Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:40, 12 May 2014

A Song of Ice and Fire Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of A Song of Ice and Fire-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.A Song of Ice and FireWikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireTemplate:WikiProject A Song of Ice and FireA Song of Ice and Fire Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The "Night's King" rumors

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

OR in the Lede

Lede section doesn't always require citation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Adaptation' section removed

I've removed the following from the article:

Adaptation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. ^ Martin, George (2000). A Storm of Swords. U.K.: Voyager Books. ISBN 0-00-224586-8.
2. "EP 404: Oathkeeper". Westeros.org. 2014-5-3. Retrieved 2014-5-8. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

• Start-Class A Song of Ice and Fire articles
• Low-importance A Song of Ice and Fire articles
• Start-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles