Sorry, I'm new to mailing lists, so bear with me. I am user Ccool2ax on English WIkipedia (too lazy to link), and I've noticed in the past that many "Episode summaries", plot summaries of TV shows, have absolutely no sources. They are completely OR. Family Guy, the Simpsons, Lost, all of them have no sources! Every time I bring up discussion I get "The episode is teh reference!" as a reply. I'm here to ask you guys what we should do about these thousands and thousands of OR articles? So far, all there is is WP:EPISODE (again too lazy to link), a small essay saying that episode summaries need sources. What should we do?
On 17/10/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I'm new to mailing lists, so bear with me. I am user Ccool2ax on English WIkipedia (too lazy to link), and I've noticed in the past that many "Episode summaries", plot summaries of TV shows, have absolutely no sources. They are completely OR. Family Guy, the Simpsons, Lost, all of them have no sources! Every time I bring up discussion I get "The episode is teh reference!" as a reply. I'm here to ask you guys what we should do about these thousands and thousands of OR articles? So far, all there is is WP:EPISODE (again too lazy to link), a small essay saying that episode summaries need sources. What should we do?
The episode is a source, the problem is whether we should be using primary sources like this.
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 17/10/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I'm new to mailing lists, so bear with me. I am user Ccool2ax on English WIkipedia (too lazy to link), and I've noticed in the past that many "Episode summaries", plot summaries of TV shows, have absolutely no sources. They are completely OR. Family Guy, the Simpsons, Lost, all of them have no sources! Every time I bring up discussion I get "The episode is teh reference!" as a reply. I'm here to ask you guys what we should do about these thousands and thousands of OR articles? So far, all there is is WP:EPISODE (again too lazy to link), a small essay saying that episode summaries need sources. What should we do?
The episode is a source, the problem is whether we should be using primary sources like this.
"Like this"? He has described a behavior that is vague enough that it could be totally appropriate use of the episode as a source or not. Shows like books are perfectly good sources for the facts of the events they contain. The problem is when we wonder into the area of literary criticism, in that case the episode or book is not a valid source for the simple fact that it does not verify the criticism.
SKL
Books and television episodes are often the most detailed sources for plot details, but other stuff like criticism still needs to be sourced with other sources. Without primary sources plot details of books, films, or tv series would never be as detailed as they should be.
If a tv show is released on DVD or has books published on them, they should probably be the preferred sources.
Mgm
On 10/17/06, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 17/10/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I'm new to mailing lists, so bear with me. I am user Ccool2ax on English WIkipedia (too lazy to link), and I've noticed in the past that many "Episode summaries", plot summaries of TV shows, have absolutely no sources. They are completely OR. Family Guy, the Simpsons, Lost, all of them have no sources! Every time I bring up discussion I get "The episode is teh reference!" as a reply. I'm here to ask you guys what we should do about these thousands and thousands of OR articles? So far, all there is is WP:EPISODE (again too lazy to link), a small essay saying that episode summaries need sources. What should we do?
The episode is a source, the problem is whether we should be using
primary
sources like this.
"Like this"? He has described a behavior that is vague enough that it could be totally appropriate use of the episode as a source or not. Shows like books are perfectly good sources for the facts of the events they contain. The problem is when we wonder into the area of literary criticism, in that case the episode or book is not a valid source for the simple fact that it does not verify the criticism.
SKL _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oldak Quill wrote:
The episode is a source, the problem is whether we should be using primary sources like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_seco... says:
"An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."
So it looks to me like a straight synopsis of the events depicted in a TV episode easily fits that bill and is not considered original research.
"An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."
So it looks to me like a straight synopsis of the events depicted in a TV episode easily fits that bill and is not considered original research.
I somewhat agree, but take a look at a Family Guy episode summary.. any one. See the Cultural References section? All facts listed there are entirely OR!
From "Peter's Got Woods":
"When Shauna, Brian's love interest introduces herself, there's heavenly singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background. This parodies a scene from Ferris Beuller's Day Off when Jennifer Grey's character tells Charlie Sheen's character 'It's Jean, but most guys call me Shauna.'" -No source, based entirely on editor's personal knowledge! THese things are all over these summaries!
Chris Picone wrote:
I somewhat agree, but take a look at a Family Guy episode summary.. any one. See the Cultural References section? All facts listed there are entirely OR!
From "Peter's Got Woods":
"When Shauna, Brian's love interest introduces herself, there's heavenly singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background. This parodies a scene from Ferris Beuller's Day Off when Jennifer Grey's character tells Charlie Sheen's character 'It's Jean, but most guys call me Shauna.'" -No source, based entirely on editor's personal knowledge! THese things are all over these summaries!
This is true, but also a shifting of the goalposts from your original question. You were originally just asking about episode summaries and I think it's still clear they're allowed. I never addressed anything else.
Stuff like this does need other sources, as you say. It's a separate issue.
[de-lurk]
On 17/10/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
I somewhat agree, but take a look at a Family Guy episode summary.. any one. See the Cultural References section? All facts listed there are entirely OR!
From "Peter's Got Woods":
"When Shauna, Brian's love interest introduces herself, there's heavenly singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background. This parodies a scene from Ferris Beuller's Day Off when Jennifer Grey's character tells Charlie Sheen's character 'It's Jean, but most guys call me Shauna.'" -No source, based entirely on editor's personal knowledge! THese things are all over these summaries!
I'd say nuke anything like that from orbit, along with any critic-esque writing that claims to describe the hidden allegorical meaning of a film, painting, book, music video/song lyrics, etc., without providing a reference from the director, artist, author or other creator of the item in question.
On 10/17/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
[de-lurk]
On 17/10/06, Chris Picone ccool2ax@gmail.com wrote:
I somewhat agree, but take a look at a Family Guy episode summary.. any one. See the Cultural References section? All facts listed there are entirely OR!
From "Peter's Got Woods":
"When Shauna, Brian's love interest introduces herself, there's heavenly singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background. This parodies a scene from Ferris Beuller's Day Off when Jennifer Grey's character tells Charlie Sheen's character 'It's Jean, but most guys call me Shauna.'" -No source, based entirely on editor's personal knowledge! THese things are all over these summaries!
I'd say nuke anything like that from orbit, along with any critic-esque writing that claims to describe the hidden allegorical meaning of a film, painting, book, music video/song lyrics, etc., without providing a reference from the director, artist, author or other creator of the item in question.
Congratulations, you've nuked half of the television-related articles on
wikipedia.
NOR is fine and good, but pop culture references do help people understand an episode. Instances would be scenes where (for example) the Simpsons rip a scene directly from a Quentin Tarantino movie.
Now, when is FOX going to publish a definitive list of pop culture references? How about never. They've got no interest in doing so. I know of few websites that do so either, especially when the show is less popular than Simpsons or Seinfeld-level popularity.
But to "nuke it from orbit"? Ouch. As for a source, see if one can be found, and if necessary just use the two sources side by side as your reference.
Deletionist.
On 17/10/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Congratulations, you've nuked half of the television-related articles on
wikipedia.
NOR is fine and good, but pop culture references do help people understand an episode. Instances would be scenes where (for example) the Simpsons rip a scene directly from a Quentin Tarantino movie.
...
But to "nuke it from orbit"? Ouch. As for a source, see if one can be found, and if necessary just use the two sources side by side as your reference.
Maybe I should have been more specific - I'm certainly not advocating the removal of /all/ pop-culture references. The original example quoted was:
"When Shauna, Brian's love interest introduces herself, there's heavenly singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background. This parodies a scene from Ferris Beuller's Day Off when Jennifer Grey's character tells Charlie Sheen's character 'It's Jean, but most guys call me Shauna.'"
That, to me, is not obvious. A scene ripped direct from a Tarantino movie is definitely a cultural reference, but "singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background" doesn't, to my eye, appear to have any relation to the quoted scene from Ferris Bueller's Day Off at all, and smells strongly of a fan getting a little too enthusiastic.
There are also cases of repeated cultural references/running jokes in shows that only become clear after a longer period of watching (for example [[1729 (number)]] in Futurama). These might seem harder to prove but are still an order of magnitude better to include than /hidden allegorical meanings/, which was the main point of my post. For example, suggesting that the "Alien" series of movies are actually allegories for the state of American politics, which I actually read in a print publication once.
On 10/17/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 17/10/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Congratulations, you've nuked half of the television-related articles
on
wikipedia.
NOR is fine and good, but pop culture references do help people
understand
an episode. Instances would be scenes where (for example) the Simpsons
rip a
scene directly from a Quentin Tarantino movie.
...
But to "nuke it from orbit"? Ouch. As for a source, see if one can be
found,
and if necessary just use the two sources side by side as your
reference.
Maybe I should have been more specific - I'm certainly not advocating the removal of /all/ pop-culture references.
Ok, you needed to be more specific then.
The original example
quoted was:
"When Shauna, Brian's love interest introduces herself, there's heavenly singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background. This parodies a scene from Ferris Beuller's Day Off when Jennifer Grey's character tells Charlie Sheen's character 'It's Jean, but most guys call me Shauna.'"
That, to me, is not obvious.
Perhaps not, and perhaps that's a good candidate for calling for a source on.
A scene ripped direct from a Tarantino
movie is definitely a cultural reference, but "singing of the name 'Shauna' in the background" doesn't, to my eye, appear to have any relation to the quoted scene from Ferris Bueller's Day Off at all, and smells strongly of a fan getting a little too enthusiastic.
Quite possibly; "one for the talkpage" would be my reaction. Put the question there, see if anyone can source anything to justify it.
There are also cases of repeated cultural references/running jokes in
shows that only become clear after a longer period of watching (for example [[1729 (number)]] in Futurama). These might seem harder to prove but are still an order of magnitude better to include than /hidden allegorical meanings/, which was the main point of my post.
That's also a good point, and again: a lot of time, series in-jokes don't get mention in publications or otherwise until there's some exhaustive end-all book about the series (which will only happen for serious cult favorites/major popular series, which is perhaps 5% of all series in totality), but they do have meaning and are worth mentioning.
For example, suggesting that the "Alien" series of movies are actually
allegories for the state of American politics, which I actually read in a print publication once.
Pot Smoker Monthly?
But seriously, I've seen those movies, and to say they're allegorical for anything other than bloodbaths is just silly.
On 10/17/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
I'd say nuke anything like that from orbit, along with any critic-esque writing that claims to describe the hidden allegorical meaning of a film, painting, book, music video/song lyrics, etc., without providing a reference from the director, artist, author or other creator of the item in question.
Or from notable critics, academics, etc. Creators aren't the only notable source of such things. Also, in some cases, a commonly accepted urban legend, even unconfirmed, becomes so common as to be worth noting; then, it will probably have appeared in writings discussing the urban legend.
-Matt
On 17/10/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/17/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
I'd say nuke anything like that from orbit, along with any critic-esque writing that claims to describe the hidden allegorical meaning of a film, painting, book, music video/song lyrics, etc., without providing a reference from the director, artist, author or other creator of the item in question.
Or from notable critics, academics, etc. Creators aren't the only notable source of such things.
Right. There is certainly a notability threshold, although unfortunately the margin of this email is too small to contain its definition.
Also, in some cases, a commonly accepted urban legend, even unconfirmed, becomes so common as to be worth noting; then, it will probably have appeared in writings discussing the urban legend.
Which is being discussed currently in the "blackboard" thread.
On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Earle Martin wrote:
I'd say nuke anything like that from orbit, along with any critic-esque writing that claims to describe the hidden allegorical meaning of a film, painting, book, music video/song lyrics, etc., without providing a reference from the director, artist, author or other creator of the item in question.
Well, good for you.
I'd fail you in any of my English classes for being a slave to authorial intent.
(Which is not to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as "For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively know how/what to cite outside of their field?")
-Phil
On 17/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I'd fail you in any of my English classes for being a slave to authorial intent.
It is a testament to my having given up English classes that I don't even understand what that means... :)
(Which is not to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as "For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively know how/what to cite outside of their field?")
Indeed.
Earle Martin wrote:
On 17/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I'd fail you in any of my English classes for being a slave to authorial intent.
It is a testament to my having given up English classes that I don't even understand what that means... :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent :)
(Which is not to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as "For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively know how/what to cite outside of their field?")
Indeed.
For stuff like this where one show is making a reference or homage to another, I'd say cite the thing it's making an homage to and count it as "original research" only if after watching the two side-by-side the reference isn't blatantly obvious. There will no doubt be borderline cases where debate can be had, but that's life on Wikipedia and shouldn't be feared.
On 10/17/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Earle Martin wrote:
On 17/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I'd fail you in any of my English classes for being a slave to authorial intent.
It is a testament to my having given up English classes that I don't even understand what that means... :)
Doesn't Amy Tan go around telling people they've got it wrong about her books for the sheer pleasure of fucking around with the nitwits who are slaves to authorial intent?
(Which is not to say "Hey, you know what we need, more OR" so much as
"For the love of GOD will people stop assuming they instinctively know how/what to cite outside of their field?")
Indeed.
For stuff like this where one show is making a reference or homage to another, I'd say cite the thing it's making an homage to and count it as "original research" only if after watching the two side-by-side the reference isn't blatantly obvious. There will no doubt be borderline cases where debate can be had, but that's life on Wikipedia and shouldn't be feared.
Bingo!
On 17/10/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
-No source, based entirely on editor's personal knowledge! THese things are all over these summaries!
I'd say nuke anything like that from orbit, along with any critic-esque writing that claims to describe the hidden allegorical meaning of a film, painting, book, music video/song lyrics, etc., without providing a reference from the director, artist, author or other creator of the item in question.
Couldn't we consider citing, say, the enormously vast corpus of Actual Serious literary and artistic criticism? Original research is one thing, but attempting to prohibit using any research whatsoever may be going over the top...
On 10/17/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
The episode is a source, the problem is whether we should be using primary sources like this.
That a new TV episode, once shown, almost immediately has a first summary on WP is in itself a good thing. It's a beautiful cultural process where the writable encyclopedia becomes a natural part of people's everyday lives.
As others have stated, the problems really begin when personal interpretations and observations come into play. In my opinion, unsourced trivia lists are the worst, followed by personal critique mixed with summary. That kind of material should be removed. I'm still thinking that a separate WikiTrivia might be a good idea since a lot of people seem very reluctant to delete trivia.
Some summaries are also simply poorly written, but then again, that's true for a lot of Wikipedia. To me, this does not itself justify deletion, just labeling and tagging (as well as positive tagging of good articles and revisions).