| Revision as of 12:24, 13 September 2013 editTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →Historical inaccuracies section was blatant violation of WP:OR← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:28, 13 September 2013 edit undoTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →Historical inaccuracies section was blatant violation of WP:ORNext edit → | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
| :::and still 90% ] and unacceptable. Unless you quickly provide a third party source that makes the comments about specific inaccuracies within the show the ones that are noted purely by Misplaced Pages editors are going to be removed. -- ] 11:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | :::and still 90% ] and unacceptable. Unless you quickly provide a third party source that makes the comments about specific inaccuracies within the show the ones that are noted purely by Misplaced Pages editors are going to be removed. -- ] 11:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::References have been provided for all content. I can understand that may rankle with you, but making up rules that don't exist will not help you get your way. ] (]) 11:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | ::::References have been provided for all content. I can understand that may rankle with you, but making up rules that don't exist will not help you get your way. ] (]) 11:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::its not me making up any rules. ] has been around for a very long time. () placing "sourced" material in a manner to make or infer claims that the source doesnt explicitly make is not allowed.-- ] 12:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | :::::its not me making up any rules. ] has been around for a very long time. () placing "sourced" material in a manner to make or infer claims that the source doesnt explicitly make is not allowed.-- ] 12:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:28, 13 September 2013
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject British TV shows Please add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries
The summaries are copypaste. There was a big argument over at Merlin TV series, series 4 which were mostly copypaste.REVUpminster (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- As well as far too large! I will see what I can do later this week. However if anyone else wants to have a stab before then go for it. I will leave them there for the meantime - so there is a nice base on where to start. I have removed future episode summaries in line with Misplaced Pages:CRYSTAL. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed the summaries for the first two episodes as well. They were also copied. Citing a reference doesn't excuse it. Ryan8374 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could start individual articles if it's really that important. Also, there are individual descriptions of each character if needed. -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Removal of content
An editor seems to feel that all positive material on this drama series should be removed completely. At least this editor is no longer blatantly falsifying sources, as in the case of the review whih praised the show for not indulging in a "feminist fantasy" of female power contrary to the realities of medieval life, which was misrepresented as criticism for somehow denigrating women by showing them as powerless. Instead the tactic now seems to be to simply cut out as much as possible, removing information that is useful for the reader, just in order to fulfil some strange personal vendetta against... a TV show. Can some explanation or justification be made of these edits? Paul B (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Episode Title Data from BBC Progammes web site
Titles for past episodes are available on the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018sxqp/episodes/guide
They appear as captions to the "Gallery" on the page for each individual episode.
Titles are currently available for episodes 1-7
- Episode 1/10 "In Love with the King"
- Episode 2/10 "The Price of Power"
- Episode 3/10 "The Storm"
- Episode 4/10 "The Bad Queen"
- Episode 5/10 "The War at First Hand"
- Episode 6/10 "Love and Marriage"
- Episode 7/10 "Poison and Malmsey Wine"
Hicksw, grammarian
(I try to correct minor spelling and grammar problems, with little success.)
Last Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicksw (talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, but I have removed "pilot" from episode one, since it clearly is not a pilot episode in the usual meaning of that term. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- The complete list (seen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018sxqp/galleries ) is
- Episode One: In Love with the King
- Episode Two: The Price of Power
- Episode Three: The Storm
- Episode Four: The Bad Queen
- Episode Five: War at First Hand
- Episode Six: Love and Marriage
- Episode Seven: Poison and Malmsey Wine
- Episode Eight: The King is Dead
- Episode Nine: The Princes in the Tower
- Episode Ten: The Final Battle
- Some of these were listed differently in the article, 6 & 8 were "Love and Death" and "Long Live the King" respectively. Maybe they were from Starz's version. Anyway, BBC was the premiere so should be definitive. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke
Rupert Young who plays William Herbert is in fact William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke who was created Earl of Pembroke in favour of Jasper Tudor and given control of Pembroke Castle and custody of the young Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond by King Edward IV. He was later executed by the Lancastrians by order of Lord Warwick "the Kingmaker" not his son William Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, I have tried to charge this but someone always undoes it. LordWiltshire1529 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- The series is so overflowing with obscure characters and barely audible dialogue that it might as well have been scripted in middle English. Leave well alone, it's complex enough for a British audience, let alone an American one.1812ahill (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Historical Inaccuracies
The "Historical Inaccuracies" section of the article is entirely WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. I'd remove it but I'm sure this would be reverted. But as the referenced polices above state, "inaccuracies" cannot be noted by WP editors, they can only be cited if they have been pointed out by reliable sources. Proving errors by your own argument is synthesis. And in any case, listing "errors" of fact in a work of fiction is pretty silly. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- The only thing that's silly is your last sentence. It's not just fiction. It's historical fiction. One of the most interesting aspects of historical fiction is departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons. It's also an issue in which many readers asre interested. As it happens I have long disagreed with the interpretation of OR that you present here. If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original reasearch, because no new idea is being "sythesised". It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year. Now, I accept that there are ambiguous cases. In this instance you might say that there are chains of reasoning that go beyond mere "fact", such as the deduction that it is supposed to be winter when the Battle of Bosworth takes place. Maybe, but it would certainly have been a very odd August. Of course the snow is obviously emblematic, like the eclipse (though that really happened), suggesting an ending and beginning. No doubt that's one reason why they changed the details. Another was probably because they could create the impression of a battle with about ten extras in a dense forest, but in a field it would just look silly. Now adding that would be OR. But undisputed historicval facts are not. Paul B (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Paul B as he so aptly put it. Some things are just plain historical facts and pointing that out is not OR in my opinion either. Of course, there will always be grey areas, but a fact is a fact. -- fdewaele
- Yes it is silly to complain that fiction is not factual. Is there an "Historical inaccuracies" section in Richard III (play)? Obviously neither of you has bothered to read the policy that I cited so I will excerpt it below. Pointing out errors of fact is EXACTLY what WP:SYN warns against. You are comparing what you see on TV, with a historical reference and DEDUCING that the TV show is "inaccurate". See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth.
- WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." " ... in other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Misplaced Pages." Anyway, obviously this isn't a receptive audience. So I will make a note at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard and leave you to it. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The IP is correct. Without a reliably published source pointing out inaccuracies Misplaced Pages editors cannot do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The IP is not "correct", as this is not a matter of unambiguous interpretation of the policy at all. In fact it is, IMO, a silly, self-destructive pedantry of the worst kind that just makes articles worse not better. Historical facts are historical fact. It makes no difference whatever if sources are commenting on the show or not. It comparable to to the issue of making straight forward calculations. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no ambiguity in the policies at all. You cannot take a reliable source that has published about topic X and apply it to topic Y. This is the article about the TV Show and so all sources used need to be about the TV show. As Wikipedian editors, we are not historians nor cultural commentators. We are aggregators of content that historians and cultural commentators have published about the specific subject of the article. If you find reliably published reviews of the TV show that comment upon the "historical inaccuracies", we can and probably should include that under a "critical reception". But we CANNOT be making synthesis and commentary based on taking historical "facts" from one source and comparing them to the second source of the TV show and saying "the TV show has these historical inaccuracies." That type of action is straightforwardly prohibited by the basic content policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Dogmatic assertions do not make you "right". I have read the policy. There is nothing whatever that says "you cannot take a reliable source that has published about topic X and apply it to topic Y." In part, that's because there is never any clear distinction between what one "topic" and another "topic" is. You will find innumerable articles which cover a complex set of interconnected materials. Take the article on Dianthus caryophyllus (aka Carnmations). That has a variety of information ranging from the botanical to the cultural, cited to books on many topics. I would argue that one of the topics of this article is the War of the Roses. I have already explained why I do not think that WP:SYN is an issue because synthesis depends on there being a new idea that is created. Citing information does not create a new idea. It would only constitute that if it were accompabnied by interpretation that gave meaning to the issue. Paul B (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- i suggest you re read WP:OR. there is indeed a "new idea" being created - the idea that there is a historical error in the TV show - that idea could not POSSIBLY be present in a source published before the TV series had begun production.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I suugest you read it yoursewlf. I've read it many times. Just pointing to a link when a complex issue is being discussed is frankly, silly. There is always room to debate interpretation . You say there is a new idea, I say there isn't. I've given my reasons. I don't think what you describe is a new idea because one is just justaposing sourced fact. But even if it were a new idea, I think anti-OR "fundamentalism" is just as bad for the project as people adding their own pet theories. We should not be rigidly following rules but applying them or even adapting them to benefit the project. Indeed they are evolving all the time. Paul B (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you think OR needs to be changed, feel free to begin a discussion there. Until it has changed, the fundamentalist version still applies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, your interpretation of the "fundamentalist version" is not mainstream and you are now editing against consensus. I'll continue adding material. Deb (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Any local consensus that may exist (and despite your claim, i am not even seeing any local consensus) to ignore the policy WP:SYN is irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Any statement you may make to the effect that your view of what constitutes synthesis is the only correct interpretation is irrelevant in the face of a majority of contributors disagreeing with you. Deb (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That is quite clearly what is going on here. Someone is taking content from a history book. they are comparing it to content from the TV show. They are then reaching or implying a "Historicity" issue in the TV show - a claim that is explicitly not explicit in either the TV show or the history book which doesn't mention the TV show. ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. " which is exactly the situation in the cases I have been removing and you have been re-adding.
- it is quite possible that a reliable source(s) has indeed noted specific historical errors in the TV show, and if those were provided instead of the Original Research of Misplaced Pages editors, we would not be having this discussion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Any statement you may make to the effect that your view of what constitutes synthesis is the only correct interpretation is irrelevant in the face of a majority of contributors disagreeing with you. Deb (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Any local consensus that may exist (and despite your claim, i am not even seeing any local consensus) to ignore the policy WP:SYN is irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, your interpretation of the "fundamentalist version" is not mainstream and you are now editing against consensus. I'll continue adding material. Deb (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you think OR needs to be changed, feel free to begin a discussion there. Until it has changed, the fundamentalist version still applies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- I suugest you read it yoursewlf. I've read it many times. Just pointing to a link when a complex issue is being discussed is frankly, silly. There is always room to debate interpretation . You say there is a new idea, I say there isn't. I've given my reasons. I don't think what you describe is a new idea because one is just justaposing sourced fact. But even if it were a new idea, I think anti-OR "fundamentalism" is just as bad for the project as people adding their own pet theories. We should not be rigidly following rules but applying them or even adapting them to benefit the project. Indeed they are evolving all the time. Paul B (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- i suggest you re read WP:OR. there is indeed a "new idea" being created - the idea that there is a historical error in the TV show - that idea could not POSSIBLY be present in a source published before the TV series had begun production.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dogmatic assertions do not make you "right". I have read the policy. There is nothing whatever that says "you cannot take a reliable source that has published about topic X and apply it to topic Y." In part, that's because there is never any clear distinction between what one "topic" and another "topic" is. You will find innumerable articles which cover a complex set of interconnected materials. Take the article on Dianthus caryophyllus (aka Carnmations). That has a variety of information ranging from the botanical to the cultural, cited to books on many topics. I would argue that one of the topics of this article is the War of the Roses. I have already explained why I do not think that WP:SYN is an issue because synthesis depends on there being a new idea that is created. Citing information does not create a new idea. It would only constitute that if it were accompabnied by interpretation that gave meaning to the issue. Paul B (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no ambiguity in the policies at all. You cannot take a reliable source that has published about topic X and apply it to topic Y. This is the article about the TV Show and so all sources used need to be about the TV show. As Wikipedian editors, we are not historians nor cultural commentators. We are aggregators of content that historians and cultural commentators have published about the specific subject of the article. If you find reliably published reviews of the TV show that comment upon the "historical inaccuracies", we can and probably should include that under a "critical reception". But we CANNOT be making synthesis and commentary based on taking historical "facts" from one source and comparing them to the second source of the TV show and saying "the TV show has these historical inaccuracies." That type of action is straightforwardly prohibited by the basic content policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The IP is not "correct", as this is not a matter of unambiguous interpretation of the policy at all. In fact it is, IMO, a silly, self-destructive pedantry of the worst kind that just makes articles worse not better. Historical facts are historical fact. It makes no difference whatever if sources are commenting on the show or not. It comparable to to the issue of making straight forward calculations. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- The IP is correct. Without a reliably published source pointing out inaccuracies Misplaced Pages editors cannot do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Paul B as he so aptly put it. Some things are just plain historical facts and pointing that out is not OR in my opinion either. Of course, there will always be grey areas, but a fact is a fact. -- fdewaele
DVD
An editor deletes the DVD section because the source is unreliable so in his eyes there is no dvd.REVUpminster (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- yep. if it aint in Wikerpeedia, it aint true. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The first source was not a commercial site and is reliable as any other, been going for a number of years. Who says it is not? As for Amazon many featured article use it for dates. REVUpminster (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Historical inaccuracies section was blatant violation of WP:OR
I have again removed the Original Research violations from the "Historical inaccuracies" section. Content published before the series was made cannot possibly be pointing out historical inaccuracies of the series, that analysis would be purely created by Misplaced Pages editors WP:SYNthesizing content from multiple sources and is not allowed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- No matter what name you use for the section, each item brought up for comparison must have a single source that refers to the TV show and its variation from history. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your help in improving and expanding this section. It's becoming more detailed and more interesting - and of course better referenced - by the day. Deb (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- and still 90% WP:OR and unacceptable. Unless you quickly provide a third party source that makes the comments about specific inaccuracies within the show the ones that are noted purely by Misplaced Pages editors are going to be removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- References have been provided for all content. I can understand that may rankle with you, but making up rules that don't exist will not help you get your way. Deb (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- its not me making up any rules. WP:SYN has been around for a very long time. (it looks like it became formalized as part of the policy around April 2006 when it was stated "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. ... That is, the precise argument must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.) placing "sourced" material in a manner to make or infer claims that the source doesnt explicitly make is not allowed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- References have been provided for all content. I can understand that may rankle with you, but making up rules that don't exist will not help you get your way. Deb (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- and still 90% WP:OR and unacceptable. Unless you quickly provide a third party source that makes the comments about specific inaccuracies within the show the ones that are noted purely by Misplaced Pages editors are going to be removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your help in improving and expanding this section. It's becoming more detailed and more interesting - and of course better referenced - by the day. Deb (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)