have the same dialogue and events. I'm not extrapolating blocking from text; I'm looking at the words that came out of people's mouths and the unambiguous actions that they performed. Those can be verified by anyone who sees both. In the same spirit, the passage does not assert "The writers invented the final scene for the show"; it says "The final scene does not appear in the book," which is a straightforward fact.

Even if that were OR, the way to address it is to word the information as, "Sansa finds out that her jewel is poison in chapter X," and "Jaime gives Brienne the sword in chapter Y" and "at no point in the book are white walkers shown carrying a baby to a circle of stones" instead of saying "the same events occur in chapters X and Y." I feel that would make the section longer than necessary, but I could certainly live with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is OR, and it quite simply is not allowed, as per WP:OR. You are not pointing out "straightforward facts"; you are giving weight to their presence or non-presence between media. We don't digest this information for the reader, as that is not within our purview. The series and the books are increasingly different things, and it is not up to us to decide what is important and what is not. If y9u were to have a reference from a reliable source that explicitly talks about these differences, this would be a moot conversation. It would already be in the article without a peep from me. My problem isn't with you (or with Diego, despite the fact that he presents as somewhat of a tool). My problems is that we cannot add material that is representative of your viewpoint. It is not about, 'hey Sansa's necklace had poison in the novel and the book'; it is instead about the two of you thinking that this trivial similarity is of substantial importance to the article. It is the thinking mostl commonly found in a fansite, and it is utterly put of place in Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You say We don't digest this information for the reader, except that we do so. It's what we do at plot sections, and in fact is the whole point of Wikipedia - to summarize and present to the reader the most relevant parts of what reliable sources have said about a topic, as an starting point for them so that they can expand their knowledge if they want. If deciding what parts of reliable sources need to be cited were forbidden by policy, we couldn't have articles at all.

Oh, and I would that you refrained from making personal attacks against me. You know that this is a rule that cannot be ignored. Diego (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

We summarize the information via consensus; ie, what we all agree with the plot. And, as you probably know, References are not required for plot summaries, as they are consensually based. And your post above contains the main difference we are having here. You think the info about what is different between the book and episode is relevant. I do not. I think it is the sort of minutiae that belongs on (and likely came from) a fansite blog. You want the information in, do the work. Do not ask Wikipedia to conform to your novel interpreation of primary sources.

The easiest way to solve this problem is to bring forth reliable secondary sources that discuss the differences. I suspect that the only reason you do not is because secondary sources consider the information as trivial as I do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"This problem" is that we have a difference of opinion on what WP:Primary does and does not permit. Wikipedia does permit the use of primary sources and to the best of my estimation I am using them correctly. There is no rule that requires me to satisfy you personally, Jack, or to place your opinions above my own. Not only is "This scene isn't in the book" not a novel interpretation, but it is not an interpretation at all. It is just a fact.

If the main difference is that you don't think the content is relevant, then stop arguing OR and make a case for why this article should not have an Adaptation/Production/Call-it-what-you-want section. If OR isn't the real reason why you keep deleting this content (which was originally deleted for a completely different reason that has since been addressed), that could be why we're going in circles.

And for the second time, quit accusing me of "not doing the work." I have dug up more sources and done more research than you have. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also going to have to ask you not to call Diego a tool. He's shown that he's willing to work with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree on how you can and cannot use primary sources. But I do not think we are in disagreement on how to use secondary sources, right? I've requested - it seems like at least a dozen times, at the very least - you to bring these to the article. Are you saying you cannot find them? Usually, secondary sources are from reviewers, etc. If they exist, you forego the need for this nonsense over primary source usage. You also sidestep any allegations of OR, because it isn't you comparing the differences between the two media but rather someone else: a notable, reliable source. Also, having these secondary sources speaking on these topics eliminates any arguments of importance.

Why are you so hesitant to produce secondary sources, especially when they would solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And my view of Diego Moya remains unchanged; he considers reverting a "game". He hasn't listened or processed any of the arguments given to him, turns around and accuses others of ignoring his arguments. That's a big bucket of Nope. He's got a ways to go to recover anything approaching respect from me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, I did bring in secondary sources, and you keep deleting despite them. This and the statements you've made in this conversation lead me to believe that no amount of work on my part would satisfy you. The fact that you don't seem to have dug up any sources yourself might mean that WP:OR is at the very least not your only objection to this text and that you aren't that particular about which rule you use to delete it. I don't want to spend another hour looking up articles just for you to unveil some fresh objection, especially when the novel itself is more reliable and explicitly permitted for use in this way. How about you take a turn? The best person to say which sources meet your specific interpretation of Wikipedia policy is you.

As for "solving the problem to everyone's satisfaction," do you mean that if I provided yet another secondary source, you and DQ would stop deleting the reference tag citing the novel itself? That's part of the problem. As a matter of fact, DQ and I weren't fully in disagreement about the actual text of "Breaker of Chains"; only about whether the reference tag should stay or go.

I don't see how you have grounds to accuse anyone of not listening to you, Jack. Diego's responses show that he has indeed processed your objections and responded to your individual points. He even came up with a new format to try to address your concerns. He just doesn't seem to agree with you. If that counted as not listening, then you wouldn't be listening either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I accidentally deleted the two cites from 538 and IGN; that is on me. I had grown accustomed to you and DM trying to shove your incorrect interpretation of PRIMARY down our throats and didn't pay as close attention. Like I said, mea culpa. I've reinstated them.

The entirety of my argument has been, from the beginning of this matter, regards the lack of secondary sources explicitly stating what you want to add. This means a reliable source that talks about what chapters were used in what episode. You get those, and my problem vanishes. We cannot use the primary source of the book because it requires the evaluative effort of a wiki editor to make a comparison. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. Read the 538 article more closely. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Listen very closely, Darkfrog: you seem to think I don't want the chapters in the episodes. Without explicit statements stating what chapter was used by a reliable secondary source, we cannot include it. You have sources that fulfill that criteria? Great. Problem solved. Know, though, that if you seek to add primary sources (ie, the book), or anything from Westeros.org (a non-RS source), I will keep removing them. So, maybe stop doing that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jack, I think that you just don't want the chapters listed here. I think that OR is not your only problem with this content. I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like from over here. You could prove me wrong easily, though: How about you don't leave all the source-finding to me? I've got the impression that any source I find, you'll shoot them down or just not bother to read them thoroughly enough to see whether they support the content—as with the 538 article—so show me that I wouldn't be wasting my efforts.

Please stop insinuating that I haven't been listening to you. I don't agree with you. That is not the same thing. Would you say that you haven't been listening to me? WP:Primary states that we can use a novel as a source on its own content, and you're going to have to do more than say, "it doesn't really mean that" to convince me otherwise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you had been listening, Darkfrog, you would have heard me say - several times - that all you need is reliable secondary sourcing that explicitly says what you have violated 3RR to keep adding. I've told you on several occasions that you cannot use primary sourcing. You ignore that. I keep telling you that you cannot use Westeros.org as a source, as they are not considered a reliable source. You keep ignoring that, too. You found two sources that help somewhat your cause (though they aren't as explicit as you wish), so you are getting closer. I am not here to impede you; I am here to protect the article. There's a difference, and you should endeavor to realize that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For the fourth time, read the 538 article. Hit CTRL-F for the word "chapter" if you have to.

You say all I need is a reliable secondary source, then I provide one, and then you delete the content anyway. Do you still need to know why I think that "this is OR" might not be the only thing going on here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Core questions about the adaptation section and appropriate sourcing

DQ, Diego, Jack, would you agree that the core questions that needed to be answered here are these?

• "Does WP:Primary permit statements like, 'Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel' with the novel itself as a source?"
• "Does WP:Primary permit statements like, 'Jaime gave Brienne the sword in chapter X of the novel' in an article about an episode of a television show in which that same event took place with the novel itself as a source?"
• "Does WP:Primary permit statements like, 'This scene/character shown in the episode is not in the novel at all' with the novel itself as a source?"

Do you guys think that this is a fair and complete description of the stuff we've been arguing about or would you say it's misleading? Would you add to it or take anything out? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would phrase the question as follows:

• Do statements like, 'This scene/character shown in the episode is not in the novel at all' with the novel itself as a source?" require a primary source or secondary source?
• Do statements like, 'Jaime gave Brienne the sword in chapter X of the novel' in an article about an episode of a television show in which that same event took place with the novel itself as a source?" require a primary source or secondary source?
• Do statements like, 'Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel' with the novel itself as a source?" require a primary source or secondary source?

The argument that DQ has been making is that you are using primary sourcing incorrectly. I've been arguing not only that, but the precedence of secondary sourcing for this sort of thing, as well as WP:FRINGE, WP:SYN and WP:OR. My suggested alterations put the questions into their proper perspective; we know it should be secondary sourcing whereas you think primary sourcing is okey-dokey. That is at the heart of the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The "or" in your version is misleading. Wikipedia does not require that there be only one source for each statement made and often prefers that there be more. Wikipedia does not require us to choose between primary and secondary sources. There's no question that secondary sources are preferred. Wikipedia allows primary and secondary sources, but primary sources must only be used in certain ways. The question is whether "This content is in chapters X, Y and Z" is one of those ways. As you put it, "the argument that DQ has been making is that [I am] using the primary source incorrectly" and mine is that I am using them correctly.

How would you feel about "Is a primary source sufficient backing for statements such as '...' or is a secondary source required?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am differentiating between primary or secondary sources. In this case, we cannot use a primary source to have the text say what you wish, because it is evaluative, and therefore violates OR. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've established that that's what you believe. But you'd agree that whether primary sources are sufficient to make such statements is what we've been arguing about and that the question "Is a primary source sufficient for X?" doesn't mischaracterize it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: it isn't what I "believe" - its the actual policy in place. Additionally, presenting the argument wherein the decision-maker has more than one choice seems a lot more intelligent than just asking for a yes or no. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the rules is your belief. Again if there is a policy that states that primary sources may not be used for negative statements or lists of events that they contain, post a link to it here'. So far, we have a case where four people looked at the same set of rules and came to two different conclusions.

We're not arguing about whether secondary sources would be sufficient; we all agree that they are. We're arguing about whether primary sources are sufficient or not. No one has said, "Should Darkfrog cite the novel or the web article?" You've said, "Darkfrog, you don't get to cite the novel regardless of whether you cite anything else."

Under ideal-Wikipedia conditions, if an editor has access to an allowable primary source and an allowable secondary source for the same material, then the Wikieditor creates two tags and cites both. The question in this case is whether the primary source is allowable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It against policy because it's a false attribution. If I were to write something like "Darkfrog24 never denied being a mass murderer (cite primary source Darkfrog24)" it's not only an incorrect use of citation but also a very bad thing to do, even if it's a factual statement. The correct way to cite that would be "Darkfrog24 never denied being a mass murderer (me)"--which only goes to show that it's original research. It's your interpretation of the rules that's wrong because it goes against academic consensus, of which Wikipedia policies are based on. Primary sources can never be used for such negative statements as you're wanting. DonQuixote (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sooooo, "yes"? You'd agree that "Is a primary source sufficient for a negative statement such as 'X is not in this book'?" is an accurate description of what we're arguing about here? Or "no," you'd describe it differently?

You've given a good example about how negative statements can be misleading, but it's not true that all of them are. "So-and-so never denied committing a crime" can be misleading even if it's from a secondary source. (It's also almost impossible because surely so-and-so's full body of speech includes things to which the Wikieditor was not privy.) However, something like, "John Jay does not discuss women's suffrage in the Federalist Papers" is appropriate in a discussion of eighteenth-century feminism. In the case of the white walker statement, the context makes it pretty clear what we're talking about and why. No position is advanced and no facts not in evidence are asserted.

So your example, "So-and-so never denied the crime" is misleading because it advances the position that so-and-so is guilty. How do you feel that, "The white walker scene does not appear in the novel" advances a position or misleads the reader? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

However, something like, "John Jay does not discuss women's suffrage in the Federalist Papers" is appropriate in a discussion of eighteenth-century feminism. Yes, that would be called original research. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot publish original research.

And the point is that it's misleading because the source never mentions it. That's the point. The whole point of citation is that the source you are citing mentions it. It's an improper use of citation period. DonQuixote (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We've established that we disagree on this. The way I see it, you open the book and there suffrage isn't. It's a straightforward description of a fact that can be verified by anyone with access to the source. You think that's OR and I don't. But aside from that, do you think that the statement is misleading?

And back to my main point, do you have any objection to the question, "Is a primary source sufficient for [text disputed here]?" Is there anything you'd change about it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't disagree on facts. Citation, by it's very definition, is about quoting or paraphrasing the source material. Opening a book and discovering that it doesn't say anything about suffrage or dinosaurs or aliens is original research. This is basic knowledge taught in school. And incorrect citation is misleading in that the source doesn't say what you're saying. Period. What I would like changed is you stop misusing sources, primary or otherwise. DonQuixote (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to conclude that you have no objections or changes to make about the questions as I've phrased them at this time, that you're reasonably okay with them. Feel free to correct me on that.

Actually, we're not disagreeing about a fact; we're disagreeing about an interpretation. We're good to go on the idea that the statement made in the article must be verifiable in the source cited, but you're interpreting that to mean that negative statements are not okay and I'm not.Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Precedents for use/exclusion of primary sources in articles about their adaptations

A few posts ago, you said something like "Wikipedia policies are based on academic consensus" and implied that there is an academic consensus for no negative statements. Can you cite anything explicitly confirming either of these things? Any WP policies? Any resolved disputes? Any university web sites? Any style guides? Any precedents (WP articles in which either of these things was used, done or held true)? One of the problems we have here is that "just take my word for it" isn't carrying any weight with anyone. Can you give me something more than just your own word? For example, if someone asked why the article was spelled "New York Theater District" instead of "Theatre District," I could refer that person to a resolved discussion from a year or two back in which the participants found that reliable sources preferred the -ter spelling more than 2:1. If someone wanted to write about the Madeupville Theater District, I could cite the NYTD article as a precedent. I could also cite web and printed style guides that discuss proper nouns and regional spelling. I could cite WP:ENGVAR for Wikipedia policy about national varieties of English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation: The Key to Responsible Research "When quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing the ideas of others, you must clearly indicate which words, thoughts or ideas belong to your source and which are your own."...yeah, "this scene is not in the book" doesn't belong to the book--it belongs to you. DonQuixote (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That does not establish that negative statements cannot be cited in this way. Statements like, "The purview of this book is the history of dogs in warfare; it does not discuss seeing-eye dogs or therapy dogs" would fall under what it describes as "Summary." Do you have anything that supports your position explicitly or that specifically mentions negative statements? And do you have anything that shows that Wikipedia copies or is based on UC Davis or academia in general? For your point to hold, we need to do two things 1. establish that standard academic citation practice does not allow negative statements and 2. establish that Wikipedia follows standard academic citation practice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I found further precedent for the use of primary sources in Wikipedia articles about their adaptations. If you plug "differences from the book" into the search bar, a whole list comes up. Some of them explicitly tag the novel and some do not. Some of them cite additional sources and some do not, but they all use their respective books as sources for their own content. If these articles have whole sections, why shouldn't this one have two sentences? Cross-post from the dispute resolution board:

• Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) cites the novel for a straight fact about the novel's plot.[3]
• The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) [4] [5] negative statement: [6]
• December Boys [7]
• Minas Tirith (not an adaptation, but hit CTRL-F "not in the book") [8]
• Many other articles include "differences from the book" sections that refer to the book but do not have formal reference tags. [9] [10] [11] negative statement "is not in the book": [12] [13]

Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: May statements indicating what parts of a source novel contain the same content as certain scenes from a television series be sourced to the book alone or do they need secondary sources?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: Comparisons between the book and the television series based on the book made on the basis of primary sources are WP:OR and should not be included in article space.

Two editors supported inclusion of the comparisons in question and six were opposed.

In favour of inclusion, it was argued that the comparisons were factual and straightforward, and so permissible under WP:PRIMARY. I don't find this to be a very strong argument, because that policy says: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself." In any case where the information in question can only be adduced by considering two separate primary sources, that is by definition synthesis. Even if the degree of sythesis involved is minor, it is still expressly prohibited by the policy. I will add that I don't think this difficulty can be overcome by the use of innuendo and careful syntax. A comparison is "information" for WP purposes, even if it is presented in two or more syntactically separate statements. I can imagine cases where flexibility in this approach might be advisable. For example, a case where the alternative is a breach of WP:NPOV. However, no suggestion that this is such a case has been made in the discussion.

It was also argued that inclusion would not constitute OR because no analysis was involved and because the question of the noteworthiness of the material is irrelevant under WP:NOR. I do not find the first argument very compelling because, as discussed above, WP:NOR does not restrict itself to prohibiting "analysis". I am not sure the second argument is correct but, even if we allow it, it is obvious that other policies do require the noteworthiness of material to be demonstrated (most obviously, WP:V). The same argument suggested that the material in consideration here is essentially different to the type of material discouraged by WP:FILMDIFF, but I am unable to understand how this can be.

A key argument made by the other side was that whether the information is at all important remains unclear without secondary sourcing to indicate that it is. This is a strong argument. One of the main reasons we prefer secondary sources, after all, is that they provide an indication that somebody other than the editors of the article have found a particular fact interesting. I also think this is an argument that supporters of inclusion have failed to address, focusing instead on NOR.

On balance, the arguments made in favour of inclusion of the material are weak relative to the opposing case. For this reason, there is no reason not to consider the numerical win for those opposed to the material to represent a consensus in their favour.

1. May statements like, "This scene/character shown in the episode is not in the novel at all" be made using the novel itself as a primary source or is a secondary source required?
2. May statements like, "Jaime gave Brienne the sword in chapter X of the novel" be made in an article about an episode of a television show in which that same event took place using the novel as a primary source alone or is a secondary source required?
3. May statements like, "Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel" be made using the novel itself as a primary source or is a secondary source required?
   

Two editors feel that WP:PRIMARY allows them to state which chapters of a source novel(s) "contain the same content as" episode(s) of a television series adapted from that novel. Two other editors feel that sourcing these connections to a secondary source is required. All four are entrenched in their positions, equally convinced they are interpreting policy and guidelines correctly. An effort at DRN just concluded without resolution in the matter.

• Some other relevant questions:

• 4. Is an index of the book chapters in the Plot section valuable for the Game of Thrones articles and their readers?
• 5. If a secondary source states that the film is based in the book, can it be considered a reliable source for establishing that the same events happen in some scenes?
• 6. In the event that both a primary and a secondary source support the same statement, must the tag citing the primary source be deleted? Must it be kept?

Bullet responses

Please keep comments in this section short, clear and to the point. Feel free to explain in detail in the Discussion section.

• Disputed text is acceptable. OR isn't much of an issue here. The idea that we'd need a third party to say, "Galadriel does not appear in The Hobbit" seems excessive to the point of being silly. Statements like "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X" and "Events from this episode also appear in X, Y, and Z" are straightforward facts, verifiable by anyone, as stipulated in WP:PRIMARY. While WP:FILMDIFF might apply to full sections detailing every minute difference between adaptation and original, "Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z" is a single line telling the reader what the source material was and where to find it. No undue space is used, and no undue importance is implied. Considering that the text in question was deleted even after a secondary source was provided, establishing that the primary source is sufficient would be very useful. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Disputed text is not acceptable. OR is absolutely an issue here. Initially the immediate issue is one of use; does the reader want to know about this? If so, how to prove that? Right after this is the deep concern that - since the television series' creators have themselves admitted that they would be drawing parts from several different books in the series - Wikipedia editors are adding where they personally 'feel' the chapters from the book correlate. This is a comparative, evaluative decision on the part of the wiki contributor - and remains one of the points of contention, despite every policy and guideline to the contrary. Were there a secondary, reliable source, this problem of OR could be sidestepped completely (leaving only the usefulness issue remaining). Yet a very small number of contributors insist upon misusing the primary source (the book) as justification for referencing it in a different medium. Additionally, arguments noting FILMDIFF as justification are being seriously misrepresented. FILMDIFF itself suggests that the information - as it is being suggested being used here - ranges from being "discouraged" through "especially discouraged" to "removed entirely as the article matures." Indeed, FILMDIFF itself suggests real-world context, as would be represented by secondary, reliable sourcing, be provided. That this seems an elusive truth to some is baffling to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Original research is not a concern, as no new idea is introduced that wasn't already well-sourced. We all agree that analysis of differences are not allowed, but the nature of the information presented (references used as an index of chapters, without any explanatory nor evaluative assertions) is essentially different from the kind covered by FILMDIFF, and OR doesn't deal with choosing what references are significant for an article - that's a concern of editorial discretion; per WP:BURDEN, it's editors responsibility to decide whether primary or secondary sources that contain the cited text are reliable and relevant enough to include it. If some people recognized the real nature of the disputed content, instead of introducing lateral arguments about concepts to which everybody agrees, they wouldn't be that surprised. Diego (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Citation for disputed text is unacceptable. Citation for an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, requires the cited source to explicitly contain what it is being cited for. Citing a source for what it does or does not contain is indicative of original research. Citing secondary sources that says what the disputed text says should solve the problem. DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Exclude per Wikipedia:NOT#IINFO: "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary".

If we're going into more detail than any secondary source then IMO we're not being concise.

Also relevant: WP:TVPLOT ("summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words"), WP:PLOTSUM.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I do not feel that those sentences represent OR, due to the fact that they can be verified at the source. The first is the most problematic, as it would essentially require someone checking the fact to read the entire book (or at least read from a scene known to precede it to one known to come after it), but if it's verifiable and not SYNTH, it's not OR. That being said, none of those claims need to be in articles about the show, unless that article is specifically about differences between the show and the books, or at the very least, both in a section about the differences and notable enough to matter to the plot of the book or episode. see WP:IINFO. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I've found this recent related Request for Comments involving Plot sections: RfC: Should every novel include a Plot Summary? Diego (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• It is my opinion that none of this information, whether it would constitute original research or not, is appropriate for inclusion without independent sources having taken note of it. We establish non-triviality via sourcing, and WP articles should not contain indiscriminate information. I believe the precedent discussions I linked to in the DRN filing support that view. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussions you linked to dealt with dissimilarities between sources, not similarities (and there were editors who thought they were acceptable). Here, questions 2, 3 and 4 are about facts appearing both in the film and novel, facts which a reader can directly verify, and which are already accepted in the article as allowed by MOS:PLOT. I.e., the same facts would be included in the article whether their chapters are reported or not. Diego (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they're similarities or dissimilarities, analysis or just pointing out facts; secondary sources should be provided as a means of establishing significance. We don't need to source the plot of the article subject because the article subject itself is the source (i.e. a primary reference is acceptable for a well-written plot summary. The minute we add anything on top of a strict summary, sourcing should be utilized. DonIago (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

...and I feel obligated to add that if secondary sources were provided then this whole situation could have been resolved much more quickly. Realistically in practically any content dispute where a lack of sourcing even enters into the equation, providing sources is the least stressful and most productive approach to resolution. DonIago (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Doniago, look at the article. Secondary sources were provided. Repeatedly. [14] [15] [16] The fact that Jack deleted the content anyway is why I think that finding more secondary sources wouldn't help here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack: Can you explain why you deleted statements that included secondary sourcing? DonIago (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My point has always been that it does matter whether similarities or dissimilarities of plot points are involved, as the latter involve analysis and the former are not. Given the benefits of a plain index (of the form "this event appears in this chapter"), requiring secondary sources is overkill for the kind of content that we're dealing with here as WP:PRIMARY allows, "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge".

That over-specification of policy would kill any benefit of including an index for the content, as it would make it incomplete. When sources have been provided and editors disagree whether they are reliable or not, the right thing to do debate whether the benefits for including them in the article exceed the potential drawbacks (which as of today are still unclear, as no one opposing them have argued that the information provided by the primary source is inaccurate). Diego (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be legitimately argued that including that sort of index here is going beyond the scope of an encyclopedia and might be more appropriate for a wikia, but I also think we really need to hear from additional editors on this. At any rate, accuracy is certainly a criteria for inclusion, but there are other factors...we don't include information just because it's accurate, not even if we have sources we can use to prove that it's accurate. In any case, the index seems a bit fancrufty to me (do we have precedents?) and potentially prone to being added to in ways that will create OR issues down the line. But again, on this point I'd like to hear from other editors. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose adding another question to the RfC: "If both a primary and secondary source support the same statement, must the tag citing the primary source be removed?" That has also been an issue here. I have changed the rest of the wording of this RfC to make it less biased and misleading. At no point has the issue of primary or secondary sources been in dispute. We all agree that secondary sources are sufficient. The issue is whether primary sources alone are enough and whether, if a secondary source is also available, whether the tag citing the primary source may be kept or removed.

As for my own position, WP:Primary explicitly permits using "straightforward descriptions of facts that anyone with access to the primary source may verify without specialist knowledge." Statements like "This character does not appear in this book" are no less straightforward and verifiable than "This character does appear in this book."

Similarly, if I can say, "This painting shows George Washington" and "This coin shows George Washington," then it's not OR to say "These images show the same person." We're not saying "Sansa gets better lines in the TV show than in the book" or "Tyrion is braver in the book" or even describing exactly how the scenes are the same and different. Those can be construed as comparisons. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it's necessarily kosher to change an RFC opened by another editor, but I'll leave that to others to comment on.

I guess I don't see why a primary source would be necessary if a secondary source is available, but perhaps I need specific examples as far as that goes.

As I've tried to explain, without secondary sourcing I feel that discussing whether or not a character appears and whether or not a painting or a coin show the same person is trivia that shouldn't be included. It's not a matter of whether the information is true/verifiable, it's a matter of whether it's significant enough to merit inclusion. DonIago (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

DonIago, that reasoning is good in principle but it doesn't apply to this debate. The plot points and characters we're debating have already been included in the article, usage of primary or secondary sources doesn't change that. What we're arguing here is not merely "This character appears/does not appear in this book" (OK that's one, but not the only one); what we're trying to source to the book is the difference from "Samsa flees the city" to ""Samsa flees the city in chapter 62". Can you please explain why you think adding "in chapter 62" requires a secondary source noting the chapter in order to consider it as relevant? What benefit is gained by a third party noting it? There's no deep insight in noting the point in the book when a plot point appears. Diego (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, no strangers had shown up to comment yet, and the original wording was extremely inaccurate. If we ask newcomers to this issue, "Should I use a primary source or a secondary source," that implies "I can only use one, so tell me which is better," so most people will say "secondary." That's not going to help here because that's not what we've been fighting about. If we ask, "Is a primary source alone enough in this case?" which is the actual issue at hand, then we might get viewpoints that we can use. Also, if we describe Side A in absolute terms but Side B in moderate terms, then we present Side B as both more likable and more reasonable, which predisposes newcomers to favor that position. If we describe both sides the same way, then we introduce less bias into other people's perception of the issue. We get more of what they think and less of what the person who composed the RfC thinks.

Okay, Don. Why do you think "in chapter X" is trivial? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it doesn't add to anyone's understanding in a meaningful way. If people care about the book(s), they can read them. By placing some events (the ones we choose to list) over others we're implying the listed events are more important than the unlisted ones. As I noted above, the "index" also seems a bit fancrufty to me and potentially subject to bloat and OR down the line. To my mind it may very well be better suited to a wikia.

If you want to impress me, don't just say that something is different, say why it's different. Talk about intention, or talk about critics commenting on it, or provide some real-world context. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I count every list of chapters in a TV season (Game of Thrones (season 1)#Episodes, Mad Men episodes...) as a precedent. Those are divided in chapters, and they don't need secondary sources for that division (note how some chapters in Mad Men have links to critical commentary, but some others have not; and that's to reference U.S. viewers - data such as directors and writers are referenced to the primary source). "If people care about the book(s), they can read them". Precisely, the point of the index is to avoid readers having to read the whole book in order to find out the sources for a small part of the plot.

I basically agree with the part about differences - reporting that something has changed from the book requires analysis as to why they were changed in the adaptation process. But the index doesn't list differences, and its purpose is not to provide plot analysis, but useful data that helps the reader - an index like the one I'm proposing improves verifiability, as it makes it easier to find whether a particular plot point already in the article has been adapted from the book or not.

Oh - and one more time, the index doesn't place some events above others, the plot section does that. Diego (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As for precedents of articles of films/TV including plot points from the book from primary sources, Darkfrog24 had already provided a list at the former discussion (at least on of them is a Featured Article):

• Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) cites the novel for a straight fact about the novel's plot.[17]
• The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) [18] [19] negative statement: [20]
• December Boys [21]
• Minas Tirith (not an adaptation, but hit CTRL-F "not in the book") [22]
• "Differences from the book" sections with the book as at a source: [23] [24] [25] negative statement "is not in the book": [26] [27]

In Game of Thrones, the structure of the novels divides chapters by major characters, and each TV episode usually covers just one or two chapters for each character. This means that at most one reference would be needed in the Plot section for each character at each article - as in the example above; doesn't look like cruft to me.

Diego (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are multiple flaws with your argument, Diego Moya, and it is these flaws which make me resistant to the changes you support. Chief amongst these is the idea that the primary source of the novel can be used to establish where in an episode where you think the same thing happened in the cited book; in other words, comparing like to like. You believe that PLOT governs how we use references in the other sections of the article. In fact it cannot, as per WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Indeed, using the primary source of the book to say something the source does not is in fact synthesis. Plot summaries are exempt from referencing requirements because they exist as a consensus view as to what occurred in the episode. For example, Jaime gives Brienne the sword Oathkeeper to wield; a fairly easy fact to verify, as everyone saw that. But if someone suggest he gave it as a token of his love for her, not everyone is going to share that opinion and it would most likely be removed as not being the consensus view of the plot. Can a secondary source say this? Yep, and we can include it (in the production section) if the reviewer is from a reliable source.

Note that in each instance I have mentioned the requirement of secondary sourcing, I have noted that the source must be reliable. The links that you note sources that I've removed (apart from a single source which was accidentally removed in the shuffle) were from Westeros.org as well as sourcing the books themselves. The latter is the source of our problem here, but Westeros.Org - as a user-driven site - is almost completely unusable as a reliable source. The inadvertent removal of the only valid source (FiveThirtyEight, as indicated by Diego's link #14) occurred because it was nestled within the book and Westeros.org references. I removed them by accident, apologized and rewrote the section to more accurately reflect the single valid source present.
I uniformly reject the notion that "it does matter whether similarities or dissimilarities of plot points are involved, as the latter involve analysis and the former are not" as well as the misuse of PRIMARY ("straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"). What Diego fails to recognize is that those "descriptive statements of fact" can be made about the material being sourced, and that material only. It cannot be used to evaluate, compare, elaborate upon or otherwise discuss derived material, such as a tv series episode. That's what we have secondary sourcing for.
Diego believes that the material adds value to the article. This personal belief highlights one of the basic disconnects here: he believes it. It is not a view from a source. At Wikipedia, we do not make assertions or push an agenda; we cite others from outside Wikipedia that do so. That some of the examples noted by DF and again by DM (like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc) are used to illustrate that this isn't always true is actually indicative that the linked articles need maintenance. They are not indicative of a tidal shift in the Community's view regarding the use of sources.
I relaize I've presented a wall of text, but Diego Moya made several claims that needed to be addressed. I feel as Donlago does that a great deal of this issue could have been averted had some secondary sources been presented that explicitly noted the chapters used. That didn't happen, despite multiple requests. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As to the specific chapters adding to understanding in a meaningful way, it tells me where to find the source material. If it's relevant that the episode was based on A Storm of Swords at all, why wouldn't it be relevant that parts, and which parts, of the book were used? As for "People can just read the books if they want," of course they can, but because the TV show isn't going in order, saying "just read the book" isn't going to do much to show them where to find this episode. Specifically, the Jaime-Cersei scene in "Breaker of Chains," also notable for its controversy, had me going "Now that can't be right!" It was so crazy that I had to reread the book to make sure I hadn't overlooked it. It took me a very long time to dig through the book and find the original version--because the TV show doesn't go in order and because so much of the continuity has been changed.

Look at it this way. Say you are sick and miss a week of class. Or even say you were present and just want some more material. You ask your professor, "Which chapter of the textbook should I read for this week's course material?" and your professor says, "Just reread the whole textbook." Now imagine that 1. your textbook has no index and 2. your professor hasn't been following the textbook in order.

Diego--I disagree that flat statements about differences from the book require analysis. They seem to be subject to FILMDIFF, but that doesn't make them OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This sounds very WP:INUNIVERSE to me, whereas WP articles should generally focus on providing real-world context and minimize in-universe content. You're not really helping my concerns that this would be more appropriate for a Wikia, sorry. This is another thing that would be helped by the addition of independent sources...and I'm starting to have concerns that the fact that sources aren't being provided at this point is because sources don't discuss these comparisons. DonIago (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Doniago, the chapter numbers are anything but "in universe"! :-) The fictional world is not divided in chapters. The chapter of the book on which the film is based is real-world context for the plot section, it can't be considered in universe by any logic - the book exists in the real world. (The only book I can think where chapters were in-universe was The Neverending Story) :-P

@Jack: can you please stop addressing points that have not been made? Nobody is interpreting why Jaime gives Brienne the sword, so why have you introduced that opinion who nobody is arguing for - have you run out of real arguments? I've quoted WP:PRIMARY word-by-word for how it allows verifiable content that can be found in the book. The material being sourced is the book, so the book is a reliable source. The chapter numbers are in the book at the top of each first page (depending on the version), as well as the scene where Jaime gives Brienne the sword Oathkeeper. Both are easy to verify in the book, so reporting those are not synthesis. If you're addressing my arguments, I've never made any point with respect to Westeros.Org as supporting the content, so once again you're chasing a shadow, not arguing against me. And of course the idea that an index improves the article is my opinion, that's how Wikipedia articles are written - by considering the opinions that editors have about what sources are reliable, and writing content based on those. Diego (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The chapter numbers themselves may not be in-universe, but what you seem to be talking about isn't providing any significant real-world perspective on the work either, as near as I can tell; you're just talking about how the episode maps to the books. I still feel this would be more appropriate for a Wikia. If you want to persuade me that it belongs there, then provide secondary sources that have discussed how events in the episode map to the books, which will firmly establish that we're talking about something that caught the attention of people other than Wikipedia editors. Or we can wait for an uninvolved editor to offer their perspective on the matter, since I feel we're just going in circles at this point. DonIago (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We are going 'round in circles, which is why I am going to hold off responding to Diego Moya's failure to actually read my post. Though I very much want to. Let's get some new input, instead of the same recurring wall of text. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Doniago, why do you think secondary sources are needed to add "in chapter X" to the article? What does an external perspective contribute to those three words?

Jack: I read your post, you made a very long comment and half of it or more was against arguments I didn't make. Diego (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. INUNIVERSE in fact recommends using sentences like "a character from radio, book and now film series" or "In the first book, Trillian is introduced..." or "In her backstory...", and says "it is legitimate to freely examine the fictional elements and the design of the storyline". The manual of style doesn't seem to agree with your interpretation of policy about "cruft" content which describes the original works. Diego (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you keep linking to WP:OR et al. saying "This agrees with me!" Well, everyone here has read WP:OR and not everyone came to that conclusion. Why don't you quote the exact part of WP:OR and explain why you have concluded that WP:OR supports your position?

As for your Jaime-gave-Brienne-the-sword reference, no one did insert any text to the effect of, "Jaime gave Brienne the sword because [reason not explicitly stated in source material]." I think we can all agree that something like that could be construed as an interpretation of the primary source. We're not in disagreement. The issue is whether the primary source can be used for straight facts, "Jaime gave Brienne the sword in chapter X."

You could say "he believes it adds value to the article" about everything in this article. Explain why you think this is different.

You mention "a tidal shift in the community's view." Cite something that shows that your position is the community's view and not only your own view. Cite a discussion that produced consensus. Cite a previous RfC. Cite a policy that makes an explicit statement about the use of primary sources in adaptation articles. Cite precedent articles. It didn't take me that long to find articles that show that the community has supported my position, and there are a lot more.

Jack, the fact that I provided exactly such a source and that you deleted the text anyway proves that "Just go find more sources" isn't going to help here. You'll just find some fault with them or bring up some other objection that you'd neglected to mention. Also, my plan here is to go through lots of GoT articles and add chapter information to them. Establishing categorically that it's okay to use the novel itself for that would save me the trouble of addressing every little objection to every secondary source that I find from every person who just happens to dislike such information.

And yes, please stop arguing about points that no one has brought up. If you ask the question, "Does WP policy require secondary sources for interpretation, analysis and evaluative comments?" you will get a "Yes" from everyone here. We're good to go on that.

Doniago, how is it in-universe to say "X happened in chapter Y"? Writing about a book from outside the book and not on the ground on the level of the events that it describes is explicitly out-of-universe. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

At this point I think we'd be best off waiting to hear from editors who have not previously contributed to the discussion, as I don't feel we're making progress on our own. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur. You think we should start a new section, nice and neat with single bullet points? That might look more inviting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to try boiling this (and the DRN discussion, etc) down its basic points I won't stop you (though I think whatever you come up with should require endorsements from the involved parties), and I'll give it a look-over, but considering my original intention with this whole thing was to provide some precendents to guide the DRN filing and then bow-out, I'm kind of exhausted by the whole thing at this point. FWIW I'm also going to be unreachable for the next four days or so, so if anything significant comes up, silence on my part shouldn't be taken as an implication of anything. DonIago (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I meant this kind of bullet point section: [28]. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Can't hurt. DonIago (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And we're up. I put it up top so that any new contributors would see it before they see this part. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, never gave an endorsement, and yet up it went, anyway, watering down the RfC (which makes it too wordy and confusing, imo). Anyway, I've commented. I presume its meant to provide main points without discussion, as that happens here. Now, we wait for input from new voices. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's not how I'd have written it either, but at least it describes the dispute that we're actually having. Maybe if this one doesn't bring in any new opinions, the four of us can get together and work on a shorter wording. Even having another DrN--one in which we specifically ask for a neutral fifth party to help us come up with text for a new RfC--might help.

The fact that it was listed in media instead of OR policy might also have something to do with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@DonQuixote, how can it possibly be true that "Citing a source for what it does contain is indicative of original research"? Diego (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If you go through a book and determine that a source contains 2000 instances of the letter e, then it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(Except when the book contains a histogram of each character's frequency). Thanks for clarification, I couldn't make sense of your wording. It seems to me that by such criteria, everything in Wikipedia that's not an exact quotation is original research; and the things that are exact quotations, are most likely WP:COPYVIO. Diego (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If a source contains a histogram of a character's frequency, then cite the histogram. And citation doesn't only involve an exact quotation, you can also paraphrase. Citation is when you attribute words and ideas to the proper sources. And quoting sources isn't a copyvio, excessive quotation of a single source crosses into copyvio. DonQuixote (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Using that academic source that you posted several days ago, DQ, we're also allowed to summarize. Saying "Brienne appears in six chapters of this sixty-four chapter book" or "Ned Stark doesn't appear in book four" would fall under that category. As for whether summaries are allowed on Wikipedia, WP:Primary explicitly says that novels may be cited for summaries of their own plots, so there's no rule against summary in general. As for the letter e example, "This novel uses the letter e X times" is certainly a straightforward fact that can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge, and it's certainly not a synthesis or interpretation of anything. The question is whether something like that counts as analysis. Something like that could go either way. But "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X" doesn't require anything like that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

If summarizing was the only thing you're doing, then there wouldn't be a problem, and it would be appropriate in the article about the book. As I've said "Sansa escapes (cite book)" (or anything similar, like most of the examples you used) is appropriately citing the primary source because it's a summary. Stating things like "scene X in the show is based on chapter Y of the book (cite book)" is not appropriate because it's not a summary of the book. And "this scene from the show isn't in the book (cite book)" is also inappropriate because it's not a summary of the book. A summary of the book should not include any reference to the show because the book itself makes no reference to the show. DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

DQ, I repeatedly offered to rephrase the section as "[event] happens in chapter Y." Are you saying you're all right with that now? As for summaries of the book, they are explicitly allowed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're also repeatedly ignoring bits and pieces of what's being said. "[event] happens in chapter Y" is "appropriate in the article about the book." DonQuixote (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet you've failed to explain why *the exact same content* would not be appropriate in the article about the film. We have reliable independent sources establishing the relation between the film and the book, noting how the former is based on the later. None of the policies you've quoted that are supposedly against this content do actually say anything about the "proper article" where to sourced content should be placed. Diego (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about the TV episode. What purpose does summarizing the book serve here?--especially when the plot summary for the episode is already limited to ~500 words. It's only relevant if some source explicitly says "scene X is based on chapter Y", otherwise the plot summary for the book should be in the article for the book. DonQuixote (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Balaenoptera musculus: Does your position mean that we shouldn't add the page numbers where content can be found when we write references in Wikipedia? Because that's the amount of detail that we're talking about. Diego (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No. I'm talking about the body text, not citations. Body text does not normally contain page numbers, book citations do (ideally). Let me know if I've misunderstood and this RfC does not relate to the body text. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In the example linked from question 4 in the RfC, no body text is created; merely references to the points in the book where the summary description can be found (in that diff there was also some text in the "Writing" section, but that part is not included in what I call the "index", and could be excluded). The references could be made even shorter by including only the chapter number and omitting clarifying sentences like "In the original book, this happens in chapter X". Diego (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes, I see.

Not the same thing as citations.

Better than putting it in the body text but I'd still exclude it entirely. If secondary sources don't say it then IMO it's going into too much detail for us to say it.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

So you would oppose using the "page" parameter in references as "too much detail", if a third independent source has not noted the page where the content appears. Diego (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. It's fine - encouraged, even - in references. You're not proposing references, are you? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am proposing references. How did you get any other impression????? Diego (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I've not been clear. I said references when I meant citations. My bad. Apologies.

What I meant was:

• In citations, it's normal for us to specify the specific place (such as the page or chapter number) where the information can be found.
• No, we do not require an additional secondary source to establish the notability of the page number of each secondary source in citations.
• Outside of citations, if we're going into more detail than the most detailed secondary source, then (IMO) we're going into too much detail.

The more pressing issue here is that the plot summary is already far too long. It needs to have its length and level of detail reduced, not increased.

WP:TVPLOT ("summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words") and WP:PLOTSUM are relevant.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The number of words in the summary is not part of this request for comments, I don't think anyone would oppose to build a more tight summary. Now, for the part that is disputed: when writing a citation from a primary source, would it be too much detail to include the page number - or in this case, number of chapter where the content can be found? That's the part that motivated this RfC, at least with respect to question 4. Diego (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would be an issue. I hope we can at least all agree that references should be as specific as possible, including page numbers where applicable. DonIago (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? When was there discussion on using the primary source of the book to infer chapter occurrences within the episodes? Because I don't recall hearing a single, compelling argument that says we should scrap our policies and guidelines in favor of this, especially when a reliable secondary source accomplishes the task. We aren't here to reinvent the wheel. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This has been my intent since my first intervention from the initial Third Opinion request. See what I meant when I said you weren't paying attention to my arguments? Diego (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. I'm saying that when a reference that has page numbers is used, the page numbers should be provided. I am not saying, at all, that it's okay to say "part X of the episode comes from pages Y-Z of book A", whether or not page numbers were included. Not unless an independent source took note of it, as I've been maintaining for days now. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, this whole conversation has been about using a primary source to say which chapters contain the same content as the episode. People have been making arguments, compelling and otherwise, for weeks. That is what we've been talking about. And if any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines address this matter more directly than WP:Primary does, please link to them here.

So Balaenoptera. What I'm getting from you is that you don't think this is OR but you do think it's too specific, in fact you'd like to see the whole article slimmed down a lot. Is that about right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, the policies that address this matter have been pointed out at least a dozen times over the past few weeks; the problem is not that they haven't been pointed out - the problem is that you and Diego disagree with how those policies and guidelines read. Don't insult myself and others who have tried ad nauseum to help you understand. The point of this RfC is to get opinions other than the four of us who initially disagreed (though, judging from the walls of text, Diego didn't get that memo).

And I'll point out (again, not for the first time) that you damn yourself by your own post. For in order to determine which chapters - or parts of chapters - are used in a given episode, it is you that has to determine that matter. Not the book, which tells us nothing about the series. Not the episode itself, which makes no mention of the book. It is synthesis to take one source (the book) and another source (the episode) and contend that they are linked together (a new argument). You need a reliable secondary source that makes that connection. We are not detectives. We do not get to sherlock out connections that we cannot reference. SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources

The argument advocating this editorial sherlocking of chapters is a slippery slope. If we allow it here, then more egregious examples are sure to crop up.

And I concur that the episodes are entirely too long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If SYNTH were a problem, you shouldn't have any problem in defining exactly what is the "thesis that can't be verified from sources", as we have repeatedly asked you to do but you never did. Diego (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, all. Below is my understanding of where we are. I could be wrong about any of this of course, I'm sure I can rely on other RfC respondents (who I'm sure will be along shortly) to correct me if I am.
@Diego Moya: "when writing a citation from a primary source, would it be too much detail to include the page number - or in this case, number of chapter where the content can be found?"

• If it were appropriate to go into that much detail (which in this case I believe it is not) then a proper citation, using the standard citation template and including a page number would indeed be the right way to do it.
• For TV episode plot summaries, it's not normally necessary: "Since the episode is the primary source and the infobox provides details about it, citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." (WP:TVPLOT)

@Jack Sebastian: "When was there discussion on using the primary source of the book to infer chapter occurrences within the episodes? Because I don't recall hearing a single, compelling argument that says we should scrap our policies and guidelines in favor of this, especially when a reliable secondary source accomplishes the task. We aren't here to reinvent the wheel."

• I agree.
  

@Doniago: "I am not saying, at all, that it's okay to say "part X of the episode comes from pages Y-Z of book A", whether or not page numbers were included. Not unless an independent source took note of it, as I've been maintaining for days now."

• I agree with that, too.
  

@Darkfrog24: " if any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines address this matter [using a primary source to say which chapters contain the same content as the episode] more directly than WP:Primary does, please link to them here."

• WP:TVPLOT "The plot summary is an overview of the episode's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail."
• WP:IINFO "Summary-only descriptions of works. ... concise summary"
• WP:PLOTSUM (essay)
• WP:OR - whole thing, WP:PSTS in particular

@Darkfrog24: "So Balaenoptera. What I'm getting from you is that you don't think this is OR but you do think it's too specific, in fact you'd like to see the whole article slimmed down a lot. Is that about right?"

• It is original research, but
• Original research is ok in TV episode plot summaries. WP:TVPLOT says:

Since TV episodes are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. WP:PSTS says, "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." This includes allegorical or pop cultural references to real-world events. Since the episode is the primary source and the infobox provides details about it, citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming or "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources, or when a passage refers to a recurring theme or storyline in multiple episodes.

• So the question is, can a matching-up-of-TV-scenes-to-book-chapters reasonably be considered part of the plot summary? (if it could then this would make it ok even though it's original research)

• My view is no, it can't, because it seems to me that:

1. It is not a purely descriptive claim but rather "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" - hence not allowed. (WP:PSTS, WP:TVPLOT),
2. It is not "concise" or "summary" information (WP:IINFO).
3. It is not "basic description of the plot" (WP:TVPLOT).
4. It is the kind of "minutiae" which WP:TVPLOT says should be avoided.

But more pressingly: the plot summary is way too long anyway. We need to get less specific and detailed, not more so. So even if I'm wrong about everything above, we still shouldn't add more detail. Which makes the debate about "is it OR?" "is it plot summary?" pretty much academic in my view.

And that's why my !vote above was for Exclude - because the proposed material should be excluded from the plot summary on grounds of length and detail whether or not it constitutes original research and whether or not that original research is a legitimate part of the plot summary and therefore allowable.

Just my $0.02, hope it helps.
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You could put the proposed text on Game of Thrones Wiki: Oathkeeper instead. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but then people who come to this page for such information wouldn't be able to see it.

The policies you've cited seem to say 1. plot summaries should be concise, and "This scene contains content from chapters X, Y, and Z" is exactly that; statements like "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X" are slightly less concise but still reasonably so, 2. articles should not consist only of material like this, and this one doesn't. 3. WP:OR and WP:PTST/WP:PRIMARY seem to explicitly permit the use of primary sources in this way. Can you point to the part of WP:OR that you think characterizes the text in question as original research? It seems to do just the opposite.

How do you figure that "Jaime gave Brienne a sword in chapter X" is analysis? There's Jaime giving Briene a sword in the scene and there he is giving her a sword in the chapter. How do you think this is different from "Jaime appears in the episode and in the book"?

The disputed text is not in the plot summary section. It is in a separate section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. ... To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

If you want to prove that it's not OR then simply "cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" and I'll be forced to agree with you.

If it's not plot summary then not even descriptive claims are allowed without a source. So even if it is descriptive - and although I don't agree that it is, I can see how your argument goes on that, and descriptive vs analytic/synthetic/interpretative is kind of a subjective judgement - but even if it is descriptive, then if it's neither:

1. Sourced, nor
2. Plot summary

then it isn't allowed.

That's my understanding, FWIW.

The 538 article that someone linked above looks like a good source to me. A statement backed up by that source could be ok, source-wise (although there's still the "is it trivia?" question).

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I concur that the 528 source is a good one and, while it doesn't go so far as to outline all the chapters used, it does for at least one (which I edit the article to reflect). More refs like this would go a very long way to resolving the problem. So long as we stay away from Westeros.org; its not a reliable source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I realize that this is going to sound biased given it's coming from me, but honestly? I kind of feel like just the fact that we've gone through this much discussion over these points is an argument against including them, since I think we can all agree that they appear to be (perhaps surprisingly) controversial. Editors who wish to include them have at least two options: 1) Wikia or other less formal medium, 2) provide independent sourcing to establish significance. Personally I'm tired of going around in circles on this, and I think the reality is that unless there's a serious influx of additional editors, we're not going to reach a consensus for inclusion. While policy may technically allow for the inclusions, and there seems to be some disagreement on that, it seems clear to me that regardless of what policy says there's significant feeling that the material isn't appropriate here as-is. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest everyone just WP:WAITs a while for some more uninvolved editors to come along. WP:TIND, WP:DONTPANIC, etc. I've just publicised the RfC at WP:ORN so we should get some more eyes shortly. (That's more than enough TLAs for one day. ). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand and share Donlago's sentiment (after all, I've been at this since the issue began), but I agree with you, Balaenoptera musculus; let's wait and see what we get. There is a large pool of experienced editors whose opinions could prove helpful. ;- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The novel itself is 1. published, 2. reliable, and 3. directly supports the text in question. So yes, we have demonstrated that this is not OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, you miss the target (and thus the need to gain opinions from users uninvolved in the previous discussions). While the book is indeed published, picking and choosing chapters out of it to support the idea that aforementioned chapters appear in a television episode requires you (the editor) to Sherlock that out. Without a reliable, secondary source to back up that statement (like a review or an analysis from 538), we cannot allow your deductions to be used. So no, you have not demonstrated that your citing of the novel in a malformed way is not OR. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Darkfrog24: I don't agree that the novel itself can "directly support" the assertion that scene X of the TV series is equivalent to chapter Y of the novel (or similar claims such as that an event in scene A is equivalent to the event in chapter B). For that we'd need a source that explicitly says "Scene X of the TV series is equivalent to chapter Y of the book" - like the '528' source does: "“Oathkeeper” — contained the final scene of Jaime Lannister’s ninth “Storm of Swords” chapter" - which is what makes it a good source for this purpose.

Because otherwise we're making that judgement from having read the book and watched the TV series ourselves, which is what makes it WP:OR.

But, even with adequate sources, the question remains: is the matching-up of scenes from the TV series against chapters from the book likely to be of interest to anyone other than devoted fans?

I realise this is a subjective question, but FWIW my judgement on that question is 'no' - it isn't.

There are many things we could include about the article's subject, if they were appropriately sourced (e.g. the date on which each scene was filmed, the menu at the cast cafeteria each day, how much electricity did the project use) but that doesn't mean we should include them, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

I'm guessing I'm not alone in thinking that one or two scene-to-chapter matchings-up, if they're suitably sourced and there's a specific reason for including them (a reason beyond "it's information about the episode so we should include it"), would be ok. But doing it wholesale would be a Bad Plan IMO.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

But it does support the statement, "Event X happened in chapter Y," which has been on offer since the beginning of this discussion. I prefer "Content from this episode" because a single line is more in keeping with the material's place in this article, but if anyone has concerns about OR, a slightly longer passage is possible.

It is not a judgment to recognize that two things are the same. If I see a painting of George Washington and a quarter coin with George Washington on it, I'm not performing synthesis by saying "These images are of the same man." It is straightforward, direct, and verifiable by ordinary people without specialist knowledge. I don't have to measure the nose or consult reference texts. It's there for anyone to see.

It's likely to be of interest to anyone who's read the books and watches the show, and one does not have to be a devoted fan to do those. Especially in the episode "Breaker of Chains," where this dispute started, the way this show changes the material from the novels to suit its director's vision certainly made me want to reread the chapter in question, and I'm not a devoted fan.

"Wholesale"? We're disagreed there. I'd see no problem with every episode article containing a one-liner with the location of the source material. It would improve them considerably. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think we agree on "wholesale", on the trivia/notability issue I wouldn't have much problem with every episode article containing a single one-line footnote with the location in the book that the episode corresponds to, either. (If appropriately sourced).

I'd have a problem with every scene or every event in the TV show being matched against the books. That's what I meant by "wholesale".

But I don't imagine that there is a one-to-one correspondence between book chapters and TV episodes - as you say, in TV the director's vision and interpretation come into play. That's why it's not as simple as "Elizabeth Fry appears on the £5 note".

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's as simple as "Some of the content from this episode is in chapter X," or as "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X."

The bottom line is that when people go to the wikia, they want the in-universe perspective, the fan theories, the exposition. Some of those articles get so into things that I can't tell which source material they're using. I recently read a few articles from the Halo wiki, and they don't even list which event happened in which game. When people want out-of-universe information, they know to come here. It doesn't get more out of universe than naming chapters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The actual bottom line is that, without explicit, reliably-sourced infor naming these chapters, it is evaluative for an editor to decide that the chapter-episode linkage is a) non-trivial and, b) correctly assigned. Citing the book is okay when citing the book. It is not okay to use the book to cite a tv episode. It is that distinction which separates us from other wikias, fanblogs and other crufty corners of the intertubes. Too much time has been wasted on a pointless discussion on pretty clear policy. Get a secondary source that says what you want, or it cannot be added to the article. It is truly that simple. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, give me one reason why the material itself is not reliable for direct facts about its own content. You simply cannot legitimately argue that the novel itself is not reliable. The very policies that you are linking explicitly state that straightforward facts are permitted. "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X" is exactly the sort of thing that we're allowed to state.

I did get a secondary source, and you came up with excuses to delete the content anyway. How about you do some work around here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading this discussion as "No consensus to include" at this point, though if everyone feels they've spoken their piece I might recommend approaching an admin for a formal closure. In any case, I've reverted a recent change that included a citation referenced a Wikipedia page. Not kosher per WP:CIRCULAR; a better option would be to copy an appropriate reference from the other article, provided one exists. DonIago (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing it as a consensus of 4-2 in favor of adding secondary references instead of citing the book as justification. A slight consensus, to be sure, but a consensus nonetheless. I think your opinion regarding finding secondary sourcing is the appropriate course. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Jack, the reason this discussion is taking so long is that you keep hiding behind claims of OR or unreliability or this or that or the other thing. You just don't like this type of information and that's not a good reason to exclude it. When I cite policy, you ignore it. When I spend the time to dig up secondary references, you don't bother to read them before deleting the material. I meet your demands and then you demand something else. You've done no work yourself and given me no reason to think that my doing more work would satisfy you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, you miss the point, which is pretty much the entirety of the problem here. There is no hiding going on. There is no preference on my part for or against the inclusion of the material you keep adding in (without any consensus to do so, I might add). I have pointed out enough times to wear out a keyboard that you cannot link to a book as a comparative source for the series episodes - not without secondary referencing from a reliable source. You keep glossing over this like I am stating an opinion instead of the set guidelines we use to create and improve pretty much most of the articles here in Wikipedia. You keep pointing out a single instance when I removed a valid secondary source, which I have repeatedly apologized for and ensured that it not only returned to the article but remains there to this date. In my defense, I missed its validity amongst the book chapters and crufty fanblog invalid references. No further valid references were removed by me, yet you seem content to make this about me, instead of focusing on the current fact that you do not have a consensus for adding your pet material.

You want a clear path to inclusion? Find references from valid and reliable secondary sources that point out chapter and book usage in the episodes. Then quote them and add it to the article. Unless its tangential to the piece or simply inconsequential (ie. someone writing that "Brienne is hawt! lulz"), you aren't going to run afould of me or any other editor here. Several other editors have pointed out the 'who cares' facet of correlating chapters to the episode, and that's a valid argument, but not really one I am making. You have to prove that someone outside of your head or a fanblog connected the two.

Lastly, stop adding the material back in. You have been through almost a month of fellow editors telling you not to, and doing so is disruptive and tendentious. More than one editor has told you how best to proceed. Follow it, don't follow it - it's your choice. Just stop edit-warring yourself into a potential block. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Jack, I haven't missed the point. You are being disingenuous. You say "this is OR" and request an outside opinion; that person disagrees with you and you come up with another excuse. You say "find secondary sources," so I do it, then you come up with a fresh set of objections. If this was your real reason, why did it take you weeks and weeks come out with it? I do the work around here and you do nothing but hit a revert button. That must change.

Yes, your belief that my contributions are OR are your opinion and not fact. Wikipedia policy explicitly permits users to use primary sources in the ways in which I have used them. Information about the subject of the article is not my pet material, though it certainly seems to be your pet peeve. No one tried to add comments about hotness or trivia or anything in any sort of inappropriate English; quit with the straw man arguments.

As for my putting in more effort to find more secondary sources, I want a commitment from you: No more complaints. If I do the work, you will not pull any more heretofore unmentioned objections out of your hat or anywhere else. Either that or do some work around here that involves more finger-lifting than undoing other people's efforts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You might want to adjust your tone, Darkfrog24; I find it difficult to work with people who act like snarky trolls, and if you feel that acting this way is going to somehow magically compel me to work better with you, you might want to share whatever it is that you are smoking. In short, you don't dictate terms to me, sweetheart.

I am not sure who you think disagreed with me; AS I read it, every single person (except for Diego Moya) who contributed to both subsequent discussions disagreed with your assertion that these chapters should be included. Every single person, DF. So, before you call me dishonest (which borders on a personal attack), maybe you should re-read the walls of text you've thrown at the rest of us.

At least one other editor challenged the need for this to even be in the article, noting that you hadn't provided proof that any reliable secondary source even found this information to be of value. Two others thought it trivial. I myself thought the more important concern was that it was you - and not a source of note - felt this information was important enough to mention. That was why I asked for explicit secondary sourcing.

You keep claiming that Wikipedia "explicitly permits users to use primary sources in the ways in which I have used them". This is absolutely incorrect. You are citing the book and making a comparison/contrast to it and a television episode. Besides being synthesis, it is precisely what our policies and guidelines seek to prevent"

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."^WP:PSTS

In point of fact, any connections made between these two media must be cited to a "reliable secondary source", or they risk removal by any editor as improperly cited - something which has been pointed out to you by no less than three other editors.

Now, on to the further points of your email. Your demand for a "commitment" from me to not complain about any secondary sources you find isn't going to be complied with. If you supply sub-par secondary sources (Westeros.org again springs to mind) or make claims that the sources do not make, then I am going to point it out.

For instance, while I applaud you actually rolling up your sleeves and looking for the right types of sources. Unfortunately, The Observation Deck - while a part of io9 - appears to be an open forum-style blog, without editorial oversight (one of the things we need to verify reliability). If that's the case, we cannot use it as a RS. I'll pose the question at RSN and post the link and results here. In the meantime, you should carefully note which parts of the io9 article refer to the relevant chapters for this article. Do not make claims that cannot be explicitly attributed the to source. I am going to be a stickler about that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Upon further study of the io9/Observation Deck source you provided, it does not appear to make the claims you have made within the article. Rather than removing it and further frustrating you, I will give you time to adjust the statement to be in keeping with what the reference actually says. I will wait a few days. If no changes are made, I will adjust it myself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You're in no position to complain about tone, Jack. You've made yourself more than difficult to deal with: "Finally" rolling up my sleeves? I was the one digging up sources before this debate started; you've only lifted a finger to hit the delete button. You shouldn't to talk to me about reluctance to put in the work until after you do some yourself. This is Wikipedia; no one dictates terms to anyone else, but that doesn't mean I can't tell you what I want from you. I want you to give all your reasons why you don't want this content included so that I don't waste more of my time addressing something that turns out to be a smokescreen.

We've been through this: You think that the content I've added is synthesis and I don't. You think I'm misinterpreting WP:PRIMARY and I think that you are. Stop wasting my time and yours by repeating yourself. Your interpretations of the rules are not "point of fact"; they are opinions. Stop acting as if I should take your word for it. Show me precedent as I have shown you precedent or accept that we are interpreting policy differently.

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says that we have to say where we actually found the information, so stop deleting the tag that cites the novel. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Darkfrog, as I noted above, the substance or strength of the arguments doesn't appear to be material at this point. I think from this thread it's clear that there's no consensus for including this material, at least not without third-party sourcing being provided. Simply citing the novel is not sufficient based on how this discussion has progressed. If you disagree with my assessment you're welcome to request additional input on this RfC, or we can pursue a formal closure of the RfC so that we have an official ruling on the matter; you would then be welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution if you were unsatisfied with the outcome. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I second Donlago's eloquent post. We cannot agree on inclusion of the book as a source for the episiode. Add to that the lack of a consensus for your personal view that we can allow a primary source to act in a way it was not intended, and are left with the conclusion that it cannot be used as a source. Continuing to re-add contentious and disputed references despite these objections is considered tendentious editing. Please understand that, due to your aggressive behavior here, I will have zero problem requesting you being blocked for continuing to do so.

Donlago is absolutely correct in suggesting that if you are not content with having no consensus for your interpretation, you should escalate the matter. We've tried mediation and a RfC, and the consensus of presented views was that the book should not be cited. Barring judgment to the contrary from a higher administrative source, the book cannot be used as a source.

Speaking of sources, I would urge you to devote less time to arguing with me and more time crafting the referenced statements tp match the actual reference. The io9 reference doesn't cite the book as exactly as you seem to think it does. Remember: it must be explicit. Nothing less is allowable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you, Don. If you look at the article, you will see that I've dug up more secondary sources.

Jack, you are in no position to say that I should devote less time to arguing; you do as much arguing as I do and far less work.

Jack, the Prince Albert source lists the information in question in the first paragraph. This isn't the first, second or third time you've deleted something without reading it and then accused me of carelessness in your edit summary. If you're going to be that inattentive, you shouldn't be making edits. If you have to, take a break and come back later.

Stop deleting the reference tag to the book. It is where I actually found the information per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The objection to including it was that it was not sufficient to establish significance on its own, not that it wasn't an acceptably reliable source for facts about its own content. That issue has been dealt with. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

To begin with, I find it highly suspect that an anonymously-authored article from a news journal that allows anonymous authorship mgically appears to present the precise information you which to add. I find this all the more worrying when considered in conjunction with how hard you hard edit-warred to have this material in. I think this is going to warrant further investigation.

You have been told by no less than three other editors - all with more Wiki experience than you - to not re-add the book reference. You keep stating (without proof, I might add) that your position is supported by explicit policy. Do us all a favor after having wasted our time for over a month and a half: ask an administrator. Please. Until then, I've asked you remove the reference to the book or I will be forced to take other measures in light of your edit-warring about this material. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You are so far out of line that it's not even funny. Plug "Oathkeeper" and "Jaime IX" into a search bar and see what shows up. Lots of Game of Thrones sources use the Roman numeral format; it's actually a great way to screen out irrelevant content. If you spent a tenth as much time looking for sources as you do complaining on this talk page, you would know that.

"With more Wiki experience than you"? Keep your assumptions to yourself. You don't know my history, my gender, my age, my marital status or anything else upon which you could base your claims or your presumptuousness.

I have indeed provided you with proof in the form of the policy itself, precedent articles and precedent discussions. You're the one who's given nothing but his own view and acted shocked when I preferred my own judgment and verbatim interpretation of WP:PRIMARY to your opinions. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it isn't real. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to do this again with you, Darkfrog24. I do not need to know your age, marital status, etc - nor do I care. I inquired about your gender because referring to you in the third person as "it" seems…uncivil. Your edit count is easily seen by anyone in WP; my comment, therefore, is both accurate and justified.

As well, I am not going to go into the same rigamarole about your interpretation about policy. You cherry-pick that which suits and ignore the rest. You cannot be reasoned with, and I am tired of trying. The ANI is the end result of that surrender in trying to reach you. You aren't interested in collaborative editing, and you keep grabbing unusable and/or dubious sources. Maybeyou should go off an edit another article. I hear OotS could use some work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, participants in the ANI that you called said that the threshold for including this material had been met. Stop deleting it. As for who's not interested in collaborative editing, I've offered you compromise texts in which you're completely uninterested. You've contributed nothing, offered no ideas and done no work other than whining at me to do more. Show some investment in collaborative editing yourself before you complain that other people don't want to work with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Length of plot section

I started a discussion on the length of the Game of Thrones episode plot summaries. A bit of what I stated in that discussion specifically concerns the length of the plot summary for this episode article. The WP:Permalink is here; for the current state of the discussion, see Talk:Game of Thrones#Length of plot summaries for episode articles. Flyer22 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Further sourcing

On the off-chance that this might help, here's yet another source. If there's no further comment here—by anyone—in a day or so, I'll add it. My own take is that we had enough sources with just the book, but if one more helps, why not? [www.gameofthronesbr.com/2014] [29] As stipulated by WP:RS, the contributing member of the staff is named and credentials are given. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

We cannot use it, as it is a non-official fansite. It's a near parroting of another source (yet another unreliable source) that you provided. Alllow me to suggest that you find a source from IGN or NBC, or New York Times or some source that we could consider reliable. I'm willing to compromise with using the book, but not without an explicit secondary reliable source.

As an aside, I appreciate you using the talk page and not an edit summary this time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, blogs are acceptable if the content in question is attributed to a specific member of the staff and not to an anonymous contributor. Considering that we're dealing with a general-audience book and general-audience television show, Ana Carol's credentials are sufficient for a single line regarding which chapters appear in the episode to be considered reliable. (Hit CTRL-F "blog" and look for the words "exception" or "staff.")

If you're really interested in talking this out, then you should stop telling me how to find sources. I find it insulting that you presume to tell me how to do a job that you can't be bothered to put any effort into, regardless of your reasons. You know perfectly well that we agree that Wikipedia's favorite food is reliable secondary sources and we have never disagreed on that point. You also know perfectly well that we disagree about what specific sites meet the criteria in this case. One of the main things that's making you hard to work with is that you keep repeating your own take on this matter as if it were standard, universal or official. You can see from the RfC, third opinion, mediation, and ANI discussions that your positions are not universally held. I recommend that you stay off any topic that we've already talked to death. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, specifically WP:USERG (and WP:SPS): "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." So, no, [30] is not a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The very passage you cite says "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." In general, the stipulation against using blogs refers to things like medical and scientific information and political issues. The text cited here is "These chapters are in these episodes," which is a readily verifiable and in this case already verified fact. Ana Carol has sufficient experience to be considered an expert on the SoIaF books, at least sufficient enough for her articles to be used in this way.

Also part of WP:RS, consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The Ana Carol article is reliable for the statement being made. We're not asking Ms. Carol whether the moon landing was real. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

While you are correct that the stipulation is especially important in those sorts of articles, they are no less important in media articles. We have no idea about Ana Carol's credentials (in fact, according to her Twitter account, she is a harp student in college and not a staff reporter or reviewer for any media outlet) and her closest connection to GoT is that she plays the board game. We usually allow blog posts when the person doing the posting is an actual part of the official cast or crew from GoT (there are notable instances of this, like the Harry Potter and Twilight series). We do not allow them from people sharing their thoughts. We don't allow cites from fan sites for the same reason.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but maybe consider that if you cannot find this information in standard reliable sources, that maybe it isn't considered important enough to include. I think we get that you want it in, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient references to support its inclusion at this time. That might change in the future, but for now, I think that maybe you should consider waiting a while to see what new references come up. I've noticed in Dr. Who articles that good refs appear sometimes during those times the series is on hiatus. The same thing could happen here. It just doesn't look like there are usable cites to support what you want to say at this juncture. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And those credentials are sufficient for her to look at a general-audience book and general-audience television show and observe which parts are the same. We're not citing her for any kind of advanced literary analysis.

If you don't want to beat a dead horse then don't. I already know your opinion on this matter and you know mine. Sources less precise than these are used to support material more controversial than this all the time. As for more sources coming up, yes they do. The Prince Albert source came up after the season ended. I don't see what waiting has to do with that. The material is already in the article and sourced. I'm finding more sources 1. to address your own objections and 2. to support the addition of similar material to other articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. WP:RS specifically precludes any yahoo creating a website and posting their observations and calling it a reliable source. So finding any old source isn't enough, you have to find a source considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Please stop grasping at straws and drop your personal thesis that no reliable source supports. Fan-sites are below the standards of an encyclopedia so please stop trying to cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with DonQuixote. Also, please stop re-adding the same material that got you blocked before. Find a solution here in discussion before implementing your interpretation in the article. Seek a solution, not a conflict. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well for "just any yahoo," I agree, DQ. But these don't seem to be just any yahoos. If we were asking about where the SoIaF novels fit in the greater scheme of Western literature, I'd want a higher threshold for expertise, but that's not an issue here. We're citing for straight facts.

Jack, stop deleting this content. Contributors to the ANI discussion that you called said that the content issues had been addressed. The issue at hand at the moment is the addition of the Ana Carol article as a further source. As for "got you blocked," you should probably switch to "got us blocked." Your actions brought you identical censure. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall that part of the ANI. do you mind providing a link to the post that allows you to support primary sourcing of evaluative statements with dead (faked) links, blog posts and sources that do not say what you are claiming they say? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

((EC))Still not a reliable source as per WP:RS. Unless you can prove otherwise, the author of that blog is no more notable for citation in this article than you or I, which is the point. Please stop trying to bypass WP:VERIFY. DonQuixote (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at the sources you have provided in support of the statements (and primary sourcing) you wish to add:

• GEOS - a blog source that utilizes circular referencing to Wikipedia. Ie., it is using Wikipedia to source its infor, and we can't use a source that uses us as a source.
• 538 - a genuine source, but it only notes that Oathkeeper "contained the final scene of Jaime Lannister’s ninth “Storm of Swords” chapter", It goes on to note that "lots of material from that chapter hasn’t been on the show yet". This supports the argument that comparing chapters and the book is evaluative.
• Prince Albert - a dead link, which once upon a time led to a free space within the Classifieds section within this newspaper where "someone" created the article before it was shortly deleted by the same media outlet.
• Game of Thrones Brazilian fansite - we don't use fansites, or reviews from said sources. Ana Carol is not a reporter/reviewer; she is a music student who wrote a personal blog on a fansite. As per WP:RS, this isn not a reliable source.

That's it. That is the sum total of all the sources which have been added to support the chapter-to-article statements. If we are to use Darkfrog's special interpretation of the RfC consensus, we cannot include the book sourcing without secondary sourcing explicitly stating the information to be added. No matter how its dissected, we do not have proper sourcing for inclusion at this time. Some time in the future, but not now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

DQ: WP:VERIFY is not an issue. The novel itself is sufficient source for that.

Go back to the thread and hit CTRL-F content. Also, read Dark's responses. You will find it.

• You forgot the novel itself, which is used for straight facts about its own content. We disagree about the OR issue, but there is no question that the content in the article is verifiable and correct. The issue raised at the last RfC was notability, and both the volume and quality of other sources indicate that the material is notable.
• GEOS does not specifically list Wikipedia as its source. The part of GEOS that is cited is not survey material contributed by a random user.
• Insinuating that I wrote a PANow article myself is inappropriate. Knock it off. Do you think perhaps the article appeared because the season had just ended? As for its content, it's essentially product information, no different from reading specs off the side of a box.
• Ana Carol is expert enough to look at the chapters and episode and say "These and these match." We're not asking for literary analysis or political or scientific information. These are general-audience books, meant to be understood by the public.
• You're also forgetting the Tor and i09 sources and other sites that you rejected, which also listed these chapters. They weren't perfect, but they did show that third parties had taken note of the chapter issue. The matter is noted and notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't make [31] (or anything similar) a reliable source, so please stop trying to cite it. And consensus was that we should find a secondary source for verification. Citing a fan site by some yahoo that doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia isn't going to cut it. DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further sourcing, continued

It seems FormerIP has also closed parts of the discussion that were still ongoing. The question posed in the RfC, whether the primary source should be used alone, has ended with "no." However, I'd concur with the contributors of the ANI discussion who said that it would still be acceptable to cite the book alongside secondary sources, as is the case at the moment. And yes, DQ, consensus is that a secondary source should be found. I've found several. Some are cited in the article now and some are not.

As for the issue of notability, Slate, AV Club [32] and i09[33] have both posted articles with episode-to-chapter guides through the end of the season. Unlike the Chris Kirk article in Slate that I cited on "The Climb," no one's citing Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the information they contain for this episode does not match what I've found in the book and on other sites. Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. Jonnyi94 is not a notable person. To be clear, we can cite AV Club and i09 for the text "fans have spent time matching episodes to books" (or similar words), but the fan work itself is not considered notable or reliable by Wikipedia. DonQuixote (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur (again) with DonQuixote. While it is true that some sources have noted aspects of the books that have been noticed in the episodes, most of them note that these chapter uses are - at best - incomplete. The article might better be served by (and this is going to be crucial, Darkfrog24) making sure that the sources are beyond reproach before they are added to the article. It is clear that you find the removal of the sources you add to be frustrating in the extreme; it is all the more important that you should add them with the assurance (from prior discussion) that they aren't going to be removed. The IGN, TOR and FiveThirtyEight sources appear to be pretty solid. this is what you should look for in sources. A good benchmark in sources is looking at the reviewer: is this their job as a staff writer? If so, they might be a good source. Is this paid staff writer working at a legitimate media outlet with editorial oversight? If so, the source becomes more credible. Are the claims being made by the reviewer fringe views? If so, someone is going to call the use of those statements as such. While the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, it has to be a truth that is generally accepted. If it isn't, then we need to balance it out with the majority view (also supported by RS). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree DQ. Slate and i09 and AV have endorsed this chart. However, we shouldn't use it because it is inaccurate in its current version.

Jack, there is no rule requiring that the sources be beyond reproach, only that they be sufficiently reliable for the material that they are supporting, as is the case here and with the article by Ana Carol, who is a staff writer for her site. You have seen enough sources to see that this information is indeed a truth generally accepted, to the point where we can expect the chart cited by these last articles to be corrected shortly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors can't just say that some previously unknown person is a reliable source. It has to be shown that the person in question is an acknowledged expert for that to happen. It takes far more than two sources to develop a person's notability enough such that he's citable in an encyclopaedia. I09 and AV Club mentioning Jonnyi94 does not make him notable enough to be citable by an encyclopaedia. This also applies to fan sites, such as the site that Ana Carol's article appears in and Carol herself whom no one (other than you) have noted. They're not notable enough and therefore not considered reliable enough for encyclopadias. So, please find sources that are generally considered reliable rather than sources of questionable reliability that just happens to support your thesis. DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk first, change later

Given the obviously controversial nature of these changes I believe it would be best going forward to adopt a policy of "discuss first, change later". This wouldn't be the first article to adopt such a policy, and it would prevent a whole lot of situations that resemble edit-warring. DonIago (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This content has been in place with its current sources for weeks. Don't change it.

While we're on this subject, does anyone object to the addition of further sources before discussion? I've been running sources by this talk page first just in case, but technically the rules don't require it. Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

At this point I object to any additions to the article relating to this type of subject matter before discussion. That includes sources, because it's been made abundantly clear that the sources being applied are considered questionable by one or more editors. Editors should bring up the full content that they wish to add, including sources, here, and we can then add it if and when there's a consensus to do so. Let's stop going back and forth on the article itself. That way lies edit-warring and blocks, because I know for myself I'm at the point of having zero tolerance for the constant changes and will report them promptly and/or request page protection. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I read this discussion after - again - undoing the revert of Darkfrog24's addition of the same information that was found to be unsubstantiated. It should remain out until there is substantial citation to re-add any portion of it back to the article. I reworked the material to more properly reflect the actual statements of the sources present. As we come to more of an agreement as to what sources to add, the version in place can be added to. Piece by piece.

After the RfC closed with a pretty clear assertion as to why the chapter information cannot be added to the article, I would think that removing the material until there is substantial referencing to add any portion back in after discussion would be prudent. I am surprised that Darkfrog24 keeps adding in material that she has been told in no uncertain terms should not be in.

The version that Darkfrog24 keeps adding does not have a single reference that notes the chapter to episode usage that she wants. One or two of them note some of the changes, but none of them make the statements that all of the chapters Darkfrog24 keeps adding in. We as editors do not add material and demand that others provide citation to support it - it works the other way around. Any material added to the article must be referenced; I would think that it be crystal clear at this point.

Darkfrog24 should not revert back into the article the version in contention. Furthermore, she should discuss any addition of references here first, and find a consensus to do so, It is tedious, but considering what this article has already been put through, it seems an entirely reasonable suggestion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC))

They're not additions, Doniago. The text was already there. The deletions are the changes. This material is supported by so many sources that deleting it is the radical move. If you don't want constant changes, then don't make changes.

The question asked in the RfC was "Is the primary source alone sufficient support for this text?" FormerIP just formalized the de facto consensus that we've been working with for months, that the book may be cited alongside secondary sources but not alone, which has been the actual state of the text for weeks.

As the rules do not require me to discuss the addition of sources with you first, I will do so solely at my own discretion, as I have been doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Allow us to be clear, Darkfrog24: as you have shown that you are unable (or unwilling) to select the correct references for the article, we are stating that you need to bring those references here, for evaluation, first. Your rearrangement of those citations is not in keeping with either the spirit or the letter of the consensus, or of the RfC closing statements.

If you keep adding them, I can see a number of editors seeking a topic ban in your future. I realize that you do not mind taking long breaks from Wikipedia, but the rest of us have to continually fix your mistakes, and that has to stop.

As for the content itself, we have several secondary sources to use alongside the novel. GEOS does contain survey information offered by the public, but that is not the information cited for the article. In fact, at the time of access, no such survey responses had yet been submitted for the Oathkeeper entry. We have a page from the newspaper Prince Albert Now. As per Wikipedia's policy on dead links, WP:DEADLINK, the fact that the link went dead does not disqualify it from use. We have an essay by a named blogger with credentials provided, per the policy on blogs, and those credentials are sufficient for her to examine a general-audience book and TV show, per the policy on context. We also have the book itself, which, although deemed non-suitable for use alone by the recent RfC, does establish that the material in these third-party secondary sources is accurate, verifiable and reliable. The threshold for inclusion has been more than met.

We also have the article by i09. Diego suggested a tag-the-plot format a month or two back on Breaker of Chains, using the novel alone as a source. As I've said before, I feel a single line listing all the chapter information in one place works better with the article and is more convenient for the reader, but if it addresses your concerns, I could live with it. At least the readers still get their information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• The litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Prince Albert Now is out, should never have been added and you are playing with fire in insisting in its inclusion. It has already been proven (by the media source itself) that the link was created about a week before you added it (odd that). It vanished about 12 hours after its true nature - create as an advert in the Classifieds section - was discovered (odder still, right?).
• The GEOS link uses Wikipedia as a source, and is therefore not usable as a source. I was at first excited about this link, as it seemed to neatly solve all of our problems, but we cannot use a reference that itself references us. As an admin if you are unclear on this matter; we aren't going to waste any more time on explaining it to you.
• We don't use blogs, unless the blogger being cited is connected to the article's subject or is a recognized member of the media. Ana Carol is neither one of these, and is probably tickled pink that a music student in college is being incorrectly assumed to be on par with Edward Murrow. Again, if you are unclear on how to distinguish good sources from bad ones, get a mentor and get some advice. You keep saying that these are only my opinions.I say, ask around - I am not the only Wikipedian who holds these views.

Lastly, while there is a consensus that we can use chapter-to-episode connections citing the primary source of the book, it is not an admission that adding them is correct. It is instead acknowledging that the book does in fact have chapters. It requires a secondary source to make the actual connection between the book and the episode. You cannot make these connections. THAT was the result of the RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

All concerns about verifiability are addressed by the use of the novel itself.

Jack, I don't see anything on GEOS that indicates that it copied Wikipedia, but I'm a human being and it's possible missed it. Show me exactly where the GEOS page cites Wikipedia.

The Prince Albert page was essentially product information, no different from reading specs off a box or DVD case. Quit the insinuations. They are not appropriate. There is nothing odd about material about an episode showing up right after the season ends.

The policy on blogs doesn't say "recognized member of the media." It says "credentials provided." This is a general-audience book and general-audience TV show. The writer Ana Carol is a student in the arts. We're good to go.

"while there is a consensus that we can use chapter-to-episode connections citing the primary source of the book" -- I'm confused by what you mean by this. The RfC consensus was that the novel should not be used alone. The consensus on the other thread was that the novel could be cited if secondary sources were cited as well.

I recommend rephrasing. Yes I can make these connections. I did make these connections. You've made it quite clear that you consider this to be a comparison and I've made it quite clear that I don't. Stop acting as if your opinion were a given. The RfC is right there for you to read if you're confused. FormerIP even gave us another comment. FormerIP will probably provide further clarification if you ask.

I see no objection to the i09 article and Diego format. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I notice that you guys still aren't objecting to the content per se. You don't like that I put it up, but I'm not reading anything about the content itself. I've been interpreting silence on this issue as a lack of objection. Sure, I'd rather write up one line and place it in the writing section, but that's not how this source is worded.

The i09 source [34] specifically mentions these chapters and the events that are in them. This is what you've been asking for. In case there's any confusion, two i09 articles have been mentioned in this extended discussion. This is not the one with the chart that we've agreed not to use at this time (though for different reasons). This is the other one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm officially objecting to its inclusion unless and until there is a clear consensus for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Don. What do you think is wrong with it? Consensus requires more than, "I don't like it" and "No thanks." It's supported by both primary and secondary sources, which is what you guys have been asking for this whole time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what's wrong with it is that you're being tendentious and ignoring repeated requests to discuss your changes before making them. If you want my support, I need to see some indication from you that you're attempting to edit in good faith. Thus far I'm not seeing that; instead I'm seeing edit-warring and a disinterest in working with your fellow editors. If that's a problem for you then you're welcome to escalate the matter (again), but since you must know by now that this has become highly controversial, I would strongly recommend you take a more collaborative and less "brute force" approach to having your changes applied. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Don, you didn't run anything by the talk page before making changes to the writing section. You still haven't given any reasons why you think this content shouldn't be there. Don't expect me to go above and beyond if you aren't willing to do so yourself. As for proof that I'm editing in good faith, here you are:

• 1. I have repeatedly established that I don't think secondary sources are necessary to support this text. Despite this, I have spent a great deal of time and effort finding such sources anyway, for months now. (I counted the other day, and I think it was six separate sources, not counting Westeros.org, which was found by someone else. Feels like more.) This is because I am taking your opinions seriously even though I do not share them.
• 2. When you pointed out a specific policy, WP:FILMDIFF, that showed that a statement about the white walkers was not OR but "not encouraged," I removed that statement and ceased to argue for its inclusion. I did not put anything of the kind back in until I had run across a secondary source that drew attention to it specifically, as stipulated by that policy.
• 3. I ran the Ana Carol source by this talk page before adding it to the article. I still haven't added it to the article, even though I find that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliability in this case. See: When you guys don't change the article without discussion, neither do I, even if it is something as innocuous as adding an additional tag.
• 4. I'm the one who's been volunteering compromise texts. I've repeatedly said that I'd be okay with rewording the content. Right now, I'm using a format (first suggested by Diego) that I don't think is ideal, but it addresses concerns about making sure that the article text matches what the source says very closely.
• 5. Even though I think that the conclusion of the RfC is wrong, I've stopped arguing that the primary source should be used alone to support the material. I expect this position to be reversed eventually, but for now I'm required to use the primary source alongside secondary sources or not at all, so that's what I've been doing, even before the final word on the RfC was officially given.
• 6. I've slowed down my edits to the article and comments on this talk page, even though doing so has had very bad results for me in the past (in another discussion on another issue).

Now I want some good faith from you: No one can collaborate alone. I can't work with you if you won't work with me. Instead of bulldozing the content wholesale, change it so that it better suits your vision for this article. Then we can triangulate our way toward a version of the article that we can all find reasonably acceptable; in my experience, that's how this usually works. Suggest a wording that would address your concerns. Find an additional source. You already found one Wikipedia policy, FILMDIFF, that solved one of our problems.

For the moment, though, I notice that you still haven't given a reason why you think that this material shouldn't be in this article, so, for now, I'm putting it back in. Yes, you don't like that I added it without your permission, but I'm not required to get your permission, just as you are not required to get mine. Even if I were, that's not an objection to the content itself. As of right now, every objection that has been raised to this content—reliability, notability, verifiability, OR—has been addressed. Of course I put the content back in; every condition set down for doing so has been met.

Here's another proof of good faith, probably the best one:

• 7. List your specific reason or reasons why you think this content shouldn't be included in this article so that they can be addressed. I can't promise that I'll agree with you, but I will treat them with the seriousness that they deserve and that you have shown that you deserve. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we get that you disagree with everyone else's opinion that secondary sources are required to add the material you think is helpful to the article. We get that you think that our interpretation of clearly-stated policy is wrong. We also get that you think that the RfC closing comments by FormerIP were wrong (or at least incomplete). We get it - we're wrong and you're right. At least, that is what you keep telling us.

This is - as you just noted - a collaborative environment. That means that that a consensus of opinion regarding edits is to be respected, not ignored. You keep stating that you are the only one who's volunteering compromise edits, but every single edit you offer in the article is precisley the same. Oh yes, you add it in different place, but it is all the same edit - an edit which is almost completely unsupported by the material you desperately keep trying to add. And your reasoning for this blatantly tendentious edit-warring? You say you haven't hear anything to change your mind, so you "are adding it back in". This is beyond edit-warring; this feels like ownership issues and a battle.

We've all explained to you repeatedly why the edits you keep adding are wrong, and you won't listen to reason, so I've reported you for edit-warring. I'd like to say I hoped it wouldn't get to that point, but I think the rest of us knew it would come to this regarding you. I'm sorry you couldn't work with us. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What you have explained to me, Jack, is 1. you want the material to be supported by secondary sources and 2. these secondary sources must match the article text very closely. The material that I added does both these things.

To be even more specific, the text says "This event is found in chapter X" and the secondary source also says "This event happens in chapter X." Hit CTRL-F "Jaime IX" and CTRL-F "Sansa V," etc. and you will see the exact lines.

It's not that I hadn't heard "anything to change my mind"; it is that no one has given any reason at all why they find this treatment of the material unacceptable. It deals with all problems that have previously been raised. (Jack, given your history with the 538 and Prince Albert sources, I would like you to confirm that you have looked at the source. I'm not mocking you, but you've missed things like this before.)

Now, gentlemen, if you wish to exclude the content, please state your reasons.

If its location is an issue, I wouldn't mind putting it somewhere other than the plot section. The point is to put it somewhere 1. where the readers can find it easily and 2. where it will not distract from the rest of the article. My preferred version is a single line in the writing/production section, but this source does not treat the material in the same way as the other sources.

FormerIP's closure is for the most part a formalization of the de facto conclusion under which we had all already been operating—that secondary sources are required but primary sources are not prohibited. The only thing FormerIP got wrong was whether we were fighting over whether WP:Primary allows comparisons. We were all in agreement that it does not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Request at my talkpage

Two things have been requested at my talkpage. Firstly, that I partly re-open the above RfC that I closed yesterday, because some of the comments were slightly off-topic and may still be relevant regardless of the close. I don't think I can do that, because even if the comments were off-topic, they were made as part of the RfC and it's normal to to put a box around the whole thing when its done. One of the reasons is so that it is clear what the discussion that has been closed is. As a matter of principle, it is important that the close is transparent and doesn't exclude comments that users made in the discussion, even if they are off topic. There's no reason, though, why off-topic threads of the discussion can't be picked up by starting a new section or sections below.

I was also asked to confirm that the close only addresses the question of using primary sources in combination to make comparisons, which I'm happy to do. If secondary sources can be found from which similar information can be drawn without the need for original research, then that may be fine. If there are disputes about whether particular secondary sources are suitable, the best way to resolve them might be to make use of the noticeboards (eg WP:RSN). Formerip (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC))

Actually, there was no disagreement about whether it was consistent with Wikipedia's rules to use primary sources to make comparisons; we all agreed that it is not. We were discussing whether to state which chapters of a novel appeared in its adaptation using the primary sources themselves as support. Thanks for making your position clear. Several secondary sources have been provided over the course of the past few months. Feel free to weigh in on them if you see fit to do so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, Darkfrog24, the filter required for stating which chapters are used in the episode - in the absence of reliable secondary sourcing - is the editor. We don't allow that. We also do not allow blog posts, sources that use Wikipedia as a source for its statements, or links that pop in and out of existence which, with a few exceptions, are what you have been providing. I get that you are frustrated at not getting in what you think is obvious. However, we cannot state it. Sources have to.

We are simply asking you to provide good secondary sources as well as make sure that statements from those sources are properly attributed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jack, you have stated your opinion on numerous occasions. That does not change the fact that the issue at hand was whether or not saying "Content from this epsiode also appears in chapters X, Y, and Z" should be considered a comparison at all was the subject of the RfC and not whether WP:Primary allows comparisons. No one was in disagreement that it does not. Although WP policy does allow blog posts under certain circumstances, no blog sources had been suggested at the time of the RfC. We could prevent bloat here if we could keep each thread solidly on topic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the blog sources you have offered can be used. The source that uses Wikipedia as a source cannot be used. The non-existent Prince Albert Now source can't be used, because it doesn't exist. This is not the first time you have been advised of this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Prince Albert site, if you click on WP:BADLINK, it will take you to Wikipedia's policy on dead links. No, the fact that the link is no longer working not mean that it cannot be used. This is not the first time that you have been advised of this. As for the blog, it is written by a named staff writer whose credentials are provided, as per Wikipedia's policies.

If GEOS uses Wikipedia as a source, show me where (preferably in the section above, where I first asked). I did check but it's possible I missed it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You might have missed where I mentioned tha tthe link was created in the classified section of the Prince Albert Now shortly before you added it to the article. I followed up on it, as it seemed suspiciously worded, and discovered that it was created with an IP that geolocates to New York. Immediately after I asked about the source here, the link was removed as inappropriate by PrinceAlbertNow; the link is not only dead, it is fake. If you do not want to be presumed to be the author of this fake reference, you might wish to stop presenting it as valid.

The blog source is not useful. The blogger is an undergraduate music student. We accept blogs that are directly connected to a series, as they are part of the show. Ana is not. Ergo, she cannot be added. Period.

GEOS cannot be linked, as their source material comes from us. Others have pointed this out to you previously, You need to start asking for advice from others. Your continued resistance to listening to others is considered tendentious editing, and if it doesn't stop, I will be forced to take action. Please use your time and posts wisely - seek some conformation from other, more experienced editors than yourself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Let me just say that given that every editor who's paid any attention to this Talk page realizes that these types of edits are now considered highly controversial, I'm inclined to assume that anyone making edits to the article page involving this type of content without passing it by the Talk page first is not editing in good faith. If the contributing editor has been an active participant in the discussions here and their contributions have not been discussed first I am likely to revert on principle.

If you want me to believe that you're editing in good faith, I recommend displaying some good faith by discussing your edits and achieving consensus here first. Yes, that's not standard WP policy, but nothing about what's occurred here is, for my money, standard. DonIago (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this concept. I've removed the chapter to episode pairings in the plot summary (we certainly don't do that, as per plot summaries). There are references to the book already in the writing subsection - just not the breadth of the chapters that you personally feel are important. If you find references more chapters - reliably - we can add more. Until then, we have to keep it as it currently is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Jack, Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy is all I need not to be presumed to be the author of the source. I have told you that I did not write it, and that is above and beyond what is required of me. Frankly, if you think I'd spend money on an argument with you, then you have an inflated opinion of yourself. 2. If you bother to look at my profile, you'll see I've been editing on Wikipedia for years. Going solely by profile information, I've been here longer than you have. Stop making assumptions about how much experience I have. 3. I've read every post you've made. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're not listening to you. 4. No one is forcing you to do anything. You choose to do what you do. Take responsibility for your own actions. You got yourself blocked for edit warring.

DonIago, you didn't get consensus on the talk page before making changes. If you don't want me to do something, then you should refrain from doing it yourself. As for consensus for this version of the text, the content was up for days and no one objected to it. I figured you guys thought we were good to go.

As for good faith, you guys have been saying, "We need more sources! Secondary and specific!" and then I found one. That's not a lack of good faith. That is me taking your opinions seriously even though I do not share them.

Comments on the content itself are in the appropriate section (scroll up). Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Darkfrog - I'm not the one who's pushing for edits that nobody else is backing up at this point. If you want good faith shown towards you, then as you know this has become a highly charged situation, you would come here first to allay all concerns that you may not be editing in good faith. There is no deadline for edits, so I'm forced to wonder, why are you apparently so discontent to discuss the changes you want to make before you make them? DonIago (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As for why the article remained untouched for a while with your preferred edit in place, it was to avoid the constant edit-warring that only muddies the discussion. I (and probably others) thought that if you acknowledged our concerns and took steps to - as Donlago suggested - allay them, you would eventually come to accept the consensus and remove/alter them yourself. That was the best (and probably too altruistic) approach. You should not have considered our reticence (to start another edit-war) with acquiescence.

If you truly meant what you said about taking our concerns "seriously", you wouldn't knee-jerk revert your preferred version back into the article. That doesn't come across like respect or collaboration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't my preferred version. My preferred version is a single line listing the chapters in the writing section. As for allaying your concerns about OR, notability, and reliability, Jack, I have done so by finding sources.

No one can collaborate alone. How about instead of completely deleting my contribution to the article, you change it to something that better suits your vision? How about you suggest a compromise text? How about you suggest something that I haven't thought of yet? That's how this usually works: Wikieditors triangulate their way to articles that they all find reasonably acceptable. We can't do that if you won't work with me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We reverted your preferred version because a consensus of editors discussing the topic, an RfC closing opinion by an administrator and several folk at AN/I told you in no uncertain terms that it wasn't an acceptable version. You keep adding it in, incorrectly thinking we are accepting of your tendentious editing. In fact, we are trying to avoid-edit-warring by hoping you get the point of collaborative editing; you work with others, and when a consensus tells you not to add sources from blogs, fake links and unusable links, you stop adding them. We don't have to work with you at this point - you have to work with us. You need sources that state explicitly the content you want. Period. You cannot add it to the plot section, since sources don't go there at all. The few sources you have found that are useful have been worked into usable statements within the article, noting specific chapter use. No blanket coverage of what chapters were used. You want others to collaborate with you? Start doing precisley that, and self-revert yourself. Otherwise, you are shedding our assumption of good faith. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

1. It was not my preferred version but rather a version that I had worded specifically to address concerns that you and the others have raised with respect to article text following the sources very closely. That should be acknowledged.

2. You know what? You bring up a good point. You guys did refrain from deleting the chapter information that was supported by the 538 article. But you've also deleted sourced material that had nothing to do with any of the objections that you've raised, usually as part of a blanket deletion including other text. It would be great if you guys could keep up the 538 pattern; actually look at all the content that's been added and only delete the text that you actually don't agree with (or give the reason why you don't agree with the other material).

3. The results of the RfC are that the primary source alone is not to be used to support this material. That is not the case here; both secondary and primary sources were provided; see above. I don't agree with the RfC, but I'm not contesting it and haven't been for some time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's reboot this conversation below. I'm willing to walk the path of 'letting the past be the past'. Let's set the recriminatory behaviors aside and look at the issues we have with a fresh perspective. We all want the article to be better. We just have to find a way to accomplish that collaboratively. Since I think you have concerns that you do not feel are being addressed, I'll let you initiate the new section below (after the image section). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a "fresh start" is probably the best path forward. Let's all try to have a clear discussion of potential contributions (as regards the controversial areas of the article) and sources and consensus regarding changes to the article going forward instead of starting another ping-pong match. I think it would also be great if we could minimize any discussion of editor conduct. Let's focus on the topic, not each other. DonIago (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Consider it thirded. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Image File

The previous uploaded image it's clearly fair use as other seasons episodes fits exatcly in the same category (check all season 1 articles) and this article's image finds itself inside the same requirements, so why the exclusion? It fits well a polemical point decipted in the episoded, as it was made on all season 1 articles and on "Mhysa". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10mandown (talk • contribs) 03:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for coming to the talk page to sort this disagreement out. I think your reasoning is good, but I thought - in the absence of a solid precedent for inclusion, that I'd pose a question to the Fire and Ice WikiProject (you can find that here). I was hoping we could wait to hear back from them before proceeding. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Further sourcing of chapter information (reboot)

Regarding the material recently deleted from the article: The text says "This event is found in chapter X" and the secondary source also says "This event happens in chapter X." Hit CTRL-F "Jaime IX" and CTRL-F "Sansa V," etc. and you will see the exact lines. This article from Observation Deck is presented in addition to primary and secondary sources that have already been presented. I believe this satisfies all concerns that have been raised about OR, notability and reliability. In case there is any confusion, there have been two articles offered from Observation Deck. This is not the one with the chart. This is the one that lists chapter information in the text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Content Guidelines

Welcome to Kinja, where you own the story.

All we ask from our users is that they follow a few simple rules.

Carefully select your username. Your username is no place to attack or impersonate others.

Don’t try to break our site.

Don’t post spam. If you’re interested in using our platform for promotional purposes, talk to us first.

Don’t publish your porn site on Kinja. We fully embrace NSFW items, but there’s a line.

Respect the privacy of others.

Make sure you own the rights to anything you post.

If you believe that a user has broken any of these rules, please let us know.

(And of course, all users must follow our Terms of Use.)

It's user generated. Not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. DonQuixote (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem with using the Observation Deck subset of io9; user-generated material. The same problem exists for the Westeros.Org and GameofThrones.br fansites. We can reference the primary source (not as before, where we list each of the chapters) as a source when we mention the book. The specific chapters used should be taken from secondary references that explicitly note what chapters were used, and it should be done using prose, as noted by the few examples we already have put in. I wouldn't mind finding more references that help us accomplish that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the Kinja "about us" page. This is the i09 "about us" page: [35] Kinja is user-generated. i09 is a news site.

Jack, many, many secondary references have been provided. The primary source addresses all concerns about reliability and accuracy and verifiability. The other i09 article, Slate article, and AV club article address all concerns about notability. Put them all together and we're good to go. 02:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs)

Go to the article that you linked. Go to the very bottom of the page. Click on Content Guidelines. It's Kinja. DonQuixote (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

We aren't re-hashing what sources were provided previously. We aren't focusing on petty slights or accidentally-removed references. We are in the here and now.

While io9 is indeed a reliable source (as verified via RSN multiple times), the Observation deck is their forum, composed of user comments and essays. They are not suitable for inclusion here. I think it bears mentioning/repeating that even if we have reliable secondary referencing, we cannot cite the material listing all of the chapters used and source it to the book. The point of the secondary sourcing is that reliably-sourced reviewers outside Wikipedia draw these connections, which we then illustrate in prose style. If the source doesn't mention a given chapter that we as editors think were int he episode, then it does not go in. The point of the primary source use is to point out that said source was in fact used in the episode. Not the list of chapters. I think that is an important distinction to make here, in order to avoid any misunderstanding as we move forward. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack, previously cited sources will be brought up if there is reason to do so. You guys haven't proven that the Ana Carol site is not suitable for use, nor that the Prince Albert site is not suitable for use. Westeros.org is a clear fansite, but there is precedent for its use on Wikipedia.

As for all sources, consider context: Is the source reliable for the content being cited? In all cases, yes it is: A newspaper page with product information, a blog post with a named author whose credentials are provided, the book itself.

The current source states "Event X happened in chapter Y," and that is the statement that it is being used to support.

The point of the secondary source is to establish notability. All issues with reliability and verifiability are taken care of with the use of the primary source. We're good to go with the novel and the Slate/AV/second i09 articles alone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Er...no. You have to prove that Ana Carol is a notable person let alone a reliable source. To use a worst-case scenario as a hypothetical, for all we know Ana Carol is some Wikipedia user trying to insert original research into an article by publishing her work on a fan site...same with Jonnyi94 and artiofab. So, no, we need someone other than a Wikipedia editor claiming that those people are notable enough or reliable enough to be cited on Wikipedia.

And as for Prince Albert, only you and Jack have seen this supposed article, and to err on the side of caution, we need some unbiased third party to verify such an article existed let alone is reliable enough to be citable by Wikipedia. So a big no on that one.

As for Westeros.org, it's a fan site and by policy it shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with unless it was shown to be a notable and reliable source--so those "precedents" as it were don't mean a thing unless Westeros.org is shown to be a notable, reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And if you are aware of articles that are using Westeros.org, please link them here; we'll fix them immediately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just say that if there's going to be a dispute about whether a source is reliable, there's a noticeboard for that. Getting a ruling from that board might be more productive than merely claiming a source is reliable. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Don, I have presented evidence exactly as stipulated by the rule about blogs. You don't find that evidence convincing. That's not the same thing as a lack of proof. I'll concur that the Ana Carol article could go either way: I wouldn't call it reliable for advanced literary analysis, but it is reliable for a straight and simple fact, especially considering that those facts have already been verified in several other corroborating sources. Let's say that you didn't find the New York Times convincing. That doesn't mean that NYT isn't reliable. Reliability is independent of belief in that reliability.

Actually, Jack, I did go around adding additional sourcing to articles that continued content like this. When I noticed that DQ was following me around and deleting the whole thing, I stopped. One consequence of this debate is that these articles missed out on being strengthened in that way. Of course I'm not going to give you directions to material that I think is right and good so that you can remove it. You don't want to put in the effort to find sources for material that you don't think is good; I'm not going to put in time to delete material that I do think is good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Er...what evidence? You haven't provided any evidence to support that Carol is a notable person let alone notable enough for Wikipedia...which is completely different from the NYT which has a notable reputation for being a reliable source. Carol has no such reputation, so she fails WP:BLOGS.

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis mine)

So, no, you have not "presented evidence exactly as stipulated by the rule about blogs" because you haven't shown that Carol is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". So yeah, it's hard to be convinced of anything when there's lack of proof.

As DonIago has suggested, you can take this to WP:RSN rather than merely claiming Carol et al. are reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one here a little disturbed by Darkfrog's statement that she refused to help improve the wiki by helping us to remove inappropriate sources?

Jack, it should be pretty clear that I consider the inclusion of chapter information an improvement to these articles and that I consider its removal inappropriate. No I am not refusing to help you improve the encyclopedia; I am declining to help you diminish it. We simply have different ideas about whether chapter information is good or bad.

Look at it this way: You haven't brought in a single source to support the disputed content. If you cited even one that fit your personal interpretation of the rules, this dispute would be over. Is that disturbing? Maybe you just don't think it's your job; you once said something to the effect of preferring gnoming. I can't read your mind, but it could be as simple as that.

Remember, from my perspective, I'm the one putting in all the work here. No, I don't think I should expend extra hours drawing you a map straight toward good content that I expect you'll just delete. Frankly, Jack, you're more than capable of going through the articles yourself. The content's not hidden.

And remember this: You guys asked for more secondary sources. I have put a lot of time and effort into finding them—and far more controversial content has been supported on far less. I have not dismissed your concerns, even though I do not share them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not only is Ana Carol not a notable person, but the source of the link - a Brazilian fan site - is utterly not acceptable as well. Please accept that there isn't going to be any acceptance of sources that are not reliable, secondary and notable. You are simply wasting your (and our) time seeking to convince us otherwise. We have pointed out why these sources are not acceptable for use in an article that we seek to improve to GA and FA status. Move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And we've offered an alternative for guiding consensus if the current feeling that the sources are unacceptable is itself unacceptable. Get a ruling from the Noticeboard if you're not willing to believe multiple editors saying that a source is inappropriate and we'll reconsider. DonIago (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Don, what are you talking about? What "alternative to guiding consensus"? "Multiple editors" have said that this content is okay and other multiple editors have said that it is. It is not that I don't believe you. It is that I don't agree with you. You are not informing me of what policy says; you are giving your own opinion about what policy means. No one is under obligation to conform to your way of thinking, only to policy as stated.

As for "we'll reconsider," remember that it is not your decision. You are not the owner of this article. No one is asking for or under obligation to receive your permission before making changes to this or any article, just as you have not been asking for mine.

Jack, no one's contesting that the site is a blog. Wikipedia's policy on blogs gives criteria for when blogs are acceptable sources and those criteria have been met. 1. Article is submitted by a named member of the staff. 2. Staff member's credentials are given. Those two criteria are flat-out met. The issue at hand is 3. Those credentials are sufficient for the specific text being supported given the context. This is where opinions and interpretations come into play.

I'm sorry, did you completely miss the part where I talked about WP:RSN, or are you just coming across as though you did? If you want sources included that you think are reliable but that others here are disputing, bring them to that board and we'll see how things play out. I don't think anyone here will dispute the inclusion of a source that that noticeboard considers appropriate. DonIago (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Doniago. Take those sources to RSN; let them explain what we have for almost two months. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack, get off the high horse. No you have not been explaining how Wikipedia works. You have been explaining your own beliefs. They're no less valid than anyone else's, but they're not more valid either. I have been listening to you intently, but that does not oblige me to agree with you or to prefer your judgment to my own. We've all seen here that your interpretation of the rules is not universally held.

No, Don, I did not miss the part about RSN and had been planning on acting on it after the weekend, I just didn't know that that's what you meant by "alternative to guiding consensus." There are about five different things to which you could have been referring—most them not things that I'd define as alternatives to building consensus—and it was not remotely clear which one you meant. My question, "What are you talking about?" was meant literally.

I have a request to make of both of you: Cards on the table. I've brought this up before, but I'm not sure that I asked flat-out. Officially, the only objection to the statement "Content from this episode is also found in chapters X, Y, and Z" of the novel is the sourcing, and I have been taking that to mean that the addition of a secondary source renders this material 100% acceptable in your eyes and that you guys will then have 0% objection to its inclusion. I have spent months digging up source after source based on this conclusion, and I want you to state right here whether it is accurate. Is there anything else going on? Because when you keep asking for X, and I keep bringing X, and it just seems to make you both angry, it makes it look like there's some other objection to this material that isn't making the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide a secondary source that explicitly references the material you wish to include, and that either meets with no objection here or is approved by WP:RSN, I will have no objection to its inclusion. I hope that's clear enough. I reserve the right to alter my statement for the next 48 hours (I'm writing this late at night), but I think that covers my bases. If you have any questions you're welcome to ask. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's just it, Don. From my perspective, I've already provided many such sources. Far more controversial content has been supported by far less reliable sites. Wikipedia's ordinary standards were surpassed before you even got involved.

Thank you for answering my question, but it's the "and that meets with no objection here" that I want to clear up; it's too vague. In this case, I am not asking about Wikipedia's policy but about your and Jack's and DQ's own beliefs. The point of my "cards on the table request" is that I don't want to spend another two months finding still more sourcing just to have to deal with some other objection that had been held in reserve. Yes, it's possible for people to change their minds, but right now, total benefit of the doubt, I'd like anything that anyone would bring up for the purpose of excluding this material to be disclosed. Yes, take your time on the scale of days. Better to do it right than to do it over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

DF, I haven't seen you provide secondary sources that other editors involved in the discussion considered reliable, but if you want to recap them I'm open to revisiting them. Maybe I missed something. Whether there's material being supported by unreliable sites isn't pertinent to this. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it may be that those statements and/or sources need to be reviewed.

I'm not sure how "meets with no objection here" isn't clear. 1) You provide a source you want to use. 2a) If no editor objects to the source, the statement is acceptable, 2b) If any editor objects because they feel the source isn't reliable (and there isn't a consensus to the contrary), you get a ruling from WP:RSN or pursue another source.

Hope this clears things up regarding my perspective on the matter. DonIago (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no high horse here, Darkfrog24, just the dead one you keep beating.

Cards on the table (again): there is nothing else going on - only what I (and others) have been telling you for months. You cannot source a chapter list of "X, Y and Z" of the book that you have noticed in the episode to the book, not unless - and this is crucial - unless you have a reliable reference from a notable, verifiable source explicitly saying so. This means no blogs. This means no fansites. This means no dead links. This means no Synthesis on your part presuming that if one source notes how one chapter from Jaime LMXIV (or whatever) is in the episode, that it gives you carte blanche to add in all the chapters.
The problem is not that you don't know what our objections are; it is that you don't agree with them, and think that by having us repeat ourselves over and over that you are going to either wear us down or find some semantic argument that you can pounce on. It is not going to work, Darkfrog24.
Now, you have - as I see it - four remaining options:

1. Find sources that meet the aforementioned criteria. - It doesn't matter if you disagree with the criteria; it isn't going into the article without them.
2. Accept the concensus. - Find a way to realize that your opinion is not the majority view and move along. Live with it, or seek a new consensus at some later date. You aren't changing our minds. At all.
3. Utilize the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to find some input as to why your sources keep getting rejected. - Frankly, I am curious as to why you haven't used this already. It's been two months. I'm going to AGF, and presume that you aren't one of those types who just enjoy arguing.
4. Go find another article to edit. - You aren't gaining any traction for your viewpoint here, and your unwillingness to work with the consensus has seen you blocked twice for edit-warring. Editing in Wikipedia should be fun and collaborative, not a constant battle with people who don't appreciate your special charm. Consider expending your efforts elsewhere.
   

Those are your choices as I see them. Of course, there is always a fifth one, where you keep not getting the point and end up blocked yet again. I an guessing that isn't one you want to pursue again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack, put your own stick down before you go on about dead horses.

The part that isn't clear about "meets with no objection here," Don, is that "no objection" can refer to any objection. I could—and have—spent months finding still more sources and I don't want someone to turn around and say, "Well, now that reliability, OR, notability and verifiability have been taken care of, I'm going to object on grounds of [issue not previously raised]." That's what I don't want to have to deal with, and, frankly, that's what I think you guys owe me, that you don't save any complaints for later. No, Wikipedia's rules don't require it; that's my own take on the matter. I've put in a lot of work and will probably put in more before this is through. I don't want to waste my time. As far as multiple editors and other multiple editors, I'm referring to respondents to the RfC above, to Diego, and to other participants on the Breaker of Chains discussion. The RfC that you cited, the discussion that led to WP:FILMDIFF, also contained many editors who did not consider the use of primary sources inappropriate for content like this.

Jack, it would help if you tone yourself down. "It isn't going into the article without them" is not for you or any other one editor to say. You are not the king of Wikipedia or the owner of this article. How would you react if I said, "Well it's going into the article whether you like it or not"? I'm betting that you wouldn't find it very convincing.

1. I've already been bringing in secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria; you just have different ideas about what those criteria are.
2. I've already demonstrated that I can act in accord with consensus even when I don't agree with it. My own belief is that the novel alone is sufficient source for this material per WP:Primary, but I've brought in secondary sources anyway.
3. We just went up on the RSN. [36] I tried to portray your position accurately, but I can't read your mind. If I've misunderstood anything about your position, let me know. That goes for both of you.
4. YOU ARE OUT OF LINE. Jack, it is not for you or anyone to tell other Wikieditors when they have to get lost. You want to silently wish that I'd leave? That's fine if you keep it to yourself. Again, this isn't your article, at least no more than it's mine. It's not your private clubhouse from which you may expel members who've displeased you. Again, look at what I've actually been doing: Bringing in more sources for material that has been objected to as insufficiently sourced is not tendentious editing. It is how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

I'm going to interpret your answer as, "Yes your conclusion is correct and no I don't plan on making any other objections to this material; a single acceptable secondary source renders the contested material acceptable in my eyes." Please do correct me if this is not the case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've told you what your options are. Act upon them as you will. To clarify, it is your responsibility to provide those sources that meet with the consensus' view of the policies and guidelines on point. Diesagree? Find an admin, and take it up with them. Until then, the majority opinion stands: you need a secondary source to back up any evaluative or comparative statement.

This is not a matter for further debate. Find the appropriate sources and stop arguing for inclusion of those which are considered by both Wikipedia and the consensus as inadequate and unusable. That is why you continue to encounter resistance. That is why you continue to shed the assumption of good faith like a snake shedding its skin. Let it go, give us the sources we ask for and everything will be fine. Don't do it, and you are simply wasting your time.

Lastly, you may not interpret my answer as "yes". You should probably read my posts more carefully. I specifically stated:

"You cannot source a chapter list of "X, Y and Z" of the book that you have noticed in the episode to the book, not unless - and this is crucial - unless you have a reliable reference from a notable, verifiable source explicitly saying so. This means no blogs. This means no fansites. This means no dead links. This means no Synthesis on your part presuming that if one source notes how one chapter from Jaime LMXIV (or whatever) is in the episode, that it gives you carte blanche to add in all the chapters."

If you need me to break that down more for you, please do ask. Otherwise, consider you proposed addition to the article as opposed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, Jack, you do not tell me my options. To be absolutely frank, it is not your place. Your place is to tell the others and me your preferences and positions, as it is my place to tell you mine. You do not dictate terms. This is what you keep doing that makes you hard to work with. Doniago and DQ are just guys who disagree with me. You are a guy who's doing something wrong. This is what you are doing wrong: You are acting as if you have authority that you do not have. You are presuming upon rights that you do not have. It is no more for you to dictate my options than it is for me to dictate yours.

If you don't want to debate further, then don't. If you do, then do. DQ and Diego left and as far as I'm concerned they can come back whenever they choose. Other contributors like Bal said their piece and moved on. But again, the issue itself isn't for you to decide. Only your role in it is.

Actually, yes I can. The issue is whether or not I may. I don't agree with the conclusion of our recent RfC and the idea that observing that such-and-such happens in this chapter or that is synthesis is ridiculous, but I have been abiding by the conclusion of the RfC. If it's overturned or overruled, I'll be glad, but that's not the state of things right now. As for a notable, verifiable source, the novel is both these things. We're good to go on those two points. What we need, according to the RfC, is a source that is notable, verifiable and also secondary.

Jack, please confirm that you have read WP:BADLINK. No, a link going dead does not make the source unusable. The policy says so flat-out. If you object to the Prince Albert source, you must give a different reason. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not call it a "bad" or "dead" link, Darkfrog24; i pointedly said it was a fake reference, created in the Classifieds section of the PrinceAlbertNowmedia outlet shortly before being cited within Wikipedia. No one on staff there wrote it, and I was advised by a member of the editorial staff that, after I inquired about the article, it was removed for violating the terms of use. So, a fake article created shortly before its presented as a source in Wikipedia vanishes like a fart in the wind when someone calls attention to it. My suspicions as to the real author of the fake link aside, I am telling you flat out that I will oppose vehemently any inclusion of it within this article.

I've already said my piece on the other sources. We are most decidedly not "good to go." You should probably not keep pretending that it is. You have to change the consensus, not ignore it. Yiu have not done so, in my estimation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your use of the word "fake" is inappropriate. No one faked anything. A link was posted and an accurate reference was written.

Jack, please stop using crude and obscene terms. I've talked to you about this before.

I am not pretending anything. I just don't agree with you. Just because someone does not share your personal interpretation of the rules does not mean that he or she is being disingenuous. Got a problem with reliability and verifiability? We've got that covered with the novel. Hm, but the novel's not enough to establish notability? Well here are some secondary sources; also covered. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I call it fake bc there isn't anything else it can be. As for my language, I'll use the words I like. If you find them offensive, well, there's the door, dear.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. We told you to get clarification over at RSN. Why not wait and get that, instead of desperately seeking the last word in every effing conversation? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack, it was product information. Someone was trying to sell access to the GoT episodes and provided a description of their product. This is like reading information off a box.

I don't know, Jack, maybe it's because you keep begging me to. If you say something confrontational, say, like claiming that I misrepresented sources or pulled up a fake source, not "inadequate" in your opinion not "insufficient" in your opinion, but fake, then you're calling me a liar. Yes I get to respond to that. If you don't want me to, then knock it the heck off, and keep your comments to the point.

And you have absolutely no right to tell me to leave. You have no right to address me as "dear." I have told you not to address me by diminutives before. Knock it off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)