Talk:The Sound of Drums

Archive 2

Anyone else hear that?

The rhythm of the drums themselves, as performed by various characters through the episode (a homeless man, Margaret Jones, The Master) is the beat of the series' theme song. That's certainly not an accident. Worth a mention? Mael-Num (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What is your reliable source to make absolutely sure that it's certainly not an accident? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary, as it's common knowledge. Common enough, in fact, that another astute editor already placed it in the article. I simply overlooked it. Mael-Num (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is necessary; as it is, a reliable source was found. Had there not been one, I would have had to remove the information. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and clearly the cited "reliable source" used the same method that I, and likely the original author of that portion of the article, did to determine that fact: we listened and recalled the theme song. It's...troubling that you would require someone to jump through hoops to find a citation for something as obvious as that. Mael-Num (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "original research" and "clearly perceivable". This is a case of the latter. TreasuryTag, I wonder if you would question a description of Tom Baker's Doctor as "curly-haired" in absence of a "reliable source?" --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you would have told me just yesterday that a reference to the Most Holy of Doctors would cause a partisan Doctor Who fan to see the light and concede an argument, I would have laughed. Actually, it's still pretty funny today. Mael-Num (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

President-Elect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There's only 2 months every 4 years (tops) where someone is ever called President-Elect of the United States of America. No doubt this isn't common knowledge in England, but it's a fact. This is documented in the referenced pages, and isn't speculative in any way.

If however, you don't think this is a fact, then let's hear it.

Mael-Num (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who is clearly set in a different universe to us. In that universe, there were three Xmas Day alien invasions. I didn't notice them in real life; if that difference exists, it is reasonable to think that other differences also exist. For example, I could enter into the article, "A mistake in the episode is that time-travel is actually impossible." This is actually no different to what you wrote; it is assuming that all the laws, facts and characteristics of our universe applies to the Whoniverse; but they clearly don't!

I would adivse you to thoroughly read our policy on original research, since you seem to have a difficulty understanding that your own new thoughts aren't allowed here! Thanks ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How amusing that you condescend to me regarding original research, and defend your position with a good chunk of it of your own. Very well, if it is so "clear" then why this person's comment?[1] Or better still, why use the term "President-Elect" at all? Or "United States"? Can we also not conclude that residents in the "Whoniverse" don't eat their own parents upon the occasion of their 30th birthday? I mean, we've never seen that this doesn't happen, and it is a parallel universe, so these people aren't us.

Your position is laughably contrarian. I'd recommend you unclench. Mael-Num (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend strongly that you read our policies on civility and consensus. Now, the definition of "original research", which is banned, is unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas. Since your fact/idea/argument/speculation is unpublished (I assume) it falls into that category.

And no, I won't revert my revert, I'm not required to until I breach the three-revert rule and don't intend to do so voluntarily. Let's let others comment on the discussion here first. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for pointing out policies. Might I also point out that finger pointing and whining about civility goes against the policy of not pointing fingers and whining.

You also seem to not have very carefully read 3RR. Here's an interesting bit:

Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

All that bureaucracy aside, let's get to the actual matter at hand. Are you claiming that in the Doctor Who continuity, it's not safe to assume that the political bodies being represented in their fictional version of early 21st century earth follow the same procedural processes that ours do? That seemed to be a fairly major point above, with the Tony Blair bit, and the consensus seemed to be arguing that they do. Do you disagree? Mael-Num (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When you apply real world rules to a fictional universe you are making big mistake and engaging in WP:OR. In the first place even if the November to January timing was being adhered to in the storytelling it is never stated onscreen. Since this is an encyclopedia we deal only with the facts as presented and not with speculation about what might be meant. Please note that there are plenty of fan forums and blogs on the net where you can make this point. MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is stated that he is President-elect. The character introduces himself as such during the press conference. I'm pretty sure that makes it canon. Why use the term at all? Can you state when else someone might be President-elect and the date on the calendar not being as described? There seem to be some extraordinary claims happening on the part of other editors regarding this matter. I'd like to see some evidence to back up these claims. Mael-Num (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. There is no evidence to back up any claims, yours or ours. This is a fictional universe. I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand. The elections could be in July, or the month of Troon for that matter. One other thing to note. If the real world rules were being applied to this episode Nov-Jan is winter in the UK and there is sunlight for only seven or so hours a day. The weather tends to be cold and rainy. We see none of this in the episode. Again an encyclopedia can only deal with the evidence that is clearly stated onscreen. Your speculation will not be put into the article. Three separate editors have found it to be inappropriate so the only disruptive behaviour, so far, has been yours. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're gaming at this point. We know he is the President-elect of the United States. This is stated. There's only one time that there is a President-elect of the United States. We must assume that the process is the same because it isn't shown to be different. If your claim is that it is different, then you must demonstrate this, as it is an extraordinary claim.

Please note also that I'm not speaking in terms of what weather "tends to be" or how many hours of sunlight exist in a day (in a 40 minute story, no less). The fact is that there's a very brief period of time when a President-elect for the US even exists. This fact is already referenced in the article, and has been an established consensus edit for some time now. I'm merely fleshing out that comment.

This is pretty standard stuff, guys. I'm a little shocked that I even have to argue this; it's like rebutting someone's claim that the sky isn't blue. Mael-Num (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the link to the article defining the details of what the title President-elect means is sufficient to explain this. If someone lacks understanding of what that means, including the time period in which it would apply, they can click on that link. The only thing that would require explanation here is for deleting the reference to his stated title of "President-elect" - to claim that because the scrolling credits say otherwise, when the character states his title within the dialogue, would require some extraordinary speculation as to why Winters would either lie about his title, or that some alternate-universe form of government exists in which President-elect and President are one in the same. Otherwise, let's stick to the facts as presented (that the Winters character is "President-elect") and avoid unncessary detail (such as an explanation of the position) and speculation (such as Whoniverse government theories). --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you're saying that he is President-elect, and that the term is valid, and the article as-written has referenced the real-world facts of what exactly the President-elect of the United States is, then what's the problem with including the dates? The show's all about time travel, wouldn't it be germane to include that information if it was in the story? Why would the writers include that detail if not to clue us into the date? Hasn't anyone considered that...that the writers are telling us when this is taking place without having one of the characters pick up a newspaper and read it off? Mael-Num (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on selected/elected as well,Shubopshadangalang. I should have noticed that myself...well done. Mael-Num (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I could go either way on this one, honestly, as far as including the details. It helps to understand a small amount of context of the story. But I can also see the argument that this is a minor detail, and that it could be "unnecessary information" at the worst. But if it really does serve a purpose as to place the timeline of the story, maybe it's worth noting, as long as it doesn't lean torward speculation. There's no reason to expect that a drastic change in U.S. electoral processes have taken place here, so a statement from real-world examples should be perfectly valid. Your "30th Birthday" example is extreme, but makes the point - there's no reason to question every detail - we must assume things are most likely as they are in the real world (especially when real-word terminology such as "President-elect" is utilized without an alternate explanation) unless explained otherwise within story canon. That being said, I really don't think the time of year has any relevance, unless it makes a difference to Martha's year-long journey somehow or some other story detail. Details like this in article should be reasonably verifiable, but also should be worth noting to begin with. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, whenever there are significant differences between our world and theirs (or any version of earth), the writers make that clear (Hey look...airships!). The fact that they are using a term that has a real-world meaning is significant. I could see some debate as to the year. I went with 2008 because they reference events that are known to have happened in 2007 (a couple of alien invasions) and it was the next election year, but the writers (and the Doctor) seem to like 2012 as well. I went with the earlier date because I'm assuming, with the series ongoing (and its spin-offs), there will likely be invasions between 2008 and 2012 that would have been mentioned, but were not, therefore it's most likely not much farther along than '08. Mael-Num (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing I just realized is that the time of year may be relevant to the larger story arc of that season, or an over all plan for the series. For example, this helps place the relative time of these events in relation to the events of Voyage of the Damned, which would be at Christmas, possibly following very closely to the post-US-election events of late fall or early winter of 2008, 2012 or 2014. Also, it may not necessarily indicate a political change for the President-elect to be representing the country - it's very possible that he is currently serving in another official capacity, such as Vice President, Ambassador, etc, and as he is acting post-election, uses the President-elect title, accurately, but for added impact for his actions. Obviously none of such speculation should be in the article, but I'm trying to show further support for why these details should be included for reference, as they may help place the story context. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mael, for someone who warned about assuming good faith, you firstly suggested that making a single revert is disruptive (it is *NOT*), and then said "You are gaming now." Please accept that unless you have a source to back up your unpublished argument that the story takes place in November or whatever, then it can't be added. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For someone who warned yadda yadda blah blah...what? Was there a point to that? Gee, I hope I'm not distracting you.

I also hope that you're not showing signs of Encyclopaedic Megalomania. I've seen it before, and it's not pretty when full-blown. Mael-Num (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take this matter to ANI, since you're not interested in constructive discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The only source needed here would be to one covering the U.S. election process, although that's clearly an issue of common knowledge. Just as a way of satisfying this though, here's a link for you: [2] --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No, all that sources is that in the real-world United States political system, the president-elect is that official. I don't see the US Department of State confirming that Doctor Who is an accurate representation of US politics, or that it is set in the real-world. If it was intended to be 100% true to life, then it would involve real politicians and real characters. The Master doesn't exist (if I remember rightly), there is no Senator or Governor called Arthur Winters... therefore, any world containing such characters is clearly not ours, and thus doesn't necessarily have the same politics. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pure speculation on your part. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Something depicting reality, like the news, depicts real-life figures. You wouldn't find Rose Tyler on a news-bulletin. Therefore anything depicting something unreal, isn't depicting something real-life. And if it's not real-life, there's no reason to treat it like real life. Take this example: I write in the article, "An error was made in the script, as time-travel isn't actually possible." That's true; I could find reliable sources for it.

But it would be nonsense; we know that Doctor Who is fiction. And since it's fiction, and has that element of unreality, it's safe to assume that it has others. Like Martha Jones' existence, like the Daleks' existence, and we don't know what else. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's fiction that goes out of its way to model itself on our world. That's why they use terms like "Prime Minister" and "President". If The Doctor had ended up in a version of England where the Prime Minister gets the job by yanking a sword out of a stone, then fine, you've got an argument that we shouldn't apply our rules of electoral procedure to the fictionalized world that we are looking at. But, as it is, we've been told that this is "our world" or Margaret and Rose's world, which is for all intents and purposes, our world, minus some alien invasions and such.

Now, TT, it's your turn. Where's the "sword in the stone" that serves as your evidence that this President-elect isn't meant to be the same as ours? Mael-Num (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't assume that because it's a fictional universe, that for some unstated reason the U.S. governmental system is different. To do that is speculation. To take information at face value as it's presented within the context of the story, such as the known definition of "President-elect", would be the reasonable, non-speculative approach. As Mael pointed out, differences in the universes are pointed out explicitly (airships example) within the story. If someone's drinking a glass of milk (in a Doctor Who episode), we can't expect an explanation of whether milk has the same properties in this fictional universe as it does in ours, and you certainly can't assume that it is likely toxic, and that you should have a suspenseful worry at the situation and fear the safety of the character because it hasn't been explicitly defined for us that milk is drinkable. When they say "milk" you just assume they mean "milk" unless they say otherwise. I'm not sure what else I can say.... --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't get this, do you? The onus is on YOU to source information YOU add. Since the information is an unpublished argument, the definition of original research, and your (anyway flawed) common sense, even if it was perfect, is not acceptable; the case is as good as made. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not (the case having been made, that is). A reference was provided that defines the election process. You're the one speculating that the U.S. Government operates differently in the Who universe. Provide a source for that. Otherwise, real-world examples (especially in a section titled "Outside Sources") are perfectly relevant. The burden here is on you, Treasury. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it.

Also, I want to point out that WP:NOCOMMON is an essay, not a policy. Anyone can write one. For the record, there actually is a such thing as common sense, despite what you may have read...and regardless of the presence or absence of it in any given individual. ;) Mael-Num (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, unless you can provide a reliable source with which we can verify your claim, it stays out of the article. Simple as that. Lets forget all the other doctor who stuff that's been used in the argument and just focus on this — come back with a reliable source, or don't come back at all.--Phoenix-wiki 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? That elections take place in early November and inauguration takes place in late January? Done. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To throw in some more outside perspective, I think this is fairly simple. Since the specific date of the episode (and you're not that specific, you're guessing within a three month period) is never established, you have no proof if it is 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, or even 2012 (another election year, and a year specifically visited by the Doctor before). If you can't even establish a year let alone the month, then the date has absolutely no bearing on the article or the story, and has no use on Wikipedia. You can think that it's November 2008 or January 2013, but you have no proof either way, so it fails notability on Wikipedia simply because you're taking a guess. An educated guess maybe, but a guess none the less. Either find a source specifying the date, or remove the guess. It's that simple.

Assuming the Whoniverse follows the same laws, dates, and other such bits is also just a guess, as a fictional story can only take what is established in the story as "facts". For a show aging from the 1960s, real world facts have little merit as the timeline has been changed quite a lot over the decades. The359 (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity errors over the course of the series are an entirely separate issue. We can only look at the current series at face value. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Point is the Whoniverse has long seperated itself from the Real World. The very fact that a President-Elect has any powers just goes to show that you cannot apply Real World laws to a Fictional Universe television show, simply because the show's producers can choose on a whim to ignore any Real World element they wish. The359 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And there's a big difference between using reason and "taking a guess". This may sound a little presumptuous but: most of science...also guesswork to you? Mael-Num (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopedia, not a Science Experiment. Whatever you want to call it, it's original research. It's not even useful to the article. The359 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I take it you're going to ignore my question and continue to shake your fist at the people who are making sense? Mael-Num (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question. The scientific method is far removed from your guessing based on applying a real world term to a fictional universe. You have no deducted a "fact", you've simply made a guess on your view of a fictional universe.

Also, I would suggest not having the attitude that your ability to guess is better than established, referenced facts on Wikipedia. I don't care how good you are at guessing, you have no reference, so you have no fact, so your information does not fulfill Wikipedia guidelines. The359 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I do all that? Mael-Num (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In your edit summary, yes, you have implied that.

I'm afraid you must be mistaken. I did no such thing, though you seem to have inferred otherwise. Mael-Num (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's original research, if unsourced, to suggest that the Who universe by and large ignores realities of the real world even when not explicitly stated. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, we're interested in verifiable statements, not facts. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If all reliable references said the world was flat, our article would say that. Jimbo seems to agree.--Phoenix-wiki 21:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So, we're interested in facts, not facts? That's very good, and I am sure "Jombo" would certainly agree with that. Mael-Num (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's verifiable that the Winters character claims to be President-elect. It's verifiable that this title carries with it certain other details such as the election/inauguration timeline. Anything else regarding the state of U.S. politics in the Who universe - whether one supposes it to be true, fact, or otherwise - if unsourced is purely speculation. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

listen, you can't add that because you don't have a reference. There's nothing else to say. Just move on and do some other edits.--Phoenix-wiki 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can, do, and did. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My reference is the article on President-elect of the United States. Perhaps you should just move on and take the matter up with those people? Mael-Num (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(Un-Indent)All fun-poking aside, here's the matter at hand. It's a fact that the President-elect of the United States is a specific title that refers to a certain person under certain circumstances. Part of those conditions is that it happens during an election year (2008, 2012, 2016 in case you're counting or for some reason think there are Presidential elections in "2009, 2010, 2011"), after the election is held, and before the inauguration happens.

This isn't up for debate; the article that a consensus edit already cites as relevant to the term states this clearly. No one was arguing that the real-world term didn't apply before, when the "The Sound of Drums" article linked directly to the real-world definition of "President-elect of the United States". So why is the argument valid now?

I was making that information more readily available because it gives us a clue as to the date, which is handy to know in a series all about time travel. Also, and let's face it...some people across the pond have no friggin idea what a President-elect is. If this debate isn't proof that this information should be included because at least some Doctor Who fans could learn from it, I don't know what is. Mael-Num (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The part about the time of year is clearly referenced already. But, on the issue of the year, unless you can cross-reference that with other information, I don't think we can include something like "it's either 2008, 2012, 2016" in the article, because, although we can come close to an answer, the fact that it's uncertain means that it's technically speculation. But I'm sure it must be possible to determine what year it's actually set in, like I said, by cross-referencing... I suggest holding off until you can provide references for that info, whether external, or from the program content. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has absolutly no effect on what is included in articles, if it doesn't have a reference it will be removed, even if 500 people say they want it in and only 1 says they don't. Now please don't reply untill you find a reference.--Phoenix-wiki 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The episode does not give an accurate description of the President-elect in the first place. To attempt to "educate" people on something which the show changes anyway, is moot. If you want people to understand "President-elect", use a wikilink. Anything else has no place on this article. The359 (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's speculation that it's something the show "changes". This section is called "Outside Sources" and it is tied in to relevance with the show because it places its context using verifiable references. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not an assumption to know that the real world President-elect has no authority. And the section is "Outside references", as in references to real world events and such. It references the existance of the President-elect, but it does not in any way reference the actual laws regarding President elects or the inauguration process. The359 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to further explain, the section is "Outside references". It refers to things within the show that reference real world events and such. It is NOT for real world events to be used to attempt to "guess" elements of the show. You have the section backwards. The359 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your argument, at best, suggests that the information be moved to a different section in the article, not removed entirely. The information about his title was in this section before, but I'm open to the date reference being moved to another section. By the way, it's not a "guess," it's based entirely on verifiable information... no one's saying that "it's probably November." A "guess" would be something like "they probably don't have the same U.S. Government structure in the Who universe". :) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"The U.S. Government structure is the same in the Who universe" is equally a guess. Hence neither belong on Wikipedia. The359 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

President-Elect: section-break

Again, no one argued that the "President-elect" wasn't the President-elect when it was linked to, so that's not really up for debate. What little has been offered to debate this has no evidence in support of it, therefore, the November to January dating is applicable. The only references that need be given are to wikipedia articles; the process is well-documented and detailed.

We know from Margaret's words that she wasn't gone very long, less than a year in fact, as she was aware of Saxon's candidacy for PM, and he only won the election recently in the storyline. Margaret was picked up immediately following Christmas 2007. When The Doctor visits 2012's Olympic games with Margaret, she described it as her future. When they are fuelling up in Cardiff, it's known to be her present. She mentions the incident with the Slitheen as being "a couple of years ago".

We see Jack running up to the TARDIS in "Utopia" immediately following the events of End of Days. Did that episode mention a date?

Finally, we know that The Master could only go between Cardiff circa 2008 and someplace near "Utopia" at the time of the heat death of the universe. How many facts from the show do I need to slap people in the face with before it's considered a valid plot element? Mael-Num (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing against its relevance, just its verifiability. I think you're very close to an answer... just make sure you back it up fully when you have it. I'm done for today. For one thing, I've wasted too much time on this already, but also, I think I've technically reached my 3 revert limit on this info (in one form or another). So, just as well I duck out for now... Good luck. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And as already established, the Whoniverse has continuity problems. Without a reference, the statement does not belong on Wikipedia, and will continue to be removed as WP:OR. The359 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How are the events that happened inside the episode considered original research? Do you have citations for every plot summary of every episode of Doctor Who, or was it sufficient just to watch them and see? Why do I need to jump through hoops when other, more regular contributors to Doctor Who articles aren't held to that standard? Mael-Num (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You actually mention no dates from this specific episode, only one from the previous episode. A statement made in the show can be taken as a fact, but your assumption that the United States Presidential process is taking place at the same time as in the real world is not in any wasy established by dialogue within the episode. Therefore you need a reference in order to make such a speculative guess, even if you think it is logical. You have two real choices of references here: Dialogue within the episode specifying a date, or dialogue from a producer/writer/someone involved in the show impyling when they want the episode to be taking place. Using real world United States election and inauguration laws has no bearing on a date within a fictional universe, and is not a valid source. The359 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"your assumption that the United States Presidential process is taking place at the same time as in the real world is not in any wasy established by dialogue within the episode"

And we've already established that it need not be. Read above. Mael-Num (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's establishment has no bearing on the fact that you have no reference discussing this episode and its dating. The359 (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is simple stuff. You have to have a reference that says "The Sound of Drums took place in this year" or something along those lines. Using a reference with no mention of anything involving Doctor Who to make a speculative jump about a date within a fictional universe does not cut it. The359 (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So, again, you're holding me to a different standard than other editors? Mael-Num (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Where was this standard when this rubbish:

The Master's final speech to the aged Doctor quotes phrases and words from the King James Version of the Bible (e.g. "thought it good" from 1 Thessalonians 3:1, Daniel 4:2, and the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus; "it came to pass" from Luke 2:1, among others), and generally parodies it by using what in modern speech would be archaisms (e.g. "dominion", "fell" and "was no more").

Was added? Mael-Num (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not holding anyone to any special standard. We are discussing this one section. I never said everything else on the article was perfect. That section should include references as well. Doomsday (Doctor Who) is an example of what an episode article should look like. The359 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And just to mention it again, please do not use smartass comments in your edit summaries. They are not civil and not helpful in this discussion. The359 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get right on it, just as soon as you apologize for "smartass".

On a more topical note, the Date of Death on Jack Harkness' ID Card next to him in "End of Days" says that he died 11/01(?)/06. The middle bit is a bit blurry, but the "06" is pretty plain. I'll try to find something more conclusive, but there it is. Arriving in 06 would definitely have given The Master enough time to muck around as Defense Minister, shoot down the Racnoss, build a satellite network, etc. Mael-Num (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to like to argue, even when you're told you're being uncivil. I suggest you tone it down.

The date on a card in Torchwood does not establish anything, as there is no reference to how much time has elapsed between Jack's "death" and the events of The Sound of Drums. It would, once again, be pure speculation on your part. I've already told you the reference necessary. The359 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As do you, and under the same circumstances. What was your point again? Mael-Num (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is, sadly, the kind of fanc**p ego driven argument that allows TTN and Eusebius and their ilk to delete and redirect entire articles. So much typing has gone on here for what? So that one editor can say - oh isn't it cool that I know when a president gets elected in the US. In what way does it enhance anyones understanding of this "45 minute" episode (set over several days) to think that it might have taken place sometime between November and January. It is the most trivial fancruft possible. Please go and post it on the Doctor Who wikia where speculation is allowed then your ego will have left something for future readers to see. Oh, and one more thing the sky isn't blue on Gallifrey or during "The Poison Sky" on Earth. MarnetteD | Talk 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow...just...wow. Feeling better, are we?

I'm so very angry you've completely unmasked my motives in contributing to Wikipedia. It's all about getting my name recognized by Doctor Who fandom! Now that that's been revealed, I'll need to find some other way to find my way into the hearts and minds of Whofandom. Making sure people like yourself think highly of me is clearly foremost on my mind. Mael-Num (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

MarnetteD is correct, as I have tried to say before. The date of the event adds nothing to the article. It's useless information. The359 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree. After I add the info back, you're welcome to not read it. Mael-Num (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Except you lack a reference and it is Original Research, so it will simply be removed again. I suggest you look towards compromise and following Wikipedia guidelines rather then fighting for the sake of a fight. The359 (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Words have meanings. If the United Kingdom is mentioned in an episode, one assumes that it refers to the same governmental entity. You wouldn't question it, and wonder whether it also includes Iceland, Libya , and the western half of North Dakota. It's the same United Kingdom as what's in our universe. If an episode mentions a mirror, we assume a mirror has the same properties as it does in our universe. See my previous "milk" example as well. Likewise, when a word or phrase referring to a real-world governmental system is used - in this case "President-elect," in the absence of different explanations, one assumes it has the same definition in the fictional universe as it does in the real world. This is not speculation. If we need to provide "proof" that every passing reference to a real-world person, place, thing, event, idea, or concept is the same in the Who universe as it is in the real world, then we've got a LOT of "unsourced" tags to insert.... --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people assume, it matters what you can reference as being what the producers and writers of Doctor Who wanted. The359 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's clear that they wanted him to be "President-elect" when they wrote the line that says "I am the President-elect." By its very definition, this places the story within a certain time context. If this were intended to mean something different than what "President-elect" means, and thus, not mean a position that only exists between early November and late January in an election year, then THAT is where you would need to provide a reference. Otherwise, what the producers and writers of Doctor Who "wanted" is exactly at face value. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They clearly wanted the story to take place between November 08 and January 09. That's why they made the character the "President-elect". There is never a President-elect except during those months, immediately following an election. If they didn't, they wouldn't have chosen that very specific and reserved term.

You don't seem to understand that, so in the interests of WP:AGF, I'll assume that you're actually a moron, and not willfully ignorant, and will continue to explain that until even you can understand. Mael-Num (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on now. If we've been asking you to provide a reference this entire time, what makes you think we're going to go for "I know what the writers and producers had in mind". Not going to fly. You have no reference to back the claim that the writers specifically chose the term for any particular reason.

As for calling people morons: you've been warned twice, and you seem to just want to ignore civility until you get your way. Stop. The359 (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil? Come on now, I said I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying I was wrong in that, and you're just willfully ignoring the references I've listed above?[3][4]

Oh, and for the record, I'm still waiting on that apology.[5] I'm also waiting on any evidence of your extraordinary claim that terms like "President" and "Prime Minister" mean completely different things in Doctor Who's continuity.[6] Mael-Num (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just uncalled for. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if anyone owes an apology here, it's for your "you're actually a moron" comment, which I assume was directed at The359. That's a lot worse than his reference to your "smartass comments". I'm on your side of this argument, but I can't support that kind of name-calling, especially when you're expecting apologies. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see what the problem is here; we're rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world: the UK refers to the same entity, and a mirror refers to the same entity. Equally, the President-elect undoubtedly has the same definition. Your mistake is, however, with the definition. The definition of President-elect is, according to the Wikipedia article, "a political candidate who has been elected president but who has not yet taken office, as it is still occupied by the outgoing president."

So, if we're assuming that Mr Winters is that individual, and didn't just make a nervous slip in his speech, meaning to explain that he was elected (as an untrained politician making first contact with an alien race on-board an airborne ship, broadcast to the whole world, might well do!), then that's fine. But the definition includes nothing about November, December, months or dating. The dating is a separate part of the US political system, an intricate part, based on numerous laws and statutes (and I do know, I'm a student of politics, as it happens); and since we don't know either way that it's either identical in the Whoniverse or different, it's original research to speculate based on either assumption. Does that help to clear it up? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We're SO close to agreeing on this, I don't want to mess that up, but... as far as I can tell, it IS actually part of the definition of the title. Even the Wikipedia article you cite mentions the timeline of the election & inauguration cycle as part of explaining the President-elect title, which is in the detail of the article. Even the terms you quoted have a timeline associated with them: "a political candidate who has been elected president [a process which takes place on the first Tuesday in November] but who has not yet taken office, as it is still occupied by the outgoing president [a transition which takes place on January 20 of the year following the election]." The vary nature of such a briefly- and temporarily-held title is that it is inextricably tied to the timeline. The delay between election and inauguration has existed since 1789, with a shift to a January 20 inauguration in 1937, which has remained consistent since. Like a mirror's reflectiveness, milk's non-toxicity, or the UK not including North Dakota, this is a property that is tied to the definition of President-elect. To call into question whether the Who universe defines it the same is to open a huge bag of questions about every minute detail that relates to our world. I don't think any of us really expect that as editors we should have to search for a resource for how the Who universe defines each and every one of them. Do you? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the principle of the position isn't related to its dating, it's related to being between an election and the inauguration. As The359 says, if the US politics in the Whoniverse are so different that the P-e gets the important job of talking to aliens, rather than the incumbent, then it's reasonable to assume that such minor aspects as the dating of elections could also be changed too. Not "have" also been changed, but "could". And since we don't know either way, we can't add it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 08:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable argument, but I feel compelled to point out that imagining that the government has changed because the President-elect doesn't typically represent the country internationally is a matter of speculation. For one thing, we have no real-world precedent for who gets to talk to aliens, and it could easily be speculated that if such a situation arose, the current president would likely be in an underground bunker in Utah, rather than exposed to a potential hostile invasion. One could also easily speculate that Winters is currently the Vice President under the previous administration and serving in an official capacity in that position, and since he was elected he could rightfully throw around "President-elect" as a way of sounding impressive (example: George H.W. Bush in late 1988 while Reagan was still president). BUT... all of that is speculation, and all we can deal with here are the face-value realities: that Winters is President-elect, and that "President-elect" has a known definition. And part of that definition is that the position is "between an election and the inauguration" as you say, and that places it in a time period between two time-specified events: election and inauguration. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

President-elect: section break II

I've got to say, I'm impressed that you're at least listening and talking this over. Thank you, and I'll try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum! ;) (Also, I cut-paste this in because youse guys wuz chit-chattin' while I was typing, so forgive me if I'm redundant here...I'm not retyping this)

• "we're rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world: the UK refers to the same entity, and a mirror refers to the same entity. Equally, the President-elect undoubtedly has the same definition."

Yes, I'm relieved that we agree on this much, at least.

• "So, if we're assuming that Mr Winters is that individual, and didn't just make a nervous slip in his speech, meaning to explain that he was elected (as an untrained politician making first contact with an alien race on-board an airborne ship, broadcast to the whole world, might well do!)"

This is vastly more speculative than anything I'm proposing. For argument's sake, it seemed to me that he was relatively unflappable in his confrontations with The Master as Saxon, and showed enough political savvy to demand that the Presidential Seal be displayed in lieu of the UN's on relevant document. Neither of these fit with a "nervous" or "untrained" politician (Indeed, how does one become President if one is "untrained" in politics?) In any case, this is speculation, but you also said we can assume he's right about his own job title, so let's.

• "But the definition includes nothing about November, December, months or dating. The dating is a separate part of the US political system, an intricate part, based on numerous laws and statutes (and I do know, I'm a student of politics, as it happens"

Ah yes, the Numerous Statute Law of 1787. All students of politics know it well. It completely describes the role of Executives, and the entire President-elect process. You are correct that, as defined in the NSL of 1787, there aren't proper dates, but the process is neither arcane nor ephemeral. As one student to another, allow me to demystify its intricacies using the article President-elect:

• In the United States, the members of the U.S. Electoral College are elected by the people in November once every four years; in December, they are in session and in turn elect the President of the United States; finally, the President of the United States assumes office in January. One is officially the president-elect only after being chosen by the Electoral College, but unofficially the person chosen in the November popular election is called the President-elect even before the Electoral College meets.

We know the guy's Pres-elect of the USA, so as you said above, we should apply the "the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world". As I said in my edit here, this story must happen between the Election (November) and the Inauguration (January). Elections in the US are set, unlike the UK where general elections happen whenever they feel like having one. A Presidential election happens every 4 years (and coincide with leap years, a handy way to remember).

It's gotta be 2008-2009, otherwise it's too far off for Margaret to know who was running for PM in England. Also, see the Harkness stuff I wrote above. I'll try to get more on the year, just to make sure everyone's happy.

I may be "cheeky", but I'm really willing to make my fellow editors happy. Just don't make that impossible to achieve, please don't apply an unreasonable standard, and we'll get along great. Thanks, again, for meeting me halfway here. Mael-Num (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As to the "nervous slip in his speech" notion - as Mael-Num said, that's incredibly speculative. Even U.S. Presidents who are notorious about mispronouncing words and using poor grammar (not mentioning any names...) typically don't mess up their OWN title :) If there's a source within the program for what Winters' title is, the most reliable one would be the information provided by the character himself, and it's only reasonable to take that at face value. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The point to all of this is, we don't *******KNOW******* either way; whether he made a mistake (so we can't say that positively) or not (so equally we can't definitively say that he didn't make a mistake). Whether the US government is different or not. And since there's no source either way, we can't add it in. I am not continuing this discussoin as it's wasting my time and yours. The consensus is clear, the policy is clear; if you can't accept that then ask that the policy be rewritten. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 11:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the base-line demonstrated by the consensus here is this: the only reliable source which could back up the date in the article is a reliable source specifically and clearly stating the date, unequivocally. If you're attempting to guess the date based on various indicators throughout the episode, it's the definition of original research: an "unpublished argument". While certain facts you use in the argument are published, either as the episode or on the Whitehouse website, the argument itself, the so-called logical progression which draws various elements together, is concocted by you, and is unpublished. Unless you can find a published argument, it is the very definition of OR. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As clever as that sounds, you can form whatever consensus that you want regarding how policy works and how it is applied within your little circle, and it still means nothing. Policy is policy, even if you and your friends don't understand how it works. Mael-Num (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we were so close. What happened to "we're rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning... Equally, the President-elect undoubtedly has the same definition." When a character identifies themselves, it's ridiculous to question whether they might be mistaken about who they are. Do we question other characters' names when they introduce themselves? When Astrid Peth introduced herself in Voyage of the Damned, did we question whether she might be mistaken, and that she's actually Julius Caesar who's been pulled through the space-time vortex and transmogrified by an Auton flux capacitor overload? No, of course we took her word for it, and referred to her as "Astrid Peth". To do otherwise is speculative, and to exclude information that's clearly intended to be taken at face value, is just ridiculous, and opens up the door to all kinds of information being questioned which doesn't deserve to be. By bringing this into question, and calling it Original Research, when there's absolutely no reason to suspect otherwise, you've just redefined what constitutes OR to include everything that we can't be certain is the same in the real world, because it hasn't been explicitly stated. There's no reason to suspect that the U.S. government is different, despite your assertion that we can't know for sure either way. We can't know for sure either way whether clouds are made of cotton candy or whether oil gets pumped from the ground or if it grows on trees. Milk, mirrors, etc etc... When Winters says "I'm the President-elect" we're meant to "assume" that it's true unless stated otherwise. But that's not really an "assumption," is it? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So close to what? There's no compromise. Either the information goes in the article or it doesn't. And since it violates one of Wikipedia's core content policies, it doesn't. End of story. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You conceded the argument last night. The consensus is for inclusion (3-2), unless you can get another 2 people to disagree with us. Mael-Num (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" is not a vote. Three versus Two does not matter, consensus means that all parties must agree. The359 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So close to seeing eye-to-eye, that is, which I thought we were from your previous comments. I disagree that it violates content policies - are you referring to your Original Research assertion? I've explained at length why it is not OR. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OR or not, it's trivial, unimportant, and useless information that does not belong in this article. Dlong (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That as well :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a broken clock is right more often than you guys.World War Three (Doctor Who)#Continuity shows at least one reference to date. If it's relevant there, why not here?Mael-Num (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because someone else did something against policy in another article, does not negate the fact that this article's statement is against policy as well. The359 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly amazed that you're questioning the relevance of this. We're dealing with a world of time travel, which causes a great deal of confusion as the sequence of events in "real time." Being able to place the time of the story helps clear this up, and doing so adds value to the article. This is nearly, if not equally valuable to noting that a story was set in a certain place, such as London. "London, November to December 2008" is much more informative than "London, some time in the 21st Century" right? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind everyone, that Wikipedia's policy is still that unless there is a reference referring specifically to The Sound of Drums, or possibly even Utopia and The Last of The Time Lords (as this is a three-part story), in regards to a date, then any speculation, even if it makes logical sense to you, is still speculation and falls under Original Research. No one has yet to find a reference where a writer, producer, or any one associated with the production of Doctor Who, or any date mentioned within those three episodes, specifically gives a date. Hence, the information will remain removed.

Wikipedia is not here to speculate about what a fictional universe chooses to borrow and what it chooses not to borrow from the real universe. The359 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And just to remind you, blanking such information is considered disruptive editing, and will likely get you banned from the project. Mael-Num (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced material is not against Wikipedia policy. Feel free to nominate me for a ban. The359 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting, then, that there are plenty of resources that note the chonology of events in the series, and following them (some which place specific dates, and others which can be used as a reference point by placing relative time spans between episodes based on story evidence) can place this story in the fictional 2008. I'm sure most readers and fans are aware of these attempts at forming chronology out of the time-traveling confusion, and the relevance of doing so is perfectly clear (see above note as to relevance). Below are a few of such resourecs. If, from Winters' title, we can place the time of year to between first-Tuesday-in-November and Christmas, and several other chronologies place the story in 2008, then that means that it's between November 5 & December 24, 2008. This is still useful information for the context of the story, and it's certainly more accurate than simply saying (as the article does now) that it's set "in the 21st century." I don't see why we need to avoid vague dating ranges, when we're already defining it so vaguely that it could have occured any time within an entire century. Certainly to be able to narrow it down to a month-and-a-half span of time helps place it more closely. [7], The Canon Keeper's Guide to Doctor Who, Outpost Gallifrey., also, in print: Parkin, Lance and Lars Pearson, A History: An Unauthorised History of the Doctor Who Universe (Des Moines, Iowa: Mad Norwegian Press, 2006), ISBN 0-9725959-9-6. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(millions of edit-conlficts) Unfortunately, all the material you listed is unofficial, self-published speculation! So not reliable. And when you say "I explained why it's not OR", you did NOT. Your explanation was rubbish and against Wikipedia policy, as nmerous other users agree. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, the first link you provide claims that the events of The Sound of Drums and The Last of The Time Lords took place in October 2008 (with Martha returning 365 days later in October 2009). This would completely throw out your "President-elect" dating scheme. Your second link does not even reach Season 3, and well, I can't read a book I don't own. The relevance of a year may be helpful to the article (but most certainly not necessary. Please see the example of a Doctor Who Featured Article episode I linked above. But at most, you can say it's 2008, assuming other episodes set in the same time frame have said as such. Your first link points out that Doctor/Martha/Jack return 4 days after Martha left in Smith and Jones. That's the only reference to time I've noticed anyone presenting within this specific episode. The359 (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We can do it that way too: Doctor Who stories set in 2008, ""The Sound of Drums" is set in 2008." (List_of_Doctor_Who_henchmen#S). I realize there is some conflicting information about, where dates in September and October are mentioned in these resources, but they place them close to the dates I'm talking about. But combining this information together with references placing the story vaguely in 2008, can give us a more definitive answer. Taking the President-elect title and extracting, from its definition, a time period, is a simple step in logic - not "original research." When they refer to the Valiant as an "airship" we take that meaning and conclude that it is a ship that flies in the air, not that it might possibly be called that because it was manufactured by Nike and thus used their "Air Jordan" branding. It's not original research to take the definitions of "airship" as well as of "ship" and "air" to take a step in logic to determine what they mean by "airship." It is information that is clearly presented and should be taken at face value. I have inserted none of my personal opinions, experiences, or arguments to take this simple step of logic. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid that's no good. Per the quote below, "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". Wikia is self-published and is thus not considered a reliable source, per Wikipedia policy. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. "Simple step in logic" is still original research, according to Wikipedia. Either put "this episode takes place 4 days after Smith and Jones" or "this episode takes place in 2008", or nothing, because those are the only two things you can reference so far. And quite frankly, neither is necessary for the article. Once again, I point out that the two Doctor Who articles which have been promoted to Featured Article status make no mention of when they take place. The359 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid you're wrong about that. Try reading the actual policy, I tire of this game. Mael-Num (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Another friendly reminded, quoted fro Wikipedia:No original research:

This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. (emphasis from the original article, not mine).

In other words, as I have said before, something must say "The Sound of Drums took place on this date." The359 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously misreading that policy. No one's publishing an opinion piece here. This isn't a scholarly conclusion. It's a direct statement of events that are apparent to any observer. That's well within policy. The actual issue at hand here seems to be that a handful of authors behaving badly(one of whom already has been called out for bad behavior with respect to Doctor Who articles at least once[8]). You're welcome to disagree, but if you can't offer anything in the way of a reason for why this shouldn't go in, other than a poor reading of a wikipedia policy that already isn't being applied to this article, then I'm afraid the consensus is for conclusion. Mael-Num (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

By entering your arguement that the episode is set on X date onto a Wikipedia article, you are publishing it. Hence, you are violating Original Research because you have no reference and are making the conclusion in your head. There is no "direct statement" of a date within the episode, except for the mention that it is "Four days after Smith and Jones", which does not supply us with the date in which you are attempting to add.

No, the violation exists only in your head. This is exactly the same thing as giving a plot summary: you watch the episode, you see a detail, and that's that. I've already shown how any user can simply watch the exact same episode I have, and see what the date is for themselves. Hell, you could do it if you weren't so busy arguing. That's the actual standard (try clicking and reading for once, it's in there). What you're asking for is a character to turn to the screen and address the audience with "Today's date is..." That's absurd. Mael-Num (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A plot summary is based on facts presented in an episode. A plot summary however can not assume the reasoning behind a character's actions unless that character refers to it specifically. I cannot say "The Doctor burned The Master's body because he felt it was honorable", because that is an assumption, even if it makes sense in my head. You have not shown anything within the episode that gives a date between November 2008 and January 2009 (A primary source), nor have you found any outside reference which states it either (secondary source). And yes, a date written down or mentioned by a character IS what we are looking for. The359 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good example of a bad analogy. I am not drawing conclusion, especially not about motives, so your argument fails. A better analogy would be, "The Doctor burned The Master's body on a funerary pyre." Do you understand the difference now? Mael-Num (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, your whole arguement is a drawn conclusion that "the real world dates used by the United States government are also used in the Doctor Who universe". It doesn't matter if it's about motives or time, it's still original research. The359 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have time to go over this stuff over and over again for your benefit. Please look at this, maybe it will make more sense than my explanation[9]. Mael-Num (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not accuse other uses of malicious intent just because they do not agree with your ideas. The359 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A big part of this argument seems to center around the definition of "original research" and how that policy is applied. Let me pose a hypothetical - if fictional events were established in a story as taking place in December 1974, and in the course of events a party took place with people screaming "Happy New Year" at the stroke of midnight, with one character saying "Hey, now it's officially "New Year's Day," followed by another set of events, would it be "original research" to state that the second set of events took place in January 1975? I think not - it's part of the "facts presented in an episode" and this is EXACTLY like what we're talking about here. No assumptions as to the character's motivations - you take the information given at face value. "New Year" has a meaning that is tied to a timeline, just as "President-elect" does. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

President-elect: section break III

This discussion is getting a little out of hand, and even generated some pointy edits on the side that were completely unnecessary. We cannot date the episode on the premise that in the real world, US election happen in a certain timeframe; projecting those real world events into a fictional universe where the electoral rules have not in any way been established, is a serious case of original research. Add to that that the term "Presient Elect" was most likely (but unproven) an error on the side of either the writer or actor, which leads us with even less facts to establish a timeframe. We simply cannot use this synthesis. — Edokter • Talk • 18:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't want to have to explain this all over again. Please carefully reread the sections above, particularly the bulletted segment of the section immediately above this. It will hopefully get you up to speed. Mael-Num (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to inform, I left a note on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who regarding this arguement, and invited them to offer their opinions, since I'm sure they are accustomed to writing these articles, as well as promoting them to Good Article and Featured Article status. I'm fairly certain they are "up to speed" on policy and what can be used in Doctor Who articles. The359 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming they're objective as well, I don't see how that could be a problem. Thanks for letting them know. Mael-Num (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would you even bother to bring up if they are objective or not? Assume Good Faith. The359 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity has nothing to do with good faith. Questioning my motives in restating what is a desirable trait in all editors, however, is a violation of WP:AGF. Please stop being uncivil.Mael-Num (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Assume editors are good and objective. It is correct, and civil, to point out WP:AGF if you seem to believe that there are some editors, possibly in this discussion, who are not objective. The359 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Important: Right, I'm going to be bold here. I am now banning any edits to this talkpage, by anyone involved in this dispute, that does not specifically address the issue at hand. Accusations of disruption, snide edit-summaries, incivility, accusations of incivility, pointing to behavioural policies, breaking behavioural policies, telling someone "go read the policy I can't be bothered"... I will consider any further edits of that type disruption. I'm sure you'll agree that they aren't conducive to forming a reasonable opinion here, and since you agree that they're un-necessary, you won't need to discuss this. Thanks for reading. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not within your mandate. You do not own this article or the talk page. Blanking talk page comments would be considered uncivil and a clear violation of policy and best practices. If you decide to act upon this stated intent, having received this warning, I'll have to bring this to the attention of administrators (who may consider the above violations, as well as the apparent fact that you are trying to make a point. I'll be copying this to your talk page so there can be no confusion as to the fact that you were properly warned. I can't stress this enough: Don't do that. Mael-Num (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did I mention blanking comments? Must have missed that bit. Also note that your comment above wasn't helpful to the discussion and is thus disruption, and if you persist, you will be reported to administrators. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"I am now banning any edits to this talkpage...". Sounded that way to me. If you'd like to retract that statement entirely, please be my guest. I don't care to mince words, so let's just drop it and agree to be civil...please? Mael-Num (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire discussion counteracts your very threat. Please drop it and move on to discussion, as you yourself said. The359 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, what he said. Mael-Num (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (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.

President-elect: new suggestion

As I understand it, there is a numerical and, I believe, actual consensus that the article is to remain as it is (with the date information removed). Each side has painstakingly tried to convince the other of its point of view; each side has been resolutely denying this! This is perfectly normal.

I propose that we accept none of us are going to change our minds, and rule the discussion completed and a result reached by general consensus; if other editors turn up later with new input, and change the balance, we can revisit the issue. But for now, since nothing useful can come of us all chewing this issue over still, I suggest we mark the section closed with {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}}. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to this. Consensus isn't a straw poll. Mael-Num (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, I count two users in favour of the info, four users + two admins in favour of the info's deletion. Can you honestly, hand-on-heart say that there is a consensus for the info to be in the article? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion above would be the best solution, if it's acceptable to everybody involved. Otherwise, one thing which I find helpful is creating a separate section where everybody summarizes their arguments. No comments, chit-chat or other fluff, just two bulleted lists with arguments, followed by a third sub-section of comments. That allows everybody (including outsiders) to get a picture of what's actually being disputed. It might be worth a shot. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that. I'll type something up later today, real life calls for now. Mael-Num (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. This would allow others to get a reference as to the points presented, so they won't have to read all this back-and-forth, which is mostly the same arguments repeated over and over, and ease the frustration brought by wondering if new comments are from editors who haven't read and considered the previous discussion. Let's put together that reference (both sides of the argument), and then allow for some time for others to read and/or comment on it. For those that don't think this argument is important, keep in mind that this has larger issues at play, mainly the definition and application of "Original Research" as well as the effect of referencing real-world elements of a fictional universe as they are presented within that fiction. The way both of these issues are handled could have effects for all of us for editing a large number of articles in the future. Likewise, I don't have time to do this right now, but will get to it later. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Article has been protected

FYI, the page has been protected for one week due to the edit war. Please resolve the issue and then let me (or any other admin) know so that we can remove the protection. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For a week? Are you serious? Mael-Num (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant in your edit summary on my talk page (" A kind of ultimatum note?"), but given the number of reverts and the fact this episode aired a year ago, a week is reasonable. If you can reach consensus efore that time, all you need to do is let an admin know. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you. Mael-Num (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this.

Okay, I've been asked to have a look at this, so I will. If you ask, I shall help :). Anyway, the issue I see it is, the inclusion/exclusion of a date for a certain piece of material in an article. If there's a source for it, then show it, and inclusion can be discussed. If there is no source, and if it appears to be OR, then it should probably not be included, as it's disputed content. I'll await replies, feel free to post a message on my talk page, but here is preferred. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also been told there has been incivility, rude edit summaries, and so on. These are counterproductive to collaborative editing, and should cease. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. See WP:RS. References to sources about real-world president elects cannot be used either, as they have nothing to do with the doctor who universe.--Phoenix-wiki 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically (and stop me when I make a mistake), the inclusion of that "information" depends on the assumption that US politics are the same in Who and in real life. There was nothing to indicate that they are; nothing to indicate that they aren't. If I were to type, "Martha wore an orange bra in this episode", that would likewise depend on a positive assumption; namely, that she was wearing an orange bra. It's obviously original research, since it's not direclty stated or shown in the episode. Equally, I can't say "Martha's bra was not orange", since I've also got no idea. This is a precise equivilancy. Furthermore, Mael has refused to answer the direct question I am about to put. He has done so numerous times. What you are saying is an argument advancing a position. Since it is unpublished by reliable sources, and unpublished arguments are explicitly prohibited, why should it be allowed in this case? Since all sources need to be directly about the subject of the article, also explicitly stated in policy, how can a US Department of State source be used in a sci-fi article? If you could answer them soon, that'd be nice. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the 180 degree reversal from:

"we're rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world: the UK refers to the same entity, and a mirror refers to the same entity. Equally, the President-elect undoubtedly has the same definition." - TreasuryTag

So, what you're in essence saying now is that mirrors in this fictional reality are completely unknowable, even though the writers use the word "mirror" to describe it? Mael-Num (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, in response to "Since it is unpublished by reliable sources, and unpublished arguments are explicitly prohibited, why should it be allowed in this case?", first how is this an argument? There's no argument, it's an account of the details. I'll give two examples to make this clear.

• President-elect Winters has white hair.
• President-elect Winters has white hair, and is therefore old and most likely a Republican.

The first is an account of details that anyone with eyes and a copy of the episode can verify for themselves. The second is a speculative argument. I'm giving the former, not the latter, despite the muddy waters.

The Doctor Who project has many descriptive summaries of plots, none of which are sourced (or maybe a few are, I haven't been exhaustive). In any case, many plot summaries aren't, both here and in other places in wikipedia. If a description of what is apparent to any user, simply by watching the episode, it doesn't need to be published by a third-party. This is the exact same thing as a plot summary.

For the record, this isn't the first time I've presented exactly that argument. Please don't accuse me of ducking questions. If anything, I've trampled them. Mael-Num (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not referencing, that's guesswork. Please privide a reference saying for definite that President elect winters is a republican and a reference for the time it takes place. Also, "Since it is unpublished by reliable sources, and unpublished arguments are explicitly prohibited, why should it be allowed in this case?" is not an argument, it's a simple question he wants you to answer, so please answer it--Phoenix-wiki 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)