Talk:Manhood (Law & Order)

"Manhood" = "Samaritan"

Please stop removing the factual and verifiable information about the relationship between these two episodes. The primary source, the credits for "Samaritan", state the relationship and per WP:PSTS the credits can be used to make the straightforward statement. It does not matter whether you or any other editor has viewed "Samaritan". I have not seen or read the vast majority of material cited as sources on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean I can go around removing everything just because I haven't happened to have read the book or watched the movie it's sourced to. If you find the factual, verifiable statement that the one episode served as the basis for the other problematic, I'm sure you can find some way to access the UK episode online to verify it for yourself. Whether you choose to do that or not, quit removing the material. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a read of WP:OR, and I quote: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And the credits for "Samaritan" serve as a reliable published source for its own contents per WP:PSTS, which is a section of WP:OR. I see on your talk page as I was requesting that you stop edit warring that at least one other editor has pointed this out to you and on 19 April 2011 you acknowledge that on-screen credits are suitable for sourcing this information so why you're continuing to dispute this is confounding. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Reguardless where you saw that, You ca't just say "Oh, I'm going to add this, because another editor said this..." Now barring that out, I asked for a consensu for this...Why can't I see one? -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Because a consensus is not required to add information that is projected on a screen that anyone with a television or Internet access can easily locate, any more than a consensus is required to type "Here's lookin' at you, kid" in an article about Casablanca or for "Call me Ishmael" to be typed into an article on Moby-Dick. PSTS, which is a part of OR, specifically allows for primary sources to be used in this fashion and whether you personally have happened to see the source in question or not is irrelevant. Just as the credits for an episode may be used as a source for the people who appeared in the episode or the person who wrote or directed it, so may the credits be used to include the uninterpreted fact that one TV episode is a remake or based on another. I am not saying "Oh, I'm going to add this, because another editor said this..." I am saying "I am going to retain this because the relevant Wikipedia policy says that it's valid." 76.201.156.158 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering the circumstances, that you have just provided...This just can work out without consensus. But before I leave...is there any way you can provide a source to back that up? Because I can assure you I won't be the only one to say "Hey, where's the source to back that up?" -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

MelbourneStar1 was right in removing the original research claim which isn't backed-up, we cite reliable sources (RS) for a very good reason, you (Anon editor) claiming that you seen it on the credits isn't reliable and in fact anyone can make such claim. If it is fact, then I'm sure there RS online. Bidgee (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is idiotic. It is stated on-screen in the credits. I can use the credits to cite it just as I can use the credits to cite the episode's name or its copyright date. I don't need to find some other source to prove that what appeared on the screen appeared on the screen. I can cite it to the credits just exactly as I can cite the contents of a book to the book without needing to find another source that says that the book says what it says and I can cite it to the book whether you've ever read the book or not. I could cite the episode's relationship to each other using a printed newspaper that you will never see; it's no more provable that I saw it in the paper than I saw it in the episode. See how stupid this is?

PSTS absolutely allows the sourcing to primary sources of uninterpreted facts that any educated person without specialist knowledge with access to the source can verify. Anyone with the ability to read can watch the episodes and read the credits. PSTS satisfied, OR adhered to, and the angels sing. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, unless it says "Bidgee" on your birth certificate, you're an "Anon editor" too. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, FYI IP editors are classed as Anon editors, while I may not be using my real name, I'm not an Anon. I disagree, I'm sure there would be something printed in a magazine, newspaper or even an entertainment news website which is far better then a "primary source". Bidgee (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm assuming all kinds of good faith, sweetie. I have no doubt that your actions are with the best of intentions, every bit as good as those paving the road to Hell. And it makes no difference whether one source or another is "better" as long as the cited source itself verifies the information cited to it in a manner that comports with policy. Which the credits of the episode do for purposes of establishing the relationship between the two episodes. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)