Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 Wikipedia. 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…"¹
• "…it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.""²

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)

Clear violation

This edit [1] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 [my] 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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, Wikipedia 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: [2] 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia.

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.

This is not the first article to use a primary source other than its own immediate subject. See Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), among others.

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)

Darkfrog, you said:

"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."

Well then, mission accomplished. No need to swim in an ocean of OR. A simple see also allows the reader to explore on their own, without having pre-chewed information assessed and weighed for them. Drinks all around. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mission not accomplished, I'm afraid. The paperback version of that book is over a thousand pages long. "Just reread the whole thing" is not practical. If you said to your professor, "I was out sick last week; what did we cover?" and your professor said "Reread the whole textbook," would you consider that mission accomplished? Now imagine that your textbook, like Storm of Swords, has no chapter titles, index or table of contents. "Reread these chapters" is more like it, and absolutely no OR is required to list them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What makes it OR is that you are piecing together what parts of the novel appear in the episode. Ie. you are interpreting what bits they used, and along with that, that these differences are noteworthy. That is original research. That is synthesis. That is why it cannot be in the text. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not guessing at what bits they used; I am observing which parts of the book and novel have the same dialogue and events. I'm not extrapolating blocking from text; I'm looking at the words that came out of people's mouths and the unambiguous actions that they performed. Those can be verified by anyone who sees both. In the same spirit, the passage does not assert "The writers invented the final scene for the show"; it says "The final scene does not appear in the book," which is a straightforward fact.

Even if that were OR, the way to address it is to word the information as, "Sansa finds out that her jewel is poison in chapter X," and "Jaime gives Brienne the sword in chapter Y" and "at no point in the book are white walkers shown carrying a baby to a circle of stones" instead of saying "the same events occur in chapters X and Y." I feel that would make the section longer than necessary, but I could certainly live with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is OR, and it quite simply is not allowed, as per WP:OR. You are not pointing out "straightforward facts"; you are giving weight to their presence or non-presence between media. We don't digest this information for the reader, as that is not within our purview. The series and the books are increasingly different things, and it is not up to us to decide what is important and what is not. If y9u were to have a reference from a reliable source that explicitly talks about these differences, this would be a moot conversation. It would already be in the article without a peep from me. My problem isn't with you (or with Diego, despite the fact that he presents as somewhat of a tool). My problems is that we cannot add material that is representative of your viewpoint. It is not about, 'hey Sansa's necklace had poison in the novel and the book'; it is instead about the two of you thinking that this trivial similarity is of substantial importance to the article. It is the thinking mostl commonly found in a fansite, and it is utterly put of place in Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You say We don't digest this information for the reader, except that we do so. It's what we do at plot sections, and in fact is the whole point of Wikipedia - to summarize and present to the reader the most relevant parts of what reliable sources have said about a topic, as an starting point for them so that they can expand their knowledge if they want. If deciding what parts of reliable sources need to be cited were forbidden by policy, we couldn't have articles at all.

Oh, and I would that you refrained from making personal attacks against me. You know that this is a rule that cannot be ignored. Diego (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

We summarize the information via consensus; ie, what we all agree with the plot. And, as you probably know, References are not required for plot summaries, as they are consensually based. And your post above contains the main difference we are having here. You think the info about what is different between the book and episode is relevant. I do not. I think it is the sort of minutiae that belongs on (and likely came from) a fansite blog. You want the information in, do the work. Do not ask Wikipedia to conform to your novel interpreation of primary sources.

The easiest way to solve this problem is to bring forth reliable secondary sources that discuss the differences. I suspect that the only reason you do not is because secondary sources consider the information as trivial as I do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"This problem" is that we have a difference of opinion on what WP:Primary does and does not permit. Wikipedia does permit the use of primary sources and to the best of my estimation I am using them correctly. There is no rule that requires me to satisfy you personally, Jack, or to place your opinions above my own. Not only is "This scene isn't in the book" not a novel interpretation, but it is not an interpretation at all. It is just a fact.

If the main difference is that you don't think the content is relevant, then stop arguing OR and make a case for why this article should not have an Adaptation/Production/Call-it-what-you-want section. If OR isn't the real reason why you keep deleting this content (which was originally deleted for a completely different reason that has since been addressed), that could be why we're going in circles.

And for the second time, quit accusing me of "not doing the work." I have dug up more sources and done more research than you have. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also going to have to ask you not to call Diego a tool. He's shown that he's willing to work with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree on how you can and cannot use primary sources. But I do not think we are in disagreement on how to use secondary sources, right? I've requested - it seems like at least a dozen times, at the very least - you to bring these to the article. Are you saying you cannot find them? Usually, secondary sources are from reviewers, etc. If they exist, you forego the need for this nonsense over primary source usage. You also sidestep any allegations of OR, because it isn't you comparing the differences between the two media but rather someone else: a notable, reliable source. Also, having these secondary sources speaking on these topics eliminates any arguments of importance.

Why are you so hesitant to produce secondary sources, especially when they would solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And my view of Diego Moya remains unchanged; he considers reverting a "game". He hasn't listened or processed any of the arguments given to him, turns around and accuses others of ignoring his arguments. That's a big bucket of Nope. He's got a ways to go to recover anything approaching respect from me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, I did bring in secondary sources, and you keep deleting despite them. This and the statements you've made in this conversation lead me to believe that no amount of work on my part would satisfy you. The fact that you don't seem to have dug up any sources yourself might mean that WP:OR is at the very least not your only objection to this text and that you aren't that particular about which rule you use to delete it. I don't want to spend another hour looking up articles just for you to unveil some fresh objection, especially when the novel itself is more reliable and explicitly permitted for use in this way. How about you take a turn? The best person to say which sources meet your specific interpretation of Wikipedia policy is you.

As for "solving the problem to everyone's satisfaction," do you mean that if I provided yet another secondary source, you and DQ would stop deleting the reference tag citing the novel itself? That's part of the problem. As a matter of fact, DQ and I weren't fully in disagreement about the actual text of "Breaker of Chains"; only about whether the reference tag should stay or go.

I don't see how you have grounds to accuse anyone of not listening to you, Jack. Diego's responses show that he has indeed processed your objections and responded to your individual points. He even came up with a new format to try to address your concerns. He just doesn't seem to agree with you. If that counted as not listening, then you wouldn't be listening either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I accidentally deleted the two cites from 538 and IGN; that is on me. I had grown accustomed to you and DM trying to shove your incorrect interpretation of PRIMARY down our throats and didn't pay as close attention. Like I said, mea culpa. I've reinstated them.

The entirety of my argument has been, from the beginning of this matter, regards the lack of secondary sources explicitly stating what you want to add. This means a reliable source that talks about what chapters were used in what episode. You get those, and my problem vanishes. We cannot use the primary source of the book because it requires the evaluative effort of a wiki editor to make a comparison. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. Read the 538 article more closely. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Listen very closely, Darkfrog: you seem to think I don't want the chapters in the episodes. Without explicit statements stating what chapter was used by a reliable secondary source, we cannot include it. You have sources that fulfill that criteria? Great. Problem solved. Know, though, that if you seek to add primary sources (ie, the book), or anything from Westeros.org (a non-RS source), I will keep removing them. So, maybe stop doing that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Jack, I think that you just don't want the chapters listed here. I think that OR is not your only problem with this content. I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like from over here. You could prove me wrong easily, though: How about you don't leave all the source-finding to me? I've got the impression that any source I find, you'll shoot them down or just not bother to read them thoroughly enough to see whether they support the content—as with the 538 article—so show me that I wouldn't be wasting my efforts.

Please stop insinuating that I haven't been listening to you. I don't agree with you. That is not the same thing. Would you say that you haven't been listening to me? WP:Primary states that we can use a novel as a source on its own content, and you're going to have to do more than say, "it doesn't really mean that" to convince me otherwise. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you had been listening, Darkfrog, you would have heard me say - several times - that all you need is reliable secondary sourcing that explicitly says what you have violated 3RR to keep adding. I've told you on several occasions that you cannot use primary sourcing. You ignore that. I keep telling you that you cannot use Westeros.org as a source, as they are not considered a reliable source. You keep ignoring that, too. You found two sources that help somewhat your cause (though they aren't as explicit as you wish), so you are getting closer. I am not here to impede you; I am here to protect the article. There's a difference, and you should endeavor to realize that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For the fourth time, read the 538 article. Hit CTRL-F for the word "chapter" if you have to.

You say all I need is a reliable secondary source, then I provide one, and then you delete the content anyway. Do you still need to know why I think that "this is OR" might not be the only thing going on here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Core questions about the adaptation section and appropriate sourcing

DQ, Diego, Jack, would you agree that the core questions that needed to be answered here are these?

• "Does WP:Primary permit statements like, 'Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel' with the novel itself as a source?"
• "Does WP:Primary permit statements like, 'Jaime gave Brienne the sword in chapter X of the novel' in an article about an episode of a television show in which that same event took place with the novel itself as a source?"
• "Does WP:Primary permit statements like, 'This scene/character shown in the episode is not in the novel at all' with the novel itself as a source?"

Do you guys think that this is a fair and complete description of the stuff we've been arguing about or would you say it's misleading? Would you add to it or take anything out? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I would phrase the question as follows:

• Do statements like, 'This scene/character shown in the episode is not in the novel at all' with the novel itself as a source?" require a primary source or secondary source?
• Do statements like, 'Jaime gave Brienne the sword in chapter X of the novel' in an article about an episode of a television show in which that same event took place with the novel itself as a source?" require a primary source or secondary source?
• Do statements like, 'Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel' with the novel itself as a source?" require a primary source or secondary source?

The argument that DQ has been making is that you are using primary sourcing incorrectly. I've been arguing not only that, but the precedence of secondary sourcing for this sort of thing, as well as WP:FRINGE, WP:SYN and WP:OR. My suggested alterations put the questions into their proper perspective; we know it should be secondary sourcing whereas you think primary sourcing is okey-dokey. That is at the heart of the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The "or" in your version is misleading. Wikipedia does not require that there be only one source for each statement made and often prefers that there be more. Wikipedia does not require us to choose between primary and secondary sources. There's no question that secondary sources are preferred. Wikipedia allows primary and secondary sources, but primary sources must only be used in certain ways. The question is whether "This content is in chapters X, Y and Z" is one of those ways. As you put it, "the argument that DQ has been making is that [I am] using the primary source incorrectly" and mine is that I am using them correctly.

How would you feel about "Is a primary source sufficient backing for statements such as '...' or is a secondary source required?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am differentiating between primary or secondary sources. In this case, we cannot use a primary source to have the text say what you wish, because it is evaluative, and therefore violates OR. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've established that that's what you believe. But you'd agree that whether primary sources are sufficient to make such statements is what we've been arguing about and that the question "Is a primary source sufficient for X?" doesn't mischaracterize it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: it isn't what I "believe" - its the actual policy in place. Additionally, presenting the argument wherein the decision-maker has more than one choice seems a lot more intelligent than just asking for a yes or no. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the rules is your belief. Again if there is a policy that states that primary sources may not be used for negative statements or lists of events that they contain, post a link to it here'. So far, we have a case where four people looked at the same set of rules and came to two different conclusions.

We're not arguing about whether secondary sources would be sufficient; we all agree that they are. We're arguing about whether primary sources are sufficient or not. No one has said, "Should Darkfrog cite the novel or the web article?" You've said, "Darkfrog, you don't get to cite the novel regardless of whether you cite anything else."

Under ideal-Wikipedia conditions, if an editor has access to an allowable primary source and an allowable secondary source for the same material, then the Wikieditor creates two tags and cites both. The question in this case is whether the primary source is allowable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It against policy because it's a false attribution. If I were to write something like "Darkfrog24 never denied being a mass murderer (cite primary source Darkfrog24)" it's not only an incorrect use of citation but also a very bad thing to do, even if it's a factual statement. The correct way to cite that would be "Darkfrog24 never denied being a mass murderer (me)"--which only goes to show that it's original research. It's your interpretation of the rules that's wrong because it goes against academic consensus, of which Wikipedia policies are based on. Primary sources can never be used for such negative statements as you're wanting. DonQuixote (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sooooo, "yes"? You'd agree that "Is a primary source sufficient for a negative statement such as 'X is not in this book'?" is an accurate description of what we're arguing about here? Or "no," you'd describe it differently?

You've given a good example about how negative statements can be misleading, but it's not true that all of them are. "So-and-so never denied committing a crime" can be misleading even if it's from a secondary source. (It's also almost impossible because surely so-and-so's full body of speech includes things to which the Wikieditor was not privy.) However, something like, "John Jay does not discuss women's suffrage in the Federalist Papers" is appropriate in a discussion of eighteenth-century feminism. In the case of the white walker statement, the context makes it pretty clear what we're talking about and why. No position is advanced and no facts not in evidence are asserted.

So your example, "So-and-so never denied the crime" is misleading because it advances the position that so-and-so is guilty. How do you feel that, "The white walker scene does not appear in the novel" advances a position or misleads the reader? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

However, something like, "John Jay does not discuss women's suffrage in the Federalist Papers" is appropriate in a discussion of eighteenth-century feminism. Yes, that would be called original research. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot publish original research.

And the point is that it's misleading because the source never mentions it. That's the point. The whole point of citation is that the source you are citing mentions it. It's an improper use of citation period. DonQuixote (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We've established that we disagree on this. The way I see it, you open the book and there suffrage isn't. It's a straightforward description of a fact that can be verified by anyone with access to the source. You think that's OR and I don't. But aside from that, do you think that the statement is misleading?

And back to my main point, do you have any objection to the question, "Is a primary source sufficient for [text disputed here]?" Is there anything you'd change about it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't disagree on facts. Citation, by it's very definition, is about quoting or paraphrasing the source material. Opening a book and discovering that it doesn't say anything about suffrage or dinosaurs or aliens is original research. This is basic knowledge taught in school. And incorrect citation is misleading in that the source doesn't say what you're saying. Period. What I would like changed is you stop misusing sources, primary or otherwise. DonQuixote (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to conclude that you have no objections or changes to make about the questions as I've phrased them at this time, that you're reasonably okay with them. Feel free to correct me on that.

Actually, we're not disagreeing about a fact; we're disagreeing about an interpretation. We're good to go on the idea that the statement made in the article must be verifiable in the source cited, but you're interpreting that to mean that negative statements are not okay and I'm not.Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Precedents for use/exclusion of primary sources in articles about their adaptations

A few posts ago, you said something like "Wikipedia policies are based on academic consensus" and implied that there is an academic consensus for no negative statements. Can you cite anything explicitly confirming either of these things? Any WP policies? Any resolved disputes? Any university web sites? Any style guides? Any precedents (WP articles in which either of these things was used, done or held true)? One of the problems we have here is that "just take my word for it" isn't carrying any weight with anyone. Can you give me something more than just your own word? For example, if someone asked why the article was spelled "New York Theater District" instead of "Theatre District," I could refer that person to a resolved discussion from a year or two back in which the participants found that reliable sources preferred the -ter spelling more than 2:1. If someone wanted to write about the Madeupville Theater District, I could cite the NYTD article as a precedent. I could also cite web and printed style guides that discuss proper nouns and regional spelling. I could cite WP:ENGVAR for Wikipedia policy about national varieties of English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation: The Key to Responsible Research "When quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing the ideas of others, you must clearly indicate which words, thoughts or ideas belong to your source and which are your own."...yeah, "this scene is not in the book" doesn't belong to the book--it belongs to you. DonQuixote (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That does not establish that negative statements cannot be cited in this way. Statements like, "The purview of this book is the history of dogs in warfare; it does not discuss seeing-eye dogs or therapy dogs" would fall under what it describes as "Summary." Do you have anything that supports your position explicitly or that specifically mentions negative statements? And do you have anything that shows that Wikipedia copies or is based on UC Davis or academia in general? For your point to hold, we need to do two things 1. establish that standard academic citation practice does not allow negative statements and 2. establish that Wikipedia follows standard academic citation practice. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I found further precedent for the use of primary sources in Wikipedia articles about their adaptations. If you plug "differences from the book" into the search bar, a whole list comes up. Some of them explicitly tag the novel and some do not. Some of them cite additional sources and some do not, but they all use their respective books as sources for their own content. If these articles have whole sections, why shouldn't this one have two sentences? Cross-post from the dispute resolution board:

• Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) cites the novel for a straight fact about the novel's plot.[3]
• The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) [4] [5] negative statement: [6]
• December Boys [7]
• Minas Tirith (not an adaptation, but hit CTRL-F "not in the book") [8]
• Many other articles include "differences from the book" sections that refer to the book but do not have formal reference tags. [9] [10] [11] negative statement "is not in the book": [12] [13]

Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

No comparison of this episode to the novels is to occur unless the specific comparison can be cited to a single reliable source that directly and explicitly makes the comparison. Editors may be bold and insert a comparative statement cited to a source they believe to be reliable on their own initiative, but once it is contested reliability and suitability for inclusion must be established via consensus either on this page or at WP:RSN per WP:BRD. If a comparative statement has been contested then reinserting the statement without consensus may be construed as edit-warring, though good faith should be assumed where reasonable. Comparative statements that cannot be made on the basis of a single source are disallowed. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

• DonIago (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC) as proposer.
• Support - though I would stipulate that if there are multiple sources that each contain citable references to different chapters, we use those, not blanket statements. Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Could you elaborate on this? DonIago (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what Jack means is that if a source says something like "scene X, which appears in book Y, was altered for episode Z", etc., then we can cite that rather than the blanket statements that DarkFrog is shooting for. DonQuixote (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@DonQuixote:, the phrasing, "scene/event X, which appears in chapter Y, was altered for/appears in episode Z" is fine with me. I prefer the other format because it's more concise, but this certainly works. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If you check the article (Oathkeeper#Production), we're already doing that. DonQuixote (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, no we're not. The chapter information isn't in there. Did you mean something else? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer Walt Hickey, of FiveThirtyEight.Com, notes that the episode "contained the final scene of Jaime Lannister’s ninth “Storm of Swords” chapter. But lots of material from that chapter hasn’t been on the show yet, so I reasoned that he has completed only eight."[6]

So, yes, we are. DonQuixote (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Only partially, though. The rest of the content is missing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The "rest of it" is "missing" because it's not properly sourced...as everyone keeps telling you. Your unwillingness to listen to what everyone is telling you has gone beyond tendentious. DonQuixote (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Don, you are confusing "unwilling to listen" with "listened intently but does not agree." You don't agree with me either. Does that mean you weren't listening? No. And don't hide behind an "everyone." You don't think that this material is properly sourced, but that opinion is not universally held. Own your position. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You should listen to your own words. You think that the material is properly sourced but the consensus is that it's not (see #RfC: Blog source--usable for facts? for an example). If you can properly source your statements with sources considered to be reliable by consensus, as requested, then "the rest of it" will be included. DonQuixote (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support DonQuixote (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - However, I'm cautious about contesting the reliability requiring dispute resolution. I feel that this can be manipulated and abused to drag editors through long dispute resolution processes even if their source is obviously reliable. I think the suggestion is a fair course of action, I just think a note should be added to prevent editors from abusing it. I don't know, just a feeling.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Anything can be manipulated and abused. See WP:GAMING. DonQuixote (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:Gaming. I'm just saying to others that this is not a license to keep information out of the article just because you want claim it's disputed.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

An understandable concern, but one that I'm not sure is likely to come up in practice...as near as I can tell any questioning of sources that's occurred to this point has been good faith in nature, if not necessarily in execution. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You've hit my concerns pretty close to the head, Scoobydunk. From my perspective—whether you agree with me or not—I've provided many reliable sources, and they're getting rejected without good reason. On two occasions, content has been deleted by a user who did not bother to read the source first, and that leads me to feel that there's a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on. (Props are due to Jack for having the guts to come out and say that he just doesn't like the content.) Now it is okay to just not like something, but I feel that it's clouding people's judgment and users are claiming or inflating RS issues when the real problem is personal preference. There is considerable precedent for this kind of information in GoT articles, and it's usually far more casually sourced than this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Er...precisely when did I say that I wouldn't like the content in any form? Bc, that isn't how I feel at all. I am beginning to think you aren't very good at understanding your fellow editors, and that should make you sad.

The content can be added, if it is explicitly, reliably sourced to a notable source. I think the problem here is that you have been working the process backwards - seeking to find sources to back up the same exact statement you've been seeking to add for months. You find sources that say something explicit, and you add content based upon that.I have said my piece, so unless you offer something just flat out wrong, I am done commenting for a bit. You are wasting our time, and I am confident that your canvassing and intransigence will bring that to light. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You said so at least twice, at 21:14, 13 May 2014 and again at 15:08, 11 August 2014. Your exact words were, "I do not think the chapters should be listed. At all." WP:IDONTLIKEIT might not be the only factor involved in your judgment, but it's on the list and it's affecting you.

Your concern is that the content didn't emerge from the source naturally? It did. From the novel and episode. Yes, I consider finding an additional, secondary source that also covers it to be a technicality. We've established that I believe the primary sources are enough, but an RfC decided otherwise. "Find secondary sources," it said. Don't complain that I'm actually doing what you and others demanded--and very rudely in your case. You shouldn't be disgruntled when you get what you asked for. You should be pleased. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Addressing your points as they came up: you are misinterpreting my words (but again, not your first time doing so); I pointedly said that if we cannot find reliable, explicit sources that stated the same content you've been pushing for almost three months now, then I don't think the chapters should be included. At all. The point being that if reliable sources didn't point it out, then it isn't our place to do so, either.

Secondly, your opinion that the content of your preferred list-y phrasing emerged naturally is just that - your opinion. The rest of us do not share it. Maybe brush up on WP:CONSENSUS. That's how we work here, for the most part. You running our and dredging up fanblogs, fan forums and non-existent fake sources doesn't fulfill the criteria of finding actual secondary sources. You are deeply, deeply misrepresenting the results of every person who has told you how to proceed. I find that deeply troubling. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. You left off one paragraph talking about Ana Carol and started another one with, "I do not think that the chapters should be listed. At all." Plug it into CTRL-F if your memory needs a jog. Now, if you're saying that's not what you meant, sure. You're the ultimate authority on what you meant when you said something. But that is what you said and I'm not misrepresenting you by saying so. As a matter of fact, if what you meant was, "I don't think the chapters should be here at all unless a WP-sanctioned RS is found," then that's great. From your perspective, then, the dispute is over. Westeros.org is an expert source per WP:SPS and it has been cited in several GA-rated articles and retained in those that came up for reassessment.

By "emerged naturally," I mean that you seem to be saying, "We should look at the sources and then make content, not make content and then dig around for sources that support it." I reread the book, and there it was. Something like a thought process is not observable to anyone but the thinker. So to echo my previous paragraph, I am the ultimate authority on what I was thinking when I was reading a book. If you meant something else, then we're not on the same page.

As for "running out and dredging up" more sources that corroborated what I'd already verified in the novel? I did so because you and others insisted upon it. Don't complain.

1. No I'm not misrepresenting anyone. and 2. It is not your or anyone else's place to tell me how to proceed, no more than it is mine to tell you how to proceed. One of the problems with this dispute is that you take on trappings of authority that you have not earned. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

This proposal argues an issue not in dispute (see discussion section below). Specifically, no one has proposed comparing the episode to the book; we have always been in agreement that WP:PRIMARY does not permit comparisons using primary sources alone. However, if you are asking if it is acceptable to use one source to confirm a content's verifiability and another to confirm its notability, then yes it is. Wikipedia's rules require that the content be both notable and verifiable, but they do not require these characteristics be attributed to the same source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The statements you have proposed adding to the article are most certainly comparative, and I don't see how you could fail to see that. This proposal has nothing to do with policies regarding what can be done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules also strongly support editing via a process of consensus. This proposal attempts to form a consensus regarding the insertion of comparative statements into the article. If you feel that would be a violation of policy, then assuming there is ultimately a consensus to abide by the proposal you are welcome to pursue a review of the matter through appropriate channels. DonIago (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you could fail to see that. That's easily fixed:

1. WP:PRIMARY does not allow comparisons. 2. WP:PRIMARY does allow straightforward descriptions of facts.

"Sansa is smarter on the show than in the book" is a comparison. "Sansa is on a boat on page ## in the book" is a straightforward fact. "Jaime is a less redeemable person on the show" is a comparison. "Jaime hands Brienne a sword in chapter 72" is a straightforward fact. Do you see how I'm parsing this now?

Wikipedia does have policies about straw arguments. We already have a consensus that secondary sources are required for comparative statements. If we're going to discuss, argue, or debate, it should be about something that we actually disagree about. There's no shortage of them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If we don't disagree then why are you in opposition to my proposal (especially when everyone else who's spoken up has either been neutral or supportive) and being so vocal about it, to the point that you brought it up at WT:V? It would seem to me that if we're not in disagreement then I'm not sure why you're being so confrontational. DonIago (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, easily answered. Two reasons: 1. Because I'm concerned that even though the letter of the proposal deals with comparisons, you probably do mean the proposed text "Content from this episode also appears in chapters X, Y, and Z." I'm concerned that people may interpret it as banning such statements, even though it technically doesn't if taken 100% literally. I don't want people going, "Darkfrog, you agreed to this back in August!" and then have to explain that not everyone was interpreting your proposal the same way. We had enough trouble with not everyone interpreting actual policy the same way.

2. I'm also concerned that the letter of your proposal, again, if taken 100% literally, technically bans something else: using multiple sources to support the same statement. The sources from AV Club, Slate and one of the two i09 sources establish that the disputed text is notable, and other sources, including the novel, GEOS, Ana Carol (currently de facto not-to-be-used), and the other five our so that I've dug up establish that it is verifiable. Wikipedia's rules require that the content be verifiable and notable, but they do not require that a single source establish both these things. I don't know whether this is your intention or not, but adding a level of difficulty that goes above and beyond Wikipedia's ordinary rules doesn't seem either necessary or right. Is that what you're trying to do here or is it unintentional? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

1. If you can find a source that says, explicitly, that content from the episode also appears in whatever chapters, I have no issue with that provided the sources are reliable. I believe that if you can't make such a statement on the strength of a single source then the statement should be banned because you're likely synthesizing...unless you actually have one source saying "Content appears in chapter X" and another saying "Content appears in chapter Y" and the statement is "Content appears in chapters X and Y".
2. The ban only applies to statements comparing the episode to the books; no other statements would be impacted. But you are correct that some people might feel that this is imposing a constraint on this article beyond those that are part of policy. That said, the fact that we've been discussing this for, IMO, far too long led me to feel that it was necessary to establish a clear-cut, bright-line standard for inclusion. If you can cite a comparative statement to a single reliable source, it can be added. If not, don't add it. Quick and easy. And as I've said, beyond the policies Wikipedia articles are frequenly edited based on guidelines, recommendations, and above all WP:CONSENSUS. So far we seem to have a consensus, your disagreement notwithstanding, that an additional restriction is needed. If you object to that, you may want to consider the fact that you have easily been the strongest voice of dissent throughout this debate; perhaps if a resolution had been reached earlier than we would not be where we are now. DonIago (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've found a few sources that explicitly state things like "Jaime hands Brienne a sword in chapter this." That's the content from the episode, explicitly mentioned. From your perspective, does your proposal ban this or leave it untouched?

But do the people who supported to your proposal know what they were supporting? If I didn't process it the same way you did, others might not have processed it the same way you did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not my responsibility. If you're not sure what a proposal entails you shouldn't be expressing a strong opinion on it, and anyone who did express an opinion can see this thread in any case. DonIago (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This proposal addresses an issue that has not come into play. No one has proposed comparing the episode to the book. The disputed text is "Content from this episode also appears in chapters X, Y, and Z of the book," which is not a comparison. No one is saying that the content is longer or shorter or better or worse in the novel and episode, only that it is present. I recommend rephrasing this proposal so that it reflects the issues that we've actually been discussing and post it as an RfC so that the community may be notified of it rather than limit the discussion to the small group of editors who've gathered here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think everyone except you seems to understand my proposal just fine, and would disagree with your contention that my proposal is unrelated to the issues that have arisen. If you feel other eyes are needed, feel free to solicit them, but I'm disinclined to repurpose my proposal because one editor has problems with it, especially when that editor has expressed problems with everything that hasn't gone in a way they might have preferred. You are, of course, welcome to offer your own proposals as well. DonIago (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I do understand your proposal, Doniago. You've proposed a solution to a problem that we don't have. WP:PRIMARY does not allow comparisons. There has been no disagreement on that issue at any point in this discussion.

Also, consider this: Your proposal, in its current form, does not require that I change anything that I'm doing. If I am one of the editors that it is meant to target, then yes, you have to phrase it in a way that acknowledges my perspective. Write for your audience. But if it's nothing to do with me, then don't bother. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not required to do anything beyond abide by Wikipedia policy. If you feel I'm not doing that, by all means, report me for it. And if my proposal addresses a problem that you don't believe we have, then I don't see why you're so agitated about it, as evidenced not only by your multitude of posts in response to it but by your bringing the matter up at WT:V. DonIago (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Required, no. The rules don't require it of you. But if you say, "Let's all agree not to put comparisons in the article using primary sources alone," you're going to get an "okay" from everyone, including me, and that won't resolve our conflict. It's not that it's against the rules; it's that it's beside the point.

Don, I don't think you've violated WP policy at any point in this debate, and I'm not sure where that's coming from. You've done one or two things that aren't 100% kosher over the past few months, but for the overwhelming part you're a guy who disagrees with me, not a guy who's doing something wrong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I proposed though. What I proposed was that each comparative statement be cited to a single source (i.e. one would not be allowed to make a comparative statement that could only be made utilizing multiple sources). Whether or not the source is primary is not addressed by the proposal, though I don't see how there could be anything within the episode that would qualify as a comparative statement...though the idea of one of the characters saying "Hey, what we're doing now happened in Chapter X of Book Y!" is certainly an amusing one. Then again, perhaps you were speaking hypothetically.

I'm glad you don't think I've done anything to violate policy. DonIago (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I'm not clear on what it is that you're trying to ban. If you see my post in the previous sub-section, there's more detail there.

Lord knows it can get frustrating in here, and keeping to WP:CIVIL takes some energy. It should be acknowledged. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you don't feel my proposal will have any effect on the article then I don't see any reason for you to oppose it. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. DonIago (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about how it's going to be interpreted. You should write it clearly and say what you really mean. I'm not referring to dishonesty. Only to clarity. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of your concerns. DonIago (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line: verifiability and notability

1. Do we know that the proposed content is verifiable? Yes. It's readily observable in the novel. If primary sources don't suit you, several secondary sources have been provided here.
2. Do we know that the proposed content is notable? Yes. It's been noted by AV Club, Slate, and i09, which have been recognized as reliable.

Anything else is a technicality. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, to both of the questions. To readily observe/compare what is or is not in the novel, you are evaluating it. You as an editor do not get to do that and add those evaluations to the article. As has been mentioned before, several of the sources are unsuitable for us within Wikipedia (either being fancruft, forum postings, or quite simply falsified sources); those that are useful have already been included.

Again, no. You have already been told - by several editors that the identical content from io9, Slate and AV Club is a single user-created Reddit post. Even if that were usable, you are still extrapolating information from that infograph, which is, by definition, synthesis.

The bottom line is, you have been unable to convince a majority of the users here of your interpretation of: a) our sourcing policy, b) the usability of the multiple sources you have dug up and, c) how this material assists the article in a way that can be demonstrated by other articles having passed GA or FA standards. That is - and should be - the goal of our editing here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, being told your opinion is not the same as being told about policy. They are two different things.

Slate, AV and i09 literally took note of the material. In their opinion it is notable.

But I'm glad you mentioned GA and FA standards. I agree that precedents are relevant. I took TAnthony's advice today and looked for GA articles that contain similar information. A new section is given below. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they are not two different things. Look at the consensus of opinion and clearly-defined policy and guidelines arrayed against you. Evolve, learn or whatever it is you do to aqccept that your view is not in the majority. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you've seen here that Wikipedia policy does not line up perfectly with your assessment of it. You're allowed to have an opinion, but don't expect me to treat it as fact. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. I've suggested that you not take my word for it, and to ask others for their more experienced opinion. Looking at your contribution history, you haven't done that. You appear unable to take anyone's statement of policy as anything but opinion. That's sad. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

While you're looking at my contribution history, check a few dates. I've been editing on Wikipedia for years. If I go by your user history alone, I've been here longer than you have. Are you going to defer to my "more experienced" take on the matter?

As for not taking statements of policy as anything but opinion, let me remind you of something: When Doniago listed a policy, WP:FILMDIFF, that specifically said that statements like, "The White Walker scene was not in the book" were "not encouraged" if supported by a primary source alone (not even "against the rules," just "not encouraged"), I removed the contested sentence myself. You want to convince me to change my mind? Do what Doniago did. He showed us all a policy that actually supported his position and contradicted mine. But I can see why you'd have forgotten. We stopped arguing about the white walker sentence after that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tl;dr. If you aren't going to actually read my posts, instead making about how mean ol' Jack beats up on you, then maybe this isn't the place for you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Closure requested

I've requested that this proposal be closed as I believe we've probably received all the opinions we're reasonably likely to receive...enough to move forward, in any case. I respect that there are some outstanding concerns, but I believe it would be best to deal with those if and when they become problems rather than dwelling on hypotheticals. Thank you all for your time and consideration. DonIago (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your specific goal was with this proposal, Don. The wording is too vague. I've asked questions that you haven't answered. If what you wanted was, "Don't add comparisons using primary sources alone," then I agree, but 1. that was never in dispute and 2. I don't think that is what you're getting at. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Everyone else who participated in the discussion seemed to understand what I was going for. Sorry, but I'm disinclined to rephrase myself (repeatedly) for one editor, especially when history shows that no matter how I try to explain my perspective to you, you will demonstrate a lack of comprehension. Perhaps another editor will be willing to try to put it in terms you can more easily understand. DonIago (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha - brilliant. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well if that "one editor" is the one whose editing you want to change, then you really should explain what you want that editor to agree to. As it stands, do not consider me personally committed to this completely unclear proposition. As for "another editor," unless you know one with magical telepathic powers like a Betazoid from Star Trek, then there's no one but you who can tell me what you meant when you said something. Sometimes people's opinions are like a magic trick. "Well I already know how the trick works, so it's obvious." No, Don. Your position is neither so perfect nor so universal that it is obvious to people who aren't standing behind the tablecloth where the mirrors don't block the view of the contortionist. Whatever it is that's in your head, it didn't make it out onto the page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

...and yet...and yet...you're the only editor who expressed any confusion about it, when there is nothing stopping any other editor from doing the same. And coincidentally you're also the only editor who opposed the proposal...while apparently not even understanding it.

Frankly I don't think you're operating in good faith here. IMO an editor operating in good faith who was concerned about the proposal would have asked for clarification first and then decided how they felt about it. If you want me to believe that you are operating in good faith, then I'd propose that you strike your Oppose vote, at which point I'll suspend my request for closure and will be more willing to make an effort to discuss the matter further.

In any case, there's multiple editors in support of the proposal, and you're the only editor opposed. Let's think this through. If I explain it and you remain opposed, then nothing's changed. If I explain it and you revise your opinion, then all I've really done is sway one more editor. Consequently, attempting to explain it more clearly (and I'm not even sure how I could do that) solely for your benefit doesn't appear likely to be a very productive use of my time.

I've already restated the intention of my proposal at least once above. If editors want to help you out, nobody's stopping them from helping. If editors are confused about the goal of my proposal, nobody's stopping them from asking. If editors think my proposal is going to cause a violation of policy or other larger concerns, nobody's stopping them from escalating the matter. So there we are. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll clarify. I opposed right away because I feel that this proposal is aimed directly at me and no one else and is an attempt to railroad me in some way. That's not good faith. In this discussion, if I give an inch, someone else grabs a mile. Yes, I'm aggressive. Expecting other people to be fair with me even when I bend over backwards to be fair to them isn't working. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an attempt to bring months of discussion to a close and establish a guideline that can be referred to going forward. If I felt there were better options for ending this neverending debate I would be pursuing them. DonIago (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the RSN was also a good idea. Thank you for suggesting it. But I have concerns that Jack's actions may sabotage it, whether they are deliberate or not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2014 (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.

Chapter information in GA and FA articles--and proposal

I thought about what @TAnthony: said and decided to go through Wikipedia's lists of Good and Featured Articles to see if there were any other episode articles of other television series and adaptations that contained similarly one-man's-trivial-is-another's-notable information supported by sources similar to those offered here. I did find several with reasonably similar material and I may post them here later, but I found something else that's even more relevant.

See, I don't usually pay much attention to GA or FA status. I'd noticed before that other GoT articles listed chapter information, what I hadn't noticed was this:

It was all of them! Every GA-rated Game of Thrones article lists chapter information in the exact format offered here.

I checked to make sure the content wasn't added in passing after GA review. All of them named chapters at their time of nomination and listing. I haven't hit FA yet. (Please take the emphasis above to indicate surprise. I didn't expect it would be all of them.) (EDIT: Checked the FA list. There are no GoT articles on it.)

Proposal: We re-add the proposed text using the same source(s) used in these GA articles alongside a tag also citing Storm of Swords (per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Do those sources make explicit reference to this episode? Specific examples would enable me to better evaluate your proposal. Also I don't see why SoS would need to be cited. It's the book...so what? The source that's needed is the one providing the chapter information. DonIago (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

SoS would be cited because 1) WP:saywhereyougotit says that we have to say where you got it, and that's where I got it and 2) we had a previous discussion on the AN/I noticeboard determined that the ref tag for the book should be used so long as it was not used alone. There is zero harm in telling the reader that at least one Wikieditor accessed the source material and checked.

All sources cited are explicitly about the Oathkeeper episode whichever episode is the main subject of the Wikipedia article in question. However, not all of these articles provide reference tags, leaving us to assume that they were using the novel itself as a source. One of the sources, an article in MTV Geek, is partial, like the 538 source used here. I notice that a lot of the source articles were written by the same person, Elio Garcia, even though they're on different sites, including Westeros.org. Either we've been underestimating Westeros.org or the GA crew considered the USERG expert exception to be in play. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm as surprised as you are, but looking at a couple of the GoT GA articles ("The Pointy End" and "Baelor") I see that the info is presented a little differently than you did in "Oathkeeper". While it still may be a bit crufty and the arguments against it above may still apply, it's not objectionable. Basically, there's a sentence or two in a "Writing" section that lists related chapters and cites Westeros.org. If you can keep it out of the plot section and do it this same way, I think it's more in line with standard convention across Wikipedia in a stylistic sense. If for some reason you want to put it in the plot section, it would have to be as some kind of footnotes rather than the "Content appears in" parentheticals, which are jarring and don't jive with the MOS. The two articles I looked at cited a secondary source (Westeros.org), so they do not support the idea that an editor can cite a novel himself or herself for this purpose. If one of the other articles does that, I'd be curious if this issue was considered by whomever assessed it. Now this assumes that Westeros.org is an acceptable source, and if it isn't, then the GA assessment missed that and we're back to square one.— TAnthony^Talk 00:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Westeros.org is a self proclaimed fansite and would fall under the self published category. As a Self Published source made up of fans, it is limited by WP:Aboutself and can really only be used in articles about the page or its members themselves.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Boom.— TAnthony^Talk 01:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1. As for the articles that cite no source, we can assume that the GA reviewer did what I did: figured that it was obvious that the novel was being used as a source and found doing so to be appropriate. Or we can contact the reviewer and ask.

2. I prefer the writing/production section to the plot section. No issue there.

3. Scooby, I dismissed Westeros.org as a fansite too. I didn't even include it among the reference tags I used when inserting the material. Turns out I was probably wrong to do so. I just got back from their About Us page. See new section below. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

4. I checked the list of television-related FA articles. There do not appear to be any FA-level GoT articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You are making far too many assumptions Darkfrog24, which is odd, because you then proceed to interpret fairly-clearly written language of our policies. Note that I said our policies, not my interpretations. Everyone here is telling you the same thing I am.

How long are supposed to continue tolerating your continued resistance to a clear consensus? Do we need to ask for a topic ban for you? Please stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the only one interpreting policy, Jack. WP:PRIMARY clearly says "straightforward descriptions of facts." You don't agree with that. You see things differently. Don't complain that I'm doing the same thing.

As for consensus, a few editors here including yourself said we should look at what the GA articles are doing. You literally just said that yesterday. GA articles include chapter information and they reftag either Westeros.org or nothing at all. I'll fully concede that "The GA reviewer looked at the chapter information, considered it obvious that it came from the novel, and approved of it" is not the only possible explanation for the inclusion of chapter information in these articles, but it is #1 or #2 on a reasonably short list, along with "The GA reviewer didn't think this was a big deal either way." I repeat: If the reviewers' motives are an issue, we can contact them and ask.

Also concerning consensus, I remember asking everyone to lay their cards on the table regarding objections to the proposed content. The answers I got added up to, "Find at least one secondary RS and it ceases to be unacceptable," and you added that you also don't like this content, in addition to your other reasons, which were based on your interpretation of policy. It turns out that Westeros.org is RS. Consensus met. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Westeros.org - like most fansites - can not be considered a reliable source for this article. When looking at one of the other GoT articles, I did note that there was a cited interview with someone from the crew of the series; this is one of those instances when we can in fact cite a fansite. The idea behind this is that we aren't focusing on the crap that usually permeates these sites but instead the notability of the interviewed person. That is one of the exceptions to the blog/fansite rule. I do not believe that Westeros. fits that here. And that someone didn't catch it during GA evaluation means that some trimming is going to be necessary there, too. Please feel free to cite those GA articles where the fansite is utilized as a source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Westeros.org self-describes as a "fan site," but it is more accurately referred to as an expert self-published site whose authors are also fans. See WP:SPS.

Garcia and Antonsson have worked as George Martin's assistants. They have worked on episodes of the television show. They have co-authored at least one book about the world in which the series takes place, and they did so with George Martin. They are members of "the crew of the series." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you stating that they are listed in the credits for this episode? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, Jack, would it matter? If I spend the extra time and energy to look up yet another fact and the answer comes back "yes," is that it for you? Or do you just ask for something else? Look at what you already know: They literally wrote the book on the series. Garcia's articles on other episodes have been published by MTV and Suvudu. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's semantics. They did not "literally write the book on the series". They wrote a book about the workd as depicted in the books. If you hav eproof that they were part of the cast or crew for the episode, great: present that here. If not, you need to stop beating a dead horse and move on to an actual source that isnt a fansite or fan forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Proof that they were involved in making the series? Yes, that's reasonable. Here you go: [14] [15] Hit CTRL-F "consultants" for the first one and "researchers" for the second one. Just found an interview with Garcia. [16] This one reads "Bryan [Cogman] did say that Westeros.org has been a tremendous resource for them." Not exactly a commentary on Garcia, but it's an endorsement of Westeros.org, which addresses the issue of Westeros.org as a source even more directly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have a concern here, which I admit may be unfounded, that consultants and researchers don't have any bearing on the ultimate development of the episode. For instance, if I'm writing a story I might ask someone a question regarding historical authenticity...but their answer is just information I may or may not utilize; it doesn't (necessarily) influence the scope of the story itself. But again, this may be a baseless concern in this instance. DonIago (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's definitely worth bringing up, Don. I guess it depends on how much consulting they did and whether the consulting is their only credential. For the second point, it's clear that it's not. They've also written a book on the books and articles on the show and worked for GRRM as fact-checkers; we discuss that elsewhere on this page. The first is more ambiguous. Garcia describes the work as "occasional" and "thematic" but Bryan Cogman described Westeros.org as "a tremendous resource." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content?

Westeros.org is reliable for this content, but further discussion is needed to determine whether the proposed addition improves the article. See here for the summary of the closing statement and here for the extended closing rationale. Cunard (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Summary of closing statement:

I am closing this RfC in response to this request at WP:ANRFC. This RfC discussed the content removed here.

The RfC asked the question: "Is this page sufficient support for the statement, 'In addition to chapter 72 (Jaime IX), some of the content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, and 71 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI)' in the Game of Thrones article Oathkeeper?"

There is a clear consensus that the answer to this question is yes. (Extended rationale here.)

Westeros.org can be used as a reliable self-published source for A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones topics with several exceptions. Westeros.org should not be used to cite material about living people, exceptional claims, or assertions that promote the topics.

That Westeros.org is reliable for these topics per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources does not mean that content sourced to Westeros.org can automatically be used in Wikipedia articles. If content sourced to Westeros.org material is disputed as being insignificant or not noteworthy, editors still must achieve consensus to include the material in articles as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

There is no consensus to include or exclude the disputed content because most of this RfC was focused on the source's reliability. It would be imprudent to draw conclusions about a question broader than the narrow question participants were asked to answer. There is insufficient discussion on whether the material improves the article. (Extended rationale here.) The material remains excluded from the article by default per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus.

Mediation or a new RfC is recommended to resolve the question: "[W]ill this be a better article if we include this material?"

Cunard (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Extended closing rationale:

Summary of positions:

Regarding the question posed in the RfC's opening post, five editors at this RfC said yes (Darkfrog24, Jclemens, Sandstein, TheRedPenOfDoom, Lagrange613, and Protonk). Two editors said no (DonIago and Jack Sebastian).

At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 177#Westeros.org. Again, four editors (NinjaRobotPirate, TParis, Elaqueate, and DrFleischman) also said yes. The editors noted that Westeros.org is a reliable source for the proposed content but that other concerns like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves might be applicable.

Well-advertised RfC

This RfC was very well advertised: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, Talk:Game of Thrones, Talk:Lord Snow, Talk:You Win or You Die, Talk:The Kingsroad, Talk:Winter Is Coming, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, Talk:The Children (Game of Thrones), Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things, Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things, Talk:Breaker of Chains, Talk:A Song of Ice and Fire fandom, Talk:Baelor, Talk:The Climb (Game of Thrones), Talk:A Golden Crown, Talk:The Pointy End, Talk:The Wolf and the Lion, Talk:Mhysa, Talk:The Lion and the Rose, Talk:First of His Name, Talk:The Laws of Gods and Men, Talk:Mockingbird (Game of Thrones), Talk:The Mountain and the Viper, Talk:The Watchers on the Wall, Talk:Game of Thrones (season 4), User talk:Trut-h-urts man, User talk:Sandstein, User talk:Tristessa de St Ange, User talk:The Gnome, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

These are all appropriate notifications per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification.

Westeros.org's reliability

WP:SPS (which redirects to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves) says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

On the yes side, editors argued that Elio García and Linda Antonsson were established experts in the subject matter, so their publication Westeros.org was reliable for the statement.

Evidence for the "established expert[s] in the subject" requirement from WP:SPS:

Darkfrog24 provided evidence establishing that García and Linda Antonsson were considered "established expert[s] in the subject":

1. Novelist George R. R. Martin is the author of the A Song of Ice and Fire series (which Game of Thrones was adapted from). He considered García and Antonsson to be experts about his A Song of Ice and Fire series.

   [George R. R. Martin] was soon boasting that García and Antonsson knew more about his books than he did. By the time he wrote 2005's A Feast for Crows, the author had begun relying on the couple as a fact-checking resource. "[He would ask], What have I established about this and that?" says García. "Or, Check to see if I mentioned something about this king or this date. And things do slip by because it’s so massive."

   — Gwynne Watkins of Vulture.com, which is published by New York (magazine) (link to article)

2. García has consulted for Game of Thrones from HBO.

   [García's] knowledge of Martin’s invented world is so encyclopedic that the author has referred HBO researchers to him when they have questions regarding the production of “Game of Thrones.”

   [García] is being paid to consult with licensors creating tie-in merchandise and to write text for a video game based on the series.

   — Laura Miller in The New Yorker (link to article)

3. Bryan Cogman, a Game of Thrones screenwriter, wrote the episode "Oathkeeper". In an interview with makinggameofthrones.com (a website published by HBO), García said, "Bryan [Cogman] did say that Westeros.org has been a tremendous resource for them."

Evidence for the "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" requirement from WP:SPS:

Darkfrog24 also provided evidence that García and Antonsson's "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications":

1. García published an article on the Random House genre website Suvudu titled "Game of Thrones: 'You Win or You Die'" (link to his Suvudu article).

   The A Song of Ice and Fire series is published by Bantam Books, a publishing house owned by Random House.

2. García and Antonsson coauthored the 2014 Random House book The World of Ice & Fire: The Untold History of Westeros and the Game of Thrones with George R. R. Martin. The Random House "About the Book" page says (bolding added for emphasis):

   This lavishly illustrated volume is a comprehensive history of the Seven Kingdoms, providing vividly constructed accounts of the epic battles, bitter rivalries, and daring rebellions that lead to the events of A Song of Ice and Fire and HBO’s Game of Thrones. In a collaboration that’s been years in the making, Martin has teamed with Elio M. García, Jr., and Linda Antonsson, the founders of the renowned fan site Westeros.org—perhaps the only people who know this world almost as well as its visionary creator.

   — link to source

Westeros.org is reliable for this topic per WP:SPS:

Based on the above evidence provided by Darkfrog24, it is clear that Westeros.org is reliable per WP:SPS.

Westeros.org can be used as a reliable self-published source for A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones topics with several exceptions. Westeros.org should not be used to cite material about living people, exceptional claims, or assertions that promote the topics.

That Westeros.org is reliable for these topics per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources does not mean that content sourced to Westeros.org can automatically be used in Wikipedia articles. If content sourced to Westeros.org material is disputed as being insignificant or not noteworthy, editors still must achieve consensus to include the material in articles as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

Furthermore, using non-self-published reliable sources is preferable to using the self-published Westeros.org.

"Will this be a better article if we include this material?"

Protonk wrote: "'[W]ill this be a better article if we include this material?' That, broadly, is the question you should seek to answer." Feel free to 'weigh' my answer as a qualified 'yes' to the narrow question if you like, but I think everyone (readers included) will be happier if the broader question is answered."

The opening post of the RfC did not ask editors to weigh in on whether the content should be included if Westeros.org is considered a reliable source per WP:SPS. But several of the participants touched upon whether the content should be included.

The editors who supported inclusion of the content in the article:

1. Jclemens wrote: "WP:DUE requires that we cover what RS'es cover, in appropriate proportion, so if multiple RS'es cover the chapter-to-episode mapping, it would be WP:UNDUE to exclude it, just as it would be similarly disproportionate to make a big deal about it. That's why all of the S1 episodes passed GA with a single sentence referencing the topic."
2. TheRedPenOfDoom wrote: "while too intricate detail for the lead, coverage of where the content came from is appropriate in the body".
3. Lagrange613 wrote: "a single sentence identifying the plot elements in the books that inspired plot elements in the episode this article is about is appropriate".
4. Darkfrog24: "The point of my post is that no, simply listing Westeros.org as an external link doesn't do the job. If a reader comes here looking for out-of-universe analysis or chapter information, it's not obvious that Westeros.org has it just from the site name alone.

   "Westeros.org is not a fan forum. It is not a forum at all. You should stop calling it a forum.

   "Actually, if you read the articles that cite the chart, yes they do discuss chapter matching in the text. Forbes and 538 are even more explicit. Your argument is that this information isn't addressed in mainstream entertainment journalism, but yes it is addressed in mainstream entertainment journalism. What all these articles do, both the ones that cite the chart and the ones that name single chapters, is demonstrate that chapter-to-episode matching is important enough to talk about. So we should talk about it."

The editors who opposed inclusion of the content in the article:

1. DonIago: "It's not a true third-party source, but rather one devoted to discussing the material, and consequently the material being found there does not speak to the significance of the material.
2. Jack Sebastian: "the noteworthiness of this particular material does not extend beyond the 'SPS' (actually, a fansite)".
   
   "I am of the opinion that the material isn't (and hasn't been) worth mentioning. Why not simply use an external link to the fan forum where the interested reader can find/explore to their heart's delight? The fact that the only place where they explicitly discuss this content is on a fan forum tells us about the weight that the world at large gives it. That's who we write for, and not just the fan. There are in fact sources that correlate chapters to the article ("Breaker of Chains", wherein a reviewer connects the differences in the rape scene to the book chapters that also cover it), where the comparison is a dispassionate, noninvolved discussion of the tone of the episode, and the larger issues the scene raises. This is just connect the dots, and has little or no place here."

No consensus to include or exclude the content
The little discussion about whether to include the content mostly took place between the two most involved editors, Darkfrog24 and Jack Sebastian.

Darkfrog24 argued that the chapter-to-episode mapping material is worthy of inclusion because several non-self-published reliable sources have discussed other chapter-to-episode mappings. She argued that an external link to Westeros.org in lieu of the material does a disservice to the readers because they will not know that Westeros.org has the out-of-universe analysis and chapter information.

Jack Sebastian argued that the chapter-to-episode mapping material is unworthy of inclusion because it was not discussed by a non-self-published reliable source in the context of a dispassionate, deeper discussion about the episode's consequential issues. He argued that an external link to Westeros.org in lieu of the material aids readers by 1) keeping out unimportant information and 2) directing them to a self-published source where they can explore the trivial information.

There is a narrow numerical majority (4–2) to include the disputed material among the editors who explicitly addressed whether the content should be included. But I find that there is no consensus to include or exclude the content because this RfC was focused mostly on the source's reliability. It would be imprudent to draw conclusions about a question broader than the narrow question participants were asked to answer. There needs to be discussion from other editors on which viewpoint should prevail: the viewpoint that the material is noteworthy or the viewpoint that the material is insignificant. That is because as Protonk noted, whether the material should be included in the article is more a matter of editorial judgment than a matter of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Result: Exclude the content by default for now pending further discussion

WP:ONUS (which redirects to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion says (bolding added for emphasis):

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

In addition, the disputed content sourced to Westeros.org was first added at 16:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC). It was disputed and removed less than 12 hours later at at 01:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC). Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

The status quo is to exclude the disputed content by default.

Further discussion

More discussion is needed to determine whether the disputed content should be restored to the article. Whether editors choose to use another RfC or mediation as the vehicle for further discussion, I recommend notifying all of the participants in this RfC and the RSN thread to increase participation from less involved editors. Protonk's sound advice is worth considering in framing the next discussion:

Rather than talking about specific sources we should be addressing the elephant in the room: the editorial discussion over including chapter/episode mappings in episode articles. We're not well equipped (in terms of policy and practice) to have that discussion without a policy based decision rule, but I think the principal editors on this page should try. Remember that just because a comment on a subject exists in a reliable source doesn't mean it's appropriate for an article to include it, so discussions of RS and so forth will only find necessary conditions for inclusion, not sufficient conditions. What we really need is a discussion over whether or not the material is valuable to the article where all sides set aside the policies and acronyms and what-not and make an argument for what makes a better article. If you want to do that, mediation may be a good route.

Special thank you and best of luck

I would like to specially thank Darkfrog24 for advertising this RfC in numerous relevant locations and providing detailed evidence that Elio García and Linda Antonsson of Westeros.org are established experts on this topic.

I would also like to thank Protonk for his sage words of advice here and here to the article's contributors.

I wish all the editors here the best of luck in resolving the inclusion question and in working on A Song of Ice and Fire and Game of Thrones articles.

Cunard (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Does Westeros.org count as an expert source per WP:SPS?

Is this page sufficient support for the statement, "In addition to chapter 72 (Jaime IX), some of the content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, and 71 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI)" in the Game of Thrones article Oathkeeper?

Westeros.org is a self-described "fan site" run by Elio Garcia and Linda Antonsson.[17] Its content concerns George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire novel series and its television adaptation Game of Thrones. It has a long history of use in GA-rated articles about its subject matter. Garcia and Antonsson are also the co-authors, with Martin, of a book about the series, A World of Ice and Fire.[18] They have produced articles about the television show for Suvudu and MTV Geek. They have been invited to discuss the series as "guest experts" on other programs. They have worked as fact-checkers for Martin and as consultants for the television show. Antonsson and Garcia also have other credentials and endorsements.[19] Garcia states, however, that they are not employees of HBO and that their consulting was "informal and unofficial." Full response. They are not listed in the credits for "Oathkeeper." Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Bulleted responses

• Yes I feel that these authors are experts per WP:SPS; they've been published by third parties and are generally regarded as experts. The fact that almost every GA-rated article on this subject uses Westeros.org indicates a Wikipedia consensus that this source can be treated with confidence for non-subjective observations about the story, such as continuity. Any other concerns about the text in question can be addressed the following: 1) every GA-rated episode article, as of this dispute, has a line like this one mentioning chapters, had it at its time of nomination, and kept it through reassessment if reassessed. 2) Third-party sources, such as Slate, AV Club, and i09 thought the chapter-to-episode matchup was important enough to write about, with occasional chime-ins from FiveThirtyEight and Forbes (Slate and i09 both wrote about it twice [20] i09). Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• No. It's not a true third-party source, but rather one devoted to discussing the material, and consequently the material being found there does not speak to the significance of the material. DonIago (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• No. As per Doniago. As well, the noteworthiness of this particular material does not extend beyond the "SPS" (actually, a fansite). There is no proof that the site owner is the one posting any information - most of the posts are unsigned. There is no editorial review process (unless you consider self-approval to be a process). This website is not suitable for referencing content within Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A response to part of Jack Sebastian's comment is given in the discussion thread below. Issue: Proof that the site owner is posting the information.

• Yes. The fact that the site authors are real-world, non-vanity-press published authors about the topic seals the deal. The fact that no previous GA reviewer had a problem with them indicates that this has been accepted precedent for years, likely before the book in question was even published. Full disclosure, I nominated and GA polished all the S1 GA articles; I did not add any of the Westeros.org links as they were already added by other editors before I took the S1 articles to GA review. Note that at the RSN discussion, someone has pointed out that slate has reviewed chapter/episode matrix, which cites Westeros.org. I really don't even understand all this nonsense, because if there's a dispute, just cite the Slate article, which is clearly an RS, and cites Westeros.org. That would make us a tertiary source, but big deal. This whole debate is pretty pointless in that it's not a matter of subtle or detailed analysis as far as what scenes in which episodes come from which chapter of which book. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jclemens:, bypassing the fact that the Slate article uses a Reddit user-created table, I would argue that it (Slate) makes no mention of which chapter was used where. That input is being generated by an editor here. There is a reason why they don't - the showrunners have specifically and explicitly stated that they are not hewing to the novels that closely, which would make such comparisons tricky at best.

I would additionally argue that if Slate didn't feel the burning need to mention in the body of the article (which was about how the internet is blowing up about the series), then what gives us the right to do so? Those instances where an reliable source actually notes chapter to ep similarities/differences are already in the article. The best we can do, to my reckoning, is to include an external link to the Westeros article, so that readers can explore the fansite to their heart's content, and our hands aren't dirtied with fancruft. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the origin of material doesn't matter--if an RS repeats it, it's upgraded to reliable, no matter what the original source. "Dirtied with fancruft"? I think your bias against the material is showing. Slate wasn't the only RS that cited or included the table, either. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jclemens:, my bias against fancruft - where it is used in Wikipedia - is absolutely a real thing. I will never think that that user-created Sherlocking and 'shipping is a valuable resource. I get your point about how, if a RS uses it, so can we. My problem here is with using information not explicitly provided by the source, ie. using a linked table that was put into the article but information on it not being referred to within the article by the author itself. it would compare to using a photo of a mass grave from an article about Slobodan_Milošević and using it in an article about that person. And yes, while other media sources use the same, user-created Reddit table, none of them use it to discuss details for Oathkeeper - or any specific episode article.

And again, just because we can cite something does not make it noteworthy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your preferences--and mine--are irrelevant. WP:DUE requires that we cover what RS'es cover, in appropriate proportion, so if multiple RS'es cover the chapter-to-episode mapping, it would be WP:UNDUE to exclude it, just as it would be similarly disproportionate to make a big deal about it. That's why all of the S1 episodes passed GA with a single sentence referencing the topic. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jclemens:: again, we aren't discussing preferences. There were three sources that pointed out specific plot points that were carried over or changed from the source material; those are noted in the Writing section. To infer that those three brief notes about that connection (not even the article's subject but instead a comment in passing) is an open door to [WP:SYN|Synthesis[] and giving undue weight to fan commentary. The sources that include the Reddit table do not discuss any chapter to episode adaptation related to Oathkeeper. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they do. The i09 does say "Look at this cool chart" but it does also say "look at the chapter adaptation" [21]. The AV Club one spends even more time on it.[22] It's thickest in the first and fourth paragraphs. The older Slate article shows the chart but does not discuss it, discussing chapter adaptation instead.[23] Still, I would use these articles as indicators of the weight of the text in question rather than as direct sources in this case because the Oathkeeper entry is inaccurate in the newer version. We'd have to rely on Westeros.org itself for this particular article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, my conversation was with Jclemens; I am already aware of your viewpoint and think that you are too biased to discuss reasonably with. For the record, you might want to re-look at your sources; they do not say what you think they say. Please feel free to point - at any point - where they discuss "Oathkeeper". And, as you say, the chart reflects inaccurately the chapters in use. That illustrates the problem that was pointed out months ago: the showrunners pick and choose what bits of what chapters to use; all that anyone outside of the program can do is Sherlock it out. The only people doing that are fans; reliable secondary sources aren't doing so, and Westeros - a SPS fansite - has a vested interest in keeping fans occupied.

Now, as I do not need to hear your viewpoint, allow those who are not you to contribute. Thanks in advance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you know that you are not supposed to to tell me or anyone not to speak. It is extremely presumptuous. You have repeatedly refused requests to so much as move off-topic posts, so refrain from telling me what to do about on-topic ones. This is not your private forum. In this case, you stated something contrary to fact, and I offered a correction: The articles do indeed discuss the chapters, episodes and adaptation process rather than just going "hey look; this chart exists." They do so in general rather than citing any episode specifically, outside of the chart.

Actually, no. The fact that one source is inaccurate does not automatically mean that all sources are inaccurate. I was able to look at the books and episode and see where they matched. You can look at the books and episode and see where they match. Ana Carol was able to look at the books and episode and see where they matched. If you don't see fit to take a Wikieditor's and blogger's word for it, you don't have to: take Antonnson and Garcia's. We can always phrase the text as "Ep X matches chapter Y" rather than "Ep X was adapted from chapter Y" if anyone feels the need. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Tl;dr. I will wait for Jclemens to respond to my inquiry. I did not call your post crap or whatever. I just said that i am aware of your viewpoint, and don't need to hear it anymore. I am interested in different views or explanations. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize the argument for you: The two most experienced editors in this discussion (Sandstein and myself) disagree with you for specific reasons that your objections don't satisfy. Further discussion won't alter my stance, because it's part of a uniform, consistent interpretation of Wikipedia sourcing policy with which you disagree. I've said my peace here. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"A uniform, consistent interpretation of Wikipedia sourcing policy with which you disagree". Which policy was that now, @Jclemens:? I think the argument has been made - barely - that the source is usable for this narrow usage. I think it's a short-sighted interpretation, one with far reaching complications, but there it is. Now the problem remains as to whether the material should be in the article; it now remains a weight issue. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd treat them as reliable at least for factual and easily verifiable material such as which episode adapts which book chapters. The authors of the website have collaborated with G.R.R. Martin on supporting published material, so this goes some ways towards establishing their credentials.  Sandstein  10:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• yes the source is a reliable source for the claim and while too intricate detail for the lead, coverage of where the content came from is appropriate in the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. The site is self-published, but by established experts. This is explicitly allowed by WP:SPS. Westeros.org should never be cited, here or elsewhere on Wikipedia, for evaluating the quality, impact, etc., of the books or any derivative of them; the authors are too partisan and too financially interested to be considered independent. Some of their work blurs the lines between primary and secondary sources, so over-reliance should be discouraged. However, a single sentence identifying the plot elements in the books that inspired plot elements in the episode this article is about is appropriate. Lagrange613 15:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, narrowly. I closed an RfC above about using general sources for specific claims (namely the chapter mappings from reddit). I think this is a more specific question and I can support the idea that westeros.org could be used for those sorts of claims. That doesn't mean I think those sorts of claims should be in the article. On that I don't have a very strong opinion. After reviewing the discussions on this page, I'm not sure I was right in my original RfC close. Rather than talking about specific sources we should be addressing the elephant in the room: the editorial discussion over including chapter/episode mappings in episode articles. We're not well equipped (in terms of policy and practice) to have that discussion without a policy based decision rule, but I think the principal editors on this page should try. Remember that just because a comment on a subject exists in a reliable source doesn't mean it's appropriate for an article to include it, so discussions of RS and so forth will only find necessary conditions for inclusion, not sufficient conditions. What we really need is a discussion over whether or not the material is valuable to the article where all sides set aside the policies and acronyms and what-not and make an argument for what makes a better article. If you want to do that, mediation may be a good route. But we should recognize and address the core issue before everyone gets tired of arguing with each other and discussion deteriorates. Protonk (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Many of the contributors to this discussion have addressed that issue directly, Protonk, giving statement regarding whether they think the disputed text is important enough to include, independently of WP:V. Regarding weight, Protonk, do you wish your comment to be interpreted as "No I don't think this sentence should be included in this article," as "Yes I do think this sentence should be included in this article" or as "I am speaking about this kind of information in general"/"I don't wish to weigh in on that issue at this time"? You did say "I don't have a very strong opinion" but there's been a lot of so-and-so-meant-this/no-he-meant-that going on, and I'd personally like it if we could leave as little room for misinterpretation as possible. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I don't have a strong opinion. :) Look, my advice is to close all of these crazy RfCs and sit down with the main contributors to the article and ask (regardless of any of the policies or guidelines) if you can all agree on text which makes the article better. If that can happen without someone moderating the discussion, great. If you need someone to mediate the discussion, that's fine too. But the goal should be to get away from this repeated polling/discussion and try to improve the article in a way that leaves most of the major stakeholders relatively happy with the outcome and still willing to contribute to the article. It looks like from this discussion that there's a rough consensus to include the material, but the RfC asks a very narrow question ("can westeros.org be used to support claims about book/chapter mappings?"). Not "will this be a better article if we include this material?" That, broadly, is the question you should seek to answer. Feel free to "weigh" my answer as a qualified "yes" to the narrow question if you like, but I think everyone (readers included) will be happier if the broader question is answered. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments not immediately related to Protonk's RfC response have been moved to a separate section. Specifically, ProtonK makes suggestions about finding a solution that will stay. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Westeros.org. Expletive of choice here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion was in a different section. I have merged it here. Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Guys? We missed something. We missed something big and we missed it early. You know my request that all the cursing stop? Yeah, it might be forgivable in this case. This is from the Westeros.org about us page:

"The team behind Westeros consists of Elio M. García (aka Ran) and Linda Antonsson, fans of the series since 1997 who are currently working with GRRM on the forthcoming guide-book to the setting, called The World of Ice and Fire."

And there's more. That book is real. The GA articles cite Westeros.org because its content is attributable to people who co-wrote a book about the world of Game of Thrones with the guy who wrote A Game of Thrones.

Even I dismissed Westeros as a fansite. It self-describes as "fan site," but it says in WP:BLOGS that even if something calls itself a blog, it might not fit Wikipedia's definition of one. If anyone feels it's necessary, we can email the team and ask them questions about where the content of their Oathkeeper entry comes from and what their fact-checking process is like. We can run this past the RS noticeboard again (Jack's original listing got no responses from anyone but Jack and me) or file another RfC, but I think we have an expert source here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If Westeros.Org's creators were speaking about their book, then they could be cited. They are not a member of the production staff or cast, and we have zero provenance for anything posted within the fanblog. Why keep whacking a dead horse? Spend your time more wisely and a source that people are going to be able to support. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you say that we can't use facts from Stephen Hawking's self-published physics web site, only from his books? If you want a non-hypothetical precedent, I seem to remember that Language Log gets cited a lot. It's a weblog run by linguists of established credentials. Because their traditional publications prove that they are experts, their web-based writings are treated as expert sources.

We might need to refrain from referring to Westeros.org as a "blog." It isn't organized like one.

Even if we treat Westeros.org as a self-published source (and that's debatable), WP:SPS reads:

"...expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

A World of Ice and Fire is certainly in the same field as "Oathkeeper," and it has been published. The fact that it was co-authored with the creator of the series brings this above and beyond the requirements of policy. We can consider Antonsson and Garcia members of the ASoIaF team and experts on ASoIaF and GoT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting opinion. If that were the case, then they would be cited in the series. Are they listed int he credits for the episide? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Garcia and Antonsson's credentials (beyond their book)

I took a few minutes and found a few more things about the staff of Westeros.org:

[George Martin] was soon boasting that García and Antonsson knew more about his books than he did. By the time he wrote 2005's A Feast for Crows, the author had begun relying on the couple as a fact-checking resource. [24]

The couple also works as informal consultants on the television series. [25]

Garcia has also authored articles on GoT that appeared in Suvudu.[26] The Westeros review of another episode was published by MTV Geek.[27] They are cited as sources in some of the WP GA GoT articles. I also read that A Dance with Dragons was dedicated to Antonsson, but that was mentioned in passing. I don't own a copy so I can't check right now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

One question: did Garcia or Antonsson contribute to the making or performance of Oathkeeper? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know off the top of my head, but I don't think it's necessary.

Here's another question: Game of Thrones has multiple writers. Cogman. Martin himself. Benioff. Weiss. According to the article's existing content, David Benioff wasn't Oathkeeper's writer. Only Cogman was. Would we, on the basis that he was not the writer of "Oathkeeper," say that Benioff was not an expert on Game of Thrones and exclude any sources that were based on him alone? Antonsson and Garcia are on the team, junior members of the team, certainly, but definitely inside the fence. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Found some more:

[Garcia's] knowledge of Martin’s invented world is so encyclopedic that the author has referred HBO researchers to him when they have questions regarding the production of “Game of Thrones.”[28]

[Garcia] is being paid to consult with licensors creating tie-in merchandise and to write text for a video game based on the series.[29]

Martin himself sometimes checks with García when he’s not sure he’s got a detail right. Martin told me, “I’ll write something and e-mail him to ask, ‘Did I ever mention this before?’ And he writes me right back: ‘Yes, on page 17 of Book Four.’ [30]

It looks like George Martin considers Elio Garcia to be an expert on this series. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion, Darkfrog24. The way I am seeing it, he is one of the authors on a book about Martin's books. That doesn't make him an expert, and even if he was considered an expert, we have no provenance on the material from there which you seek to cite.

I will ask the 'yes or no' question again. Did Garcia or Antonsson contribute to the making or performance of Oathkeeper? If you cannot answer it definitively, allow someone else the chance to answer. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You certainly don't have to take my opinion as fact, but George Martin's should hold some weight with you. If you don't think that the guy who literally wrote the books gets a say in this, then I officially think you need to adjust your standards.

They don't need to have worked on every episode to be experts. However, I've used the web site's contact button to ask if Garcia, Antonnson or both worked on "Oathkeeper." Now let me ask you this: If the answer comes back "yes," then what? You happily re-insert the text yourself? Or you pull some new hoop out from under your hat and yell "JUMP! JUMP!"? Because that is not okay. Two days ago, you said, "What the GA articles are doing matters!" but when you find out that the GA articles include chapter content, you suddenly don't give them credence any more. You say, "They aren't on the crew of the television show," but when I find a source saying, "Yes they are," you switch to, "It doesn't count because they didn't work on that episode." If they write back and say that they worked on Oathkeeper, are you going to say, "Okay, the content's acceptable to me now"? Or are you going to pull another hoop out of your hat and yell, "JUMP! JUMP!" Because that is not okay. All hoops should be out of the hats and all cards on the table ASAP.

I'm not saying that you have to remain 100% consistent with everything you ever said or that you're never allowed to change your mind. I'm saying don't tell me you want extra information unless you actually care about it. Deliberate wild goose chases are not okay.

No provenance? Here's a link or two: [31][32]. And here's the page where they name the site's writers: [33]. The greater Westeros.org also hosts "A Wiki of Ice and Fire," but the content that supports the text in question is not from the Wiki but from the episode analysis that Garcia wrote himself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you appear to have disregarded my question, I will post it the the third time, as you have failed to answer it: "did Garcia or Antonsson contribute to the making or performance of Oathkeeper? If you cannot answer it definitively, allow someone else the chance to answer."

The only writer of record for the episode is Cogman. While the showrunners probably have input (thought I think they cannot get writing credit due to some union rules thing), I see nothing from Garcia in the credits for "Oathkeeper". Garcia et al. run a fansite, while acting as librarian of sorts for GRRM. It doesn't make them experts on GoT. It certainly doesn't give us the right to cite any willy-nilly detail from a fansite. The only way I see this going in is if they interviewed someone directly connected to the series or episode who stated, explicitly what parts of what chapters were used in the episode.

I've noted it before, but I'll say it again: the reason I have a larger problem with the inclusion of this information is referencing to a reliable secondary source. That's it. It isn't your tendentious behavior. It isn't the subject matter; I like the show. The sum total of my issue with this concerns the nature of the show, where it takes bits and pieces from different chapters - not the whole chapters, but bits and pieces from chapters - to weave them into the episode. Precisely what parts require good, expl;icit sourcing outside of a fansite, blog, forum, fake reference or some wiki editor getting all Sherlock-y. You find suitable sopurces that cannot be characterized in the aforementioned ways, I'll believe its useful enough and non-synthesized enough for inclusion. Until then, you have nothing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:TEND more closely. That's not what's going on here. If your only objection to the inclusion of this material is that you don't think it's properly sourced, and my response is to find more sources, that's not tendentious. It's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

I did not disregard your question. I emailed the Westeros.org staff and asked it. Please read my posts more carefully. As for "allow someone else to answer," I don't know what you mean. It's been just the two of us for the past two days or so, and you don't seem to have trouble speaking your mind. What do you mean?

As for your "bits and pieces" issue, Westeros.org actually does say "parts of Sansa IV," etc. If you want the Wikipedia article to stipulate that only parts of each chapter were used, that's fine with me.

Great. Good. A reliable secondary source has been found. But you don't have to take my word for it, Jack. Take "Oathkeeper" writer Bryan Cogman's: Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bryan [Cogman] did say that Westeros.org has been a tremendous resource for them. [34] Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What my question means is that if you do not know if Garcia or Antonsson contributed to the making or performance of Oathkeeper definitively (ie. yes or no), stop posting and allow someone who doesn't have your desperate need to have the last word to perhaps offer further insight. I certainly hope that is clear enough for you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you have no right to tell me to stop posting, regardless of whether I have the information on your pet issue not. Do not address me as "dear" or by a diminutive of any sort. I have told you to stop that before. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am asking you to allow others to post without having to deal with your wall of text. 'Dear' is not a diminutive; and you will note that it isn't in the post.

Lastly, is there a reason you are posting the same info in two different sections on this talk page? Oh, never mind - I can guess why. That need to have the last word again. lol. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you removed it from the post just as I was writing my own. There was an edit conflict. And yes it is presumptuous and dismissive. I am not your dear. Knock it off.

If you don't want responses to your own posts, then stop asking me questions and posting insults. Last word? Pot. Kettle. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Conversation with Elio Garcia

Here are the highlights of my request for information from Westeros.org:

We together [Garcia and Antonsson] have produced articles about the show for Suvudu, MTV Geek, and also Tor.com; as we've become busier, we stopped doing those over time, and just focused on Westeros.org's content.

We appear as guest experts on Thronecast for Sky Atlantic, their post-episode show (sort of like their version of The Talking Dead). We're as much experts on the show as anyone is, basically. It's not yet announced, but [REMOVED] I've interviewed actors at the press round tables, at the invitation of HBO. I've visited the set, at the invitation of HBO (still the only fan site, so far I'm aware, to ever be invited to do such a thing, for any show HBO has ever produced). If that's enough for us to be considered experts, then experts we are.

That said, that's just a subset of our expertise on the novels and the setting, and our favorite articles on such sites, and in _Beyond the Wall_, are really about the books rather than the TV show. It's in that capacity that we have occasionally fielded questions from Bryan Cogman regarding various little setting details.

Linda and I have created the chapter lists for the episodes. I can't swear they are 100% without error -- it happens -- but we produce them ourselves. No interns here.

Your earlier question about whether we consulted on Oathkeeper... if we need to actually be crew members, no, we've never been members of the crew, have not been paid in any way by HBO for anything related to the series. Our help has been informal and unofficial.

I hope that helps clarify matters.

Provenance of the episode lists? Check. Members of the crew of GoT? No. Experts on GoT? Check. Published? Check*4. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, presuming that this is in fact a true letter, I would have to say that you've kinda shot yourself in the foot, Darkfrog24. They are not part of the cast or crew. There is no editorial oversight at their fansite. They are fans.

We do not cite fans or fansites. We're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Read the excerpt from WP:SPS that I posted above. Being on the crew of the television show is not a prerequisite to being classified as an expert. Being published is. Antonsson and Garcia have written a book about the story's worldsetting and they have published articles about the television show. These guys meet Wikipedia's requirements.

And yes, I have to trust that the person who said he was Elio Garcia actually was Elio Garcia, just as you have to trust that the people you said you spoke to at Prince Albert Now were who they said they were.

Safe to say we're deadlocked on this, Jack? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like another case for RSN. DonIago (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

RSN on Westeros.org, working out the text

I agree, but we might have better luck with an RfC. Westeros.org went through the RSN with no comment. None of the GoT-source RSN filings got any comments from anyone but us. I'm guessing that the guys on the RSN noticeboard don't think that GoT is worth their time.

It might be best to make sure everyone's back from the weekend before filing it. Whether it's RSN or RfC, I can file it, but if you want to agree on a neutral wording ahead of time, I'm game for that too. I'm thinking it would be fair to include the words "informal and unofficial" (because they were in both Garcia's own words and in one of the sources) and explicitly state that they have published materials about the worldsetting and about the show (because that is what the policy stipulates). A link to Garcia's response here would probably also be good. And how do you feel about the header "Antonsson and Garcia: fans, experts or both?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As a non-expert with regards to the site I think the question should be whether the site overall is an RS. If there are concerns as to specific aspects of it then the question should be modified appropriately. In a worst-case scenario the question should be whether specific link X hosted at the site (or god forbid specific statement Y brought up within link X) can be considered reliable. I would much rather see this handled via RSN than yet another RFC. I strongly recommend avoiding anything that might constitute a wall of text and being as concise as possible. DonIago (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Simply being published does not make you an expert. Otherwise the WP articles about evolution and geology would be filled with Ken Ham quotes/opinions.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well Don, we could do what we did with the Ana Carol source: Put it up at RSN and then go to an RfC if it gets no newcomer comments.

Sounds like you'd prefer something more like, "Westeros.org: fansite or expert site?" I agree about the wall of text, but the last posting was very concise and got nothing. We have to put in something to make this listing look interesting to RSN regulars. How about, "Is Westeros.org RS for information about the television show Game of Thrones? Westeros.org self-describes as a fan site [link to About Us page], but its creators, Garcia and Antonsson, have co-authored a book about the novel and TV series' worldsetting with series creator George Martin [link], produced articles about the television show for RS third parties [links], worked as fact checkers for the novels [link], and served as 'unofficial and informal consultants' on the show itself [link]. Does this make self-published web content that is attributable to them personally RS under the WP:SPS expert exception? Garcia responded to a request for information: [link to Garcia's email]." And of course a blockquote of the disputed text and link to the specific page that supports it.

Point, Scooby, but if "published" means "co-authored a book about the series with the series creator" then I think we've passed the threshold. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Y'know...I don't mean to sound snippy, but the last time RSN came up I said what I thought would constitute a concise entry, which would also be in line with the guidelines for that noticeboard. I don't really care to repeat myself, but if the RSN-related concerns can't be framed in that way then maybe more thought really should be given to whether we should be trying to incorporate the information into the article to begin with. DonIago (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I remember that post. You described the filing that I had already posted to RSN almost perfectly, but you still seemed displeased with it. You did not see fit to answer questions about how your preferred post and the real one were different. And no, I don't see what us having trouble agreeing on an RSN format has to do with the merit or lack of merit of the text in question. The GA reviewers all thought it was appropriate for inclusion or at least didn't find its inclusion problematic.

If what you really mean is, "Just post a link to the source and a link to the text and nothing else," it's not that that's a bad idea but Jack already tried it and it didn't work.

Here's a simpler answer, though: if you don't think the text that I suggested is best, then suggest your own version. We'll triangulate our way to something that we think is fair enough. That's the whole point of bringing it up on the talk page first. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion: "Does Westeros.Org, a self-declared fansite without editorial oversight constitute a reliable source for the Game of Thrones tv series based upon the fact that two of the fansite's owners unofficially and intermittently act as a continuity source for some of the members of the writing staff? If sot, under what conditions could they be utilized as a source?" - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No. That is not sufficiently unbiased or sufficiently neutral. You wrote a reasonably neutral filing last time. If you take this seriously, we can work out something that we all think is acceptable enough. The point of this conversation is to develop a filing that doesn't leave any of us feeling like we have to add another post providing more information or correct inaccuracies. Leaving out the fact that Garcia and Antonsson have been published is an inaccuracy. But let's use your suggestion as a place to start:

"Is Westeros.org a reliable source for information on the Game of Thrones television series? On its About Us page [link] it self-describes as a 'fan site,' but it has been argued that its authors are experts per WP:SPS. For example, they have 'unofficially and informally' served as consultants on the television show and have co-authored a book on the show's source material with series creator George Martin [link]. One of the authors responded to a request for information here [link]. Further details upon request or at talk:Oathkeeper [links to credentials thread etc.]."

If you feel the need, we can add more detail, like "they are not paid employees of HBO" so long as we also add things like "and they have produced articles on the series that have been published by MTV etc." but I think what Doniago's displeased about might be length.

Upon what do you base your statement that Westeros.org "lacks editorial oversight"? If you check Garcia's letter, you will see that the part of Westeros.org that's offered as a source in this case was actually written by Garcia and Antonsson themselves and not by guest writers or interns. The editors produced the content personally.

I have an additional suggestion. We've done this before, but after we agree on a suitable phrasing, we all also refrain from further comment there until there is at least one comment from someone new. Is that acceptable to everyone? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was not meant as a joke. It has the virtue of being neutral and accurate, and gets to the point without your typical wall o' text. And editorial oversight means that the writer has to submit to a larger review of their content. As the creator and admin for the fansite, he has no oversight. What you have here is a blog by a person on their own, self-proclaimed website. This is apparent from the fact that the fan review was not signed. A fansite owner doesn't have to sign his own work, whereas an actual legitimate website publishing reviews has to attribute properly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I went to RS and added 1. the exact page that is being used as a source, 2. a link to the diff, and 3. the rest of the background information, including a link to Garcia's email.

Jack, if your filing includes only information about why someone should agree with your position and none of the information about why they shouldn't and such information exists, then it's not neutral. If your filing says "based on the fact that they worked as [biased adjectives] consultants," then that implies that there is no other basis (such as having published a book and third-party articles and having the confidence of the show's staff), and that's misleading.

Still, I think our two posts together cover both sides of this issue fairly without being a wall of text. Sorry it's probably not as concise as you wanted, Doniago. I'm content to stand back and let other people comment. I request that anyone who wants either Jack or me to make changes to either of our posts make suggestions here rather than adding to the thread.

EDIT: I'm going back to add a link to Westeros.org's own "About Us" page, the one where they self-describe as a "fan site" and mention the book. Any objections? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I would like to see the precise wording of your intended addition before proceeding. You are seeking to add material counter to that of the consensus, so you have to surmount that hurdle. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you didn't wait for approval here before posting either your initial filing or your second comment. There was an ongoing conversation about developing a compromise text but you jumped the line. So no, you don't get to complain that I didn't tell you enough about what my plans were. In fairness, I didn't think the literal words "About Us" would be a big deal with anyone, especially since the link is the only source given here that supports your point that the website self-describes as a fansite. And no, that doesn't give you any kind of permission to delete that link from my post.

The header of the section must be neutral. If you don't like "Fan site or expert site" then let's work something else out, but the "Again" is whiny and therefore not neutral. Remember, we want RSN regulars to think that this issue is worth their time. Also, you were the one who filed the previous Westeros.org request. Why are you complaining that you did something twice?

We could always go to DRN or Third Opinion and request that a neutral third party write a compromise text for us and post that to the RSN noticeboard. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you are offering no new information, I will be commenting less in response to your posts. Characterizing my posts as whiny only makes me resistant to anything you suggest. The RSN query is neutral. The text of the request is in fact neutral. If you can restrain yourself from dumping another wall of text there, it might even get a response. Stop the drama, be quiet and trust the system. Period. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be clearer then. A header that sighs "Again" is whiny. Your post was not whiny, though it was vehement. The header is whiny. The system requires that filings and headers be phrased in a neutral manner and the current header is not neutral. It 1) discourages newcomers from posting at all (the one guy who posted an opinion so far just said he did it by mistake); 2) it biases newcomers. If you want this RSN thing to work you have to commit to being neutral about it. If you don't like "Fan site or expert site," even though it lists your position first, then delete the "Again" and just go with "Westeros.org." Consider this a proposal I will do it in 24 hours if no objections are posted here, but that might be too late. If you don't want me to do it, then do it yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise against refactoring any part of my post. It notes that Westeros.org has come up (twice) before, and been considered an unusable source. It is accurate and neutral. I am sorry you do not like it, but the only way people are going to be discouraged to post there is if you serve up yet another wall of text. I am not changing it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, no it was not considered an unusable source. The last time, it got no comments from anyone but you and me, and even before I knew that Garcia and Antonsson had literally written the book on the subject, I referred to it as "good for corroboration," which is how it's used here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletions of Westeros.org from other articles may mislead new participants; wait until the RSN discussion is over

Please revert the recent deletions of Westeros.org and the content it supports from other Game of Thrones articles for now.
The RSN discussion of whether Westeros.org is reliable or not is in progress. The existence of similar text in other articles, especially GA-rated articles, has been cited as a precedent. Other editors who are thinking of participating may look at those GA-rated articles to see if Westeros.org has been used anywhere that has gone through the article review process. Deleting the content now makes it look like you're trying to trick people into thinking that there is no precedent for Westeros.org's use or for stable single-line chapter lists, and that is not true.
That content has been stable for years and it won't hurt to stay another few weeks until the RS regulars have their look. Please revert your edits, Jack. I know you don't consider Westeros.org RS, but the GA reviewers didn't find it objectionable, and it fits WP:SPS's criteria pretty closely.
So that's it. Hold off on the deletions you want to make because one interpretation of your actions is that you're trying to trick the guys at RSN into thinking that there's no precedent. After all, I held off on adding this material to other articles with Westeros as a source. Or with the book as a source. Or with Ana Carol's site as a source. Or with any of the others. If I can do it, you can. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that if you are of the opinion that RSN - or any admin, for that matter - is going to be fooled by any shenanigans, you are seriously underestimating the good people here. If they can spot, say, a fake source, they can look at an article's edit history. They will see that it was removed today, after I discovered the "other" articles that you pointedly refused to identify earlier in discussions - even when you thought Westeros.org was a fansite. Until RSN or an admin determines otherwise, Westeros.org is a self-described fansite. We don't use them, unless we can cite, for example, an interview with a member of the cast or crew (and I retained two Westeros.org references that did just that).

Anyhoo, now the good folk at RSN know what it looks like with fancruft and without. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, you've been pretty quick to complain that the GA reviewers must have made a mistake when they didn't have a problem with Westeros.org or chapter lists. If, from your perspective, they can overlook something that big, then surely you can see how the RSN guys might miss something like this. Please revert these edits for now.

I am not required to draw you a map to content that you don't happen to like so that you can delete it. Just as you are not required to help me find sources for content that you don't happen to like. Westeros.org is an expert site per WP:SPS.

I'll be clearer: If you keep trying to bias this RSN discussion, it won't be valid. If you're so confident that the RS guys will decide in your favor, then you can wait until the discussion reaches its close before you alter content that's been stable for years and gone through GA review unscathed. However, I'll offer you this: If you put it back yourself, and the RSN discussion stays unbiased and is decided in your favor, I won't complain about your subsequent round of post-RSN-decision Westeros.org deletions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll tell you what: I will change the title if you agree that - when they decide the source is not usable, you stop trying to add the chapter stuff. Forever. You stop seeking out crap sources and wasting three months of our time arguing over what virtually every single person has told you about their usability. You promise to stop fighting about this chapter-to-episode connecting in any Got article from now moving forward. Agree to this, and you have a deal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. This content is good and appropriate and if this source is not approved then I will simply find another one. You keep saying that your problem with this is the sourcing. Finding more sources is the answer.

THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. I've asked you to stop cussing at me before. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess we will just have to deal with that when it happens. And who the heck is cussing at you? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reverts, Jack. You are absolutely right about one thing: We do not have a common frame of reference for these issues. Hopefully, the RS discussion will sort this out in a way that we all find reasonably acceptable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, please revert your deletion on The Kingsroad. The fact that Westeros.org is used in a GA-rated article has been cited as precedent in an ongoing RSN discussion and deleting it is misleading. Whether you are doing it deliberately or not, your actions may bias the results of the RSN and render them non-valid. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a chance. The matter is still in discussion at RSN, and you are finding little in the way of traction for your pov.I'd point off that you edit-warred yourself into a 3RR complaint reverting changes in other articles, where you asked for me to hold off on making changes until the RSN discussion was concluded. Follow your own advice. I am done dealing with you. The sooner you are gone, the better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack, I am not asking you to refrain from deleting new material added to Kingsroad. No new material was added to Kingsroad. I am asking you to revert a deletion that you made to Kingsroad. Here it is: [35]

Are we on the same page now?

As for "my POV" two out of two people said that Westeros.org was reliable, though they said other issues were also in play. If you feel the need, we can deal with those as a separate matter after the reliability conversation is complete. It would be best if we could stop discouraging other people from adding there input, because I'd like to hear from more people. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop editing in Westeros.org until the matter is resolved. Period. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't edit it in. I undid your deletion. As for not using Westeros.org to either insert or delete at all until this matter is resolved, I agree entirely that none of the parties in this dispute should do so with the exception of self-reverts, such as on The Kingsroad. It is a good idea. Are we agreed? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RSN discussion of Westeros.org

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion was in a different section. I have merged it here. Cunard (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The Westeros.org RSN thread is a day or two from expiration. There have been three respondents to the question of whether Westeros.org is reliable.

TRPoD/RedPen Affirmative [36]

NinjaRobotPirate Qualified affirmative [37]

TP Qualified affirmative [38]

We received no negative answers despite the way the thread was worded. This is more people than we had in our first RfC, which yielded a negative and a qualified negative. Does this satisfy? Can we say that—barring further responses—the question of Westeros.org as a source for the text in question has been answered in the affirmative, or is this matter not yet settled? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't read TRPOD's response as an affirmative, more that they can't recall what their original objects were. "I can't remember why I objected" is not the same as "I have no objection". Both of the other responses raise concerns regarding significance based on the source which leads me to believe that a third-party source would be a better choice for usage. We shouldn't consider information significant if the only source we can find is a fansite, even one that's a reliable source. That said, if other editors feel it's acceptable in this case I'm willing to defer.

Think of it this way: let's say there's a website about Harry Potter that's written and maintained exclusively by Rowling. In terms of a reliable source, you can't get much more reliable for Harry Potter information at that point (though I imagine she could end up contradicting herself). That said, not everything mentioned on that site merits inclusion here. WP should not just mirror what other sites say, it should focus on content apprropriate for an encylopedia. Hence it would be much better practice to note a third-party source that referenced information on such a site. DonIago (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Using a fansite to source the encyclopedia is a bad, bad precedent to set. That we have been arguing about this problem over sources as bad (if not worse or fake) for four months is annoying in the extreme. The information is not noteworthy enough to discuss by any source outside of a fansite or blog. If there is a raging need to include it, why not just use the External Links section to include a link to the article in Westeros.org.? That way, we maintain our distance away from fancruft and still provide the fan a link to all the details they want. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So that's a "No this is not settled"/"I don't consider the RSN discussion conclusive in that way" from both of you.

I was confused by RedPen's response at first, but the expression "this lines up with this rule" usually means "this is consistent with this rule."

I did request clarification from RedPen and did not get a response. Maybe hearing the request from more than one person will make a difference. NinjaPirate did respond, saying that the comment should not be read as a judgement of the specific text that we were discussing but rather taken generally. For the suitability of this text for inclusion, then, we are left with 1. the fact that other sources, such as Slate, thought it was important enough to write about in two separate articles and 2. the fact that it's in every GA-rated article on this subject, which indicates a larger Wikipedia consensus for its inclusion. I did not ask TP for further information.

I feel that if I'd noticed that the articles using Westeros.org were GA four months ago, we could have settled this a lot sooner.

So are you guys are changing your position from "Exclude this content because it is not reliably sourced; we can include it as soon as we find a reliable source" to "Exclude this content for [other reason]"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll just repeat something I've said previously then, with new emphasis: "It doesn't matter whether they're similarities or dissimilarities, analysis or just pointing out facts; secondary sources should be provided as a means of establishing significance. We don't need to source the plot of the article subject because the article subject itself is the source (i.e. a primary reference is acceptable for a well-written plot summary. The minute we add anything on top of a strict summary, sourcing should be utilized. DonIago (talk) 11:15 am, 21 May 2014, Wednesday (3 months, 13 days ago) (UTC−4)" Westeros does not establish significance because it is a site devoted to discussing this material. DonIago (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past few days, two more people have commented at the RSN. Dr. Fleischman's response seems to be a qualified affirmative that would count as affirmative for this text (but by all means read the words yourselves) [39], and Elaqueate's is similar, though the main thrust seems to be that Elaqueate doesn't consider this a reliability issue [40]. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The next move

You guys may notice that I put up an RfC. Because the RSN discussion did not give us a solid conclusion, I feel this is the most logical next step. We have a history of keeping our RfCs neat, orderly and civil that we haven't managed to match with other formats. However, if someone has a better suggestion, can we all promise to decide on a course of action together and that no one will jump the line and act alone? I will also take suggestions on the wording of the RfC. Specifically, I am not sure that enough data regarding Antonsson and Garcia not being experts is provided (it is possible that there is just more information indicating that they are experts than that they are not). I was careful to include the part about their not being HBO employees or listed in the credits and to place "self-described fan site" prominently, but please let me know if I missed something important. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since you guys have both made your contributions to the RfC, I am inferring that you think this is an acceptable move. I have now begun to publicize it. So far, I have posted a brief message about this RfC at WP:RS, WP:SPS, WikiProject:Song of Ice and Fire, and several Game of Thrones pages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should either leave both Diego and Don Quixote alone or contact them both, but my preference would be to allow them to return or stay away from this discussion on their own. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the notification of specific editors, it was clear that Truth Hurts and Sandstein had made substantial edits to this article, but do you think that Flyer22 or Drovethrughosts should make the cut as well? I did not review the content of TH's or SS's edits before notifying them, only their size, number and dates on the page history. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Because both Jack S and Doniago have mentioned issues that seem to fall under WP:WEIGHT, this RfC has now been publicized at the NPOV noticeboard. Suggestions on wording will be taken. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Further discussion

Who is posting the chapter information

I can clear up one of the issues that you have with Westeros.org @Jack Sebastian:. In his email,[41] Elio Garcia specifically said that he and Antonsson write the chapter-to-episode lists themselves. (I had asked if the task was delegated to interns.) He said, "Linda and I have created the chapter lists for the episodes. I can't swear they are 100% without error -- it happens -- but we produce them ourselves. No interns here." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So, the website owner is self-verifying his content, which he posts without editorial review (apart from himself saying 'yep, it's good enough'), which he himself suggests might not be accurate. Thanks for clearing that up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the author who literally wrote the book on the series, collaborated with and did fact-checking for George R.R. Martin, and consulted on the writing of the television show and says that he wrote and posted this information himself on a website that GoT writer Bryan Cogman referred to as "a tremendous resource." As for accuracy, I can confirm that they got their numbers right, but feel free to check yourself.

No one is claiming that the website is not self-published. The claim is that it is self-published by experts who meet Wikipedia's criteria per WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. For editorial review, you might be thinking of literally wrote the book on the series, which is not the issue here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but you keep stating that Garcia "literally wrote the book on the series". Can you reference that? I am seeing that Garcia's book covers the World of Fire and Ice that Martin wrote about in his books, not that the showrunners hodge-podged for the series. Likewise, you have not presented a shred of evidence that suggests that Garcia had anything to do with the writing or production of the series. You need to do that.

I believe you might have missed the sentence that followed your quote. Here it is: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". Many have insisted for months that it is not worth reporting. You are the only one who continues to believe it useful. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Jack. I'm guessing you've seen the links already provided, so here is more information about the book: [42] [43] Here is evidence that they worked on the series: [44] Hit CTRL-F "consult" and it will take you right there. [45] Hit CTRL-F "Cogman."

If I were the only one who thought this material was useful, it wouldn't currently be in multiple articles that I've never touched. We've already been through your other point. I've shown you sources that considered this material important enough to write about. You don't find them convincing and that's your right, but don't act like they aren't there at all or that no one bothered to post them here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that of your three links, the first is an except of the book (which makes no reference to either the series or the episode), the second makes no reference to them working on the series or the episode, and the third doesn't mention garcia working on the series at all. Perhaps you should have proofed your references better. Better yet, perhaps you think that just throwing a hail of citations up is going to make us submit.

With respect to JClemens, the GAs are wrong to include fansite links; its one of the reasons they aren't Featured Article quality. Any mention of Westeros.org belongs - if anywhere - in the external links. Not in the body of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the first link is for more information about the book since I had supposed that you'd already seen the other links that I'd already posted. Here is another article about the book that I have not posted here before: [46] Please read it and see if it answers your questions. The line, "The World of Ice and Fire is stated to answer any questions fans of the novels and the television series may have when it comes to issues such as the first beings to walk the land of Westeros..." suggests that it is about both the books and the TV series. The article also refers to, "Linda Antonsson and Elio Garcia, who are authoritative figures on the series’ storyline complexities."

I'll be more specific: If you hit CTRL-F "consult," you will see sentence or two about Garcia and Antonsson working as consultants on the television show. The paragraph contains "The couple also works as informal consultants on the television series," but there is more. If you hit CTRL-F "Cogman" you will see Cogman referring to Westeros.org as "a tremendous resource."

I'll remind you that Garcia and Antonsson don't have to have worked on the show itself to be considered experts on it. The fact that they produced articles about the show for third parties (in this case MTV Geek and Suvudu) addresses Wikipedia's expert requirements more directly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

While I am already aware of the slight intricacies of internet and document searches, I appreciate your repeated instructions on how to do so. However, doing so so in the link you have just added provides no note of their consultancy. Perhaps you intended to refer to another, previously added ref link.

Right, the book talks all about the history of what happened before the series ever began. That's like stating that a history book on the French Revolution is a source of current Republican Tea Party strategy. The book doesn't address the series, and suggesting that it does is WP:CRYSTAL:crystal-balling what a book that hasn't even been published yet is going to say. All the media suggests it only addresses the previous history of Westeros. For the books and for the main article for the series, you might have an argument for use as a source, but not now and not in this article.

The operative term is "informal consultants." This means they aren't paid, aren't a part of the production staff, and their name appears precisely nowhere in the series credits. Using that reasoning, I can be quoted as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation, since I edit for the encyclopedia.

The articles they have produced for third-party media outlets like MTVGeek and Suvudu are all far more acceptable sources of references than a slef-published fansite.

Even after all that, there remains the problem of noteworthiness. The only people really talking about this are fansites and a guy whose own COI means that he is a somewhat less credible source on anything related to the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the links that I'd posted in a previous post, right by my original CTRL-F "consult" and CTRL-F "Cogman" instructions.

No, this is more like if someone wrote a book about the history of the U.S. Republican party and was then cited as an expert in an article about the Tea Party. The Tea Party grew out of the Republican party the way the events of the books and TV show grew out of Westeros's history to the point where they can be considered the same general field.

The question is, "Are Garcia and Antonsson experts in the field 'Game of Thrones/Song of Ice and Fire' such that they may tell us which episodes match which book chapters?" The answer is, "Yes." They do not have to have written a book specifically about chapter-to-episode translation. They do not have to have been members of the TV show's official staff. What they have to be is 1) published in this field by third parties and 2) generally regarded as experts.

The people talking about this include Slate and AV Club.

Jack, I have to ask, with all this information you're clamoring for, is there any situation in which you'd say, "Ah yes. I see now. We're good"? Unless you actually care about the information, don't ask me for it. You're capable of working Google yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Number of respondents

It's the off-season for this type of article, so leaving this RfC open for the full thirty days would be pretty much harmless, but if it closes with no further respondents, will everyone here be satisfied that the question of whether Westeros.org is sufficient support for the disputed text has been answered? If not, our options include requesting formal closure, seeking further comment through the feedback request service, and contacting other editors who've made the next-most-substantial edits to this article, such as Flyer22 and Drovethrough. It may be relevant that I made two requests for feedback when I first publicized this RfC. Neither party has responded. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the RSN comments consider Westeros.org a suitable 'expert' exception to SPS, although everyone agrees that the information being referenced still has noteworthiness issues.They also recommend that if a secondary source can be found, it should be used instead. I agree with those concerns. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No they did not all agree that the information has noteworthiness issues. They said, "I didn't check for this specific text, but sometimes content similar to this has noteworthiness issues; look at those separately." None of them referred to the text, "Content from this episode ... chapters X, Y, and Z" specifically. That's not exactly the clear "Don't use this" that we got for Ana Carol. Also, all of the respondents to this RfC said that the source was sufficient support for the text.

What I'm getting at is this: Look at our first RfC. With respect to using primary sources alone, we got one no and one qualified no, and I didn't and don't agree with that, but I'm willing to abide by it until it's overturned (another issue, details upon request). Is two clear "yes" responses to an RfC a decision by which you are willing to abide or do we need formal closure or further good-faith effort to bring in more people? What is it going to take for you guys to say, "This counts"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

More than you have yet to present, Darkfrog24. You've been at this for months. Clue in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not failure to clue in, and suggesting otherwise makes you sound arrogant and rude.

It's possible you misunderstood me. I mean what's it going to take for you to say, "This RfC counts." We can wait a while to see if anyone else shows up, of course, but if no one does, we can consider it definitive as-is or we can ask for formal closure. Does anyone have any other ideas? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Closure requested

I requested formal closure on this today. It's been one week since our last new comment. This wasn't necessary on our last RfC, but those of us who've been here for a while interpret things so differently that it's probably best to take this extra step. As always, feel free to look at the closure request and let me know if you think it should be changed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ProtonK

These comments have been moved from the bulleted response section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In re: "Many of the contributors to this discussion have addressed that issue directly, Protonk, giving statement regarding whether they think the disputed text is important enough to include, independently of WP:V." I've seen arguments back and forth about this, but yet here we are with 3-6 RfCs (depending on how you count) on the subject over many months covering content which could fit into a tweet. That's nearly a textbook argument for mediation unless you feel this is a discussion which is likely to be resolved happily in the near future. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, yes, if not happily then at least solidly. One of the reasons this discussion has been going on so long was that it didn't occur to me to check the GA-rated Game of Thrones episode articles. If I'd done that back in April, we probably would have done this in one or two discussions tops. 1) We have a clear consensus that Westeros.org is reliable. 2) We have editors stating that this content is appropriate at a ratio of over 2:1. 3) The fact that every GA-rated GoT ep. article has a line like this naming specific chapters (or did until Jack got a little enthusiastic) indicates a wider Wikipedia consensus that this content is suitable. As for the nearness of the future, that all depends on the backlog at the requests for closure board. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Protonk, have you read this talk page and its archive? (Yes, an article about a TV episode that aired five months ago has an archive.) More talking, in whatever forum, would just perpetuate the cycle of a handful of editors repeating themselves at each other. What this article needs is RFCs to resolve the remaining issues definitively and send these editors on their separate ways. We need to kill this horse so that there's no excuse to keep beating it. Lagrange613 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a long-term participant, yes, please. I'd rather people just commented on the weight issue here (which was the point of phrasing the second question the way it's phrased) so we could get this matter settled rather than setting it up as a new hoop for us all to jump through. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the talk page and the archive (I closed one of the discussions which was on this subject). I don't think this needs yet another RfC. Because we've had like...50 of them so far. What it needs is a process like mediation. Something binding (so far as it goes), respectful to all participants and concerned with the holistic view of the content. You can keep having piecemeal RfCs if you like. I'm not a contributor to this article so it's no skin off my ass, as it were. But I think given the nature of the problem, approaching it with various "policy based" questions which take the form of votes from editors is counterproductive. The people who are invested in the article are underweighted (for a variety of reasons) and people like me who are more qualified to weigh in on policy and general guidance than on the specifics of the content are overweighted. That means I can come in here and see that westeros.org is a reliable source and that they say the thing we want to cite but I'm neither invested enough in the article being great nor in keeping contributors happy about the outcome. So we end up with a bit of text (or an absence of it) that irks long time contributors because they don't have a hand in it. Like I've said above, it's not really a policy question and our tools for handling non-policy questions in the RfC framework are sometimes a poor match. My suggestion is to pick a tool that's a better match and use it to improve the content. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The feelings of the long-time contributors are not and cannot be the figure of merit in this (or any!) article. They are clearly diametrically opposed, and no solution will make them all happy. It's time to pick a solution for them based on what's right for the article and get then on with the 4,609,699 articles not related to A Song of Ice and Fire. Lagrange613 21:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And to be fair to the other participants and myself, it's not as if we haven't already tried things like that. We called for a third opinion early on (when this discussion was still located at Breaker of Chains) but it didn't stick. I've been offering to work out compromise texts using language similar to what Protonk recommends; no takers. We should seek formal mediation only if there are people not willing to abide by the outcome of the RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the material isn't (and hasn't been) worth mentioning. Why not simply use an external link to the fan forum where the interested reader can find/explore to their heart's delight? The fact that the only place where they explicitly discuss this content is on a fan forum tells us about the weight that the world at large gives it. That's who we write for, and not just the fan. There are in fact sources that correlate chapters to the article ("Breaker of Chains", wherein a reviewer connects the differences in the rape scene to the book chapters that also cover it), where the comparison is a dispassionate, noninvolved discussion of the tone of the episode, and the larger issues the scene raises. This is just connect the dots, and has little or no place here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the text, "For a list of which specific chapters went into this episode, click here" takes up almost as much space as providing the information directly. Before this discussion started, I didn't know that sites like Westeros.org existed, let alone that they might be well-organized enough to supply me with this kind of out-of-universe information, and I'd read every book and seen every frame of the show.

If this content were only discussed on fan forums, your second point would hold weight, but it's shown up in Forbes, Slate, 538, i09, AV Club etc. etc. (and in Westeros.org, which is not a forum, fan or otherwise). Some of them use the chart and some of them use text. The world at large does acknowledge this content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding my post - please read it again more carefully. First of all, I am not suggesting any 'for a list of' nonsense. We put link in the External section that directs to the episode discussion as the fan forum, Westeros.org, calling it something like, "Oathkeeper episode at Westeros.org". Done. The reader gets a link to the non-noteworthy content at a fan forum, and we keep the article stable, intact, and well on the way to improvement.

Please note where they discuss the matter explicitly - as I stated in my post. Putting up a table and not pointing out specifics is not the same thing as saying such and such are from here. Drawing conclusions presumes importance and is synthesis. As for those sites you have mentioned where they discuss specific details regarding chapter connections, we already do that in the article, since a (non-fansite) source explicitly did so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but if we don't say "for a list of," then the readers don't get their information. The point of my post is that no, simply listing Westeros.org as an external link doesn't do the job. If a reader comes here looking for out-of-universe analysis or chapter information, it's not obvious that Westeros.org has it just from the site name alone.

Westeros.org is not a fan forum. It is not a forum at all. You should stop calling it a forum.

Actually, if you read the articles that cite the chart, yes they do discuss chapter matching in the text. Forbes and 538 are even more explicit. Your argument is that this information isn't addressed in mainstream entertainment journalism, but yes it is addressed in mainstream entertainment journalism. What all these articles do, both the ones that cite the chart and the ones that name single chapters, is demonstrate that chapter-to-episode matching is important enough to talk about. So we should talk about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2014 (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.