Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 15 July 2009

User:AGK/A

Outside opinions solicited

Outside opinions are solicited on the following question:

WP:SYN, part of WP:OR, prohibts taking two sources to construct a new conclusion or opinion, and thereby failing WP:V. Does this still apply if the new information, that is the result of comparing two sources, thereby interpreting (dis)similarities, is verifiable on it's own? Does it make a difference if the information under discussion is visual or pictorial, as opposed to verbal or written?

Comments would be appreciated. Please feel free to familiarise yourself with previous discussions and with the case files.

Regards, AGK 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Among the robots featured in the final scene are a Sony QRIO and an Actroid. In the episode's podcast, Moore and his wife Terri commented that they he had trouble scouring for robot footage and clearing rights issues. They also described the Actroid as the "most disturbing" of the robots. "She's freaky. She's a Six in the making".

1. Ronald D Moore. "Podcast for "Daybreak" (56.3 MB)". Podcast downloads (Podcast). Scifi.com. Retrieved 04-27. {{cite podcast}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |website= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

Comments

• We've had a very disappointing level of input thus far. :( AGK 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm OK with waiting--it did take a while to get the right mediator. It's really an important distinction to make, and I don't mind taking the time to get it right. The funny thing is, if we were being less polite, we'd already be at ArbCom by now. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Where is this query being posted? - Arcayne () 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Policies. — Edokter • Talk • 22:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Edokter. - Arcayne () 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• I get the feeling that RfC will, by virtue of the low attention it receives from the community, fail to resolve our dispute. AGK 23:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I get the feeling you're right. Anyone have other ideas for good community feedback? Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Would Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy), and by extention, Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion be appropriate places to notify? After all, this could set an important precedent for interpreting WP:V. — Edokter • Talk • 21:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, if we have a choice between dying of thirst and drinking from the firehose... Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, we need water... — Edokter • Talk • 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm fine with whatever Arcayne opines on this matter. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I am not sure that's going to put us in a better position; we needed informed opinion, precisely because it might be considered a slight shift in policy precedent. I've said it in other articles and on other occasions, and I think we might want to follow it here; there isn't a rush. Conversely, we could simply use HM's info, decide that the model name's aren't necessary and close this out. However, I think Edokter won't want that, and am thusly patient to await more input. - Arcayne () 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
              • You are correct in that I am not prepared to let this boil down to an editorial decision. After all, like you hinted: the litmus for inclusion is based in policy. WP:VPP will attract especially those editors that take interest in policy matters, and I consider them to be especially informed when it comes to interpreting policy. — Edokter • Talk • 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Having skimmed through your case files, I'd first like to commend all parties for their professional approach to this debate. All sides have acted with the utmost civility, care and attention to detail. A very commendable effort on everyone's part.

  That said, my understanding is that the NOR policy is to prevent people from making grandiose conclusions without proper authority; that is to say, we don't let Joe the Plumber tell us what ended the Cold War - we cite John Lewis Gaddis, an eminent Yale historian cited by many as the dean of Cold War historians because of his expertise, many hours studying the subject, and sublime writings upon the topic. I do not believe this same spirit of rigorous scholarship applies to mere identifications. And that's what this is. The fact that I personally did not automatically recognize it as that specific robot does not mean a significant portion of Misplaced Pages readers couldn't, especially given my geographic distance from Japan. Edokter was able to readily identify the robot and a quick Google search and comparison of images validates his claim. That is not complex original research, that is verification.

  However (and this is a huge however), such information truthful and accurate as it may be clearly doesn't belong in the article's text in this specific case. It's extraneous and trivial, and without further comment upon the robot types themselves by Ronald D. Moore or other cast/crew members, such information as to their identity is as irrelevant to the overall story summary as the brand of dress worn by Caprica Six or the real-life street on which they filmed the scene. Thus, barring some big discussion of the robots in the special features of the forthcoming DVD release, the information should be removed. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking the time to provide a thoughtful opinion. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I thank you too, but I do have a sidenote; wether the information should be included or not is purely an editorial consideration, not one based on policy, and it is the latter which we are discussing. Personally, I do not consider one word (the model) to be "extranious" at all; it is there to provide context, nothing more. And articles, especially those dealing with fiction, are in dire need of real-world context. — Edokter • Talk • 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• My sincerest thanks to Hemlock for submitting input on our little dispute. His comments are appreciated. AGK 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So...

I'm at a loss as to where we move on from here, or which version of the article we go wish. Shall we flip a coin to decide who's correct? Shall we call it a day and try and ignore the disagreement? (We could always revisit this dispute at a later date.) Thoughts? AGK 23:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, an apparently uninvolved party removed the fact tag from the High Flight reference several days ago and no one seems to have reverted it, I'm not sure how fervently this issue is being watched. I still want a good consensus, and am willing to help facilitate and write a Wiki-wide RfC if Arcayne is, because I think we have a good, honest disagreement and the entire Wiki would benefit from such a discussion. I'm abandoning my previous concerns of ignorant people just saying "independent RS or junk it!"--let's open up the audience more than what we've previously had, and post something on CENT or the village pump. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this unresolved matter not 5 hours ago. I've reverted Ronin's removal of the fact tag, returning it to the pre-mediation state. However, I will agree that we haven't seen a lot of movement on this matter. I am thinking that this might be attributable to the fact that we are treading on somewhat new ground: ie, what "specialty" is there in noting connections between a line from a 1940's poem and a television episode, and is it synthesis to make a connection that isn't made explicitly elsewhere? I think the answer that we have seen from the one outside response we have received - and the thunderous amount that we have not - essentially offer the answer of "sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not". And the same issues that apply to the Magree poem apply to the robot model names as well.

The one comment we have received form outside our trio of opinions is that while it isn't always that necessary to cite, the larger problem of triviality is on point here. The robot model names are not important, and are in fact trivial to an understanding of the episode. The Magee poem, while similar to the dialogue, is not substantially important to note. And in both cases, we haven't a whisper of reliable citation to connect them to the subject. If we had it, I would be less inclined to fight it, though I still feel both to be trivial and offering undue weight to superfluous events in the plotline. Again, it would be like identifying the brand of shoes the characters are wearing; they aren't vital to the understanding of the subject.

I think our one opinion pointed out the issues appropriately in regards to the robot models; that Hemlock didn't comment on the Magree poem is due to us not listing it as part of the dispute clearly enough. At the very least, we should alter the article to reflect the opinion we sought and received. If necessary, we can submit the question about the Magee poem to the NOR noticeboard, and get teir take on it. - Arcayne () 05:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for more outside input, so I'm with JC here and post on CENT or VP. Arcayne, you say the model names are undue in relation to the plot. The article should reflect all aspects of the episode, including production. I would like to remind all that this dispute revolves around policy, not editorial content. Once policy is settled, then we can discuss the merits of inclusion based on editoral discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 19:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought my post specifically reflected policy, as did that of two other editors who agreed with my view on this topic. You are correct that the article should reflect "all aspects of the episode", you haven't a citation worthy of inclusion that would justify noting this very insignificant personal recognition. I have been saying this all along, and you are of the opinion that your connecting the dits is sufficient. It isn't. - Arcayne () 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I just found out that this edit by Harej (talk · contribs) removed the RFC tag, so it is no wonder we're not getting any comments. I have reinstated the tag and manually added the issue back to the Policy RFC index. — Edokter • Talk • 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Arg.Thanks for adding the issue back in, Edokter. I've tweaked it to more appropriately address the problem (the robot model has not been named in either the episode or RS; the issue is whether a personal, specific identification set is acceptable for use when disagreed upon.) - Arcayne () 21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)