Talk:Breaker of Chains

Source for plot section, if needed
-- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/04/20/game-of-thrones-season-four-hbo/7949025/

Need link to source
This source, specifically, '' though some readers understand it as implying rape. ''. I need a direct link to it. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? It is directly linked. Just hover over or click on the source and then the URL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was purely viewing the source than the article itself. Derp moment. Tutelary (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL, no problem. Yes, a lot of us, including me, have had derp moments on Wikipedia. And I understand that, as someone who has not been registered with Wikipedia as Tutelary for long, you are still learning a lot about Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I realize that "implying" is the verb used in the source, but I don't find the information very clear. Do the readers think that the book scene is not rape but still highly problematic?  Do the readers think that it's consensual but so fetishized that it's still unhealthy?  Do they think that showing a woman who changes her mind from "no" to "yes" excuses rape even though the scene technically isn't rape?  I don't get it.  I feel that this comment should be explained further, because in its current form it makes it look like the SoIaF fans who think this scene "implies rape" think that a woman saying "yes" doesn't count. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't fret about it. Look at the source and read what it says. Then report on that directly. Which is why I was requesting a direct link in the first place. Tutelary (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did. The source does not provide that information, otherwise I'd just have fixed the passage.  It just says, "Some readers think this implies rape" or something.  It's probably misusing the word "to imply." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then it's by definition original research, and you should have no problem deleting it or omitting it. Of course, WP:BURDEN comes into play for those who restore the material. I would just add a tag saying 'not in source' or something along those lines. Tutelary (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tutelary, the inclusion of that material is not WP:Original research, and this is because it is supported by a WP:Reliable source. But like I mentioned to you before: "WP:Original research does not mean 'unsourced'; it means 'material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.'" That stated, I know that it's common for Wikipedia editors to call unsourced material "WP:Original research" simply because it is unsourced.


 * To everyone: From what I've read online, including the discussion forum that the source points to, it's both -- some readers think that the book scene between Jaime and Cersei is flat out rape because of coercion (they argue that she only says "Hurry" and "Yes" because Jaime is pressuring her, won't let up and is going to have sex with her anyway) and some readers think that "the book scene is not rape but still highly problematic." They also note the fact that the scene is told from Jaime's point of view, and therefore he could be interpreting the interaction as truly consensual when it is not. For example, this passage is heavily analyzed: "There was no tenderness in the kiss he returned to her, only hunger. Her mouth opened for his tongue. 'No,' she said weakly when his lips moved down her neck, 'not here. The septons...' 'The Others can take the septons.' He kissed her again, kissed her silent, kissed her until she moaned. Then he knocked the candles aside and lifted her up onto the Mother's altar, pushing up her skirts and the silken shift beneath. She pounded on his chest with feeble fists, murmuring about the risk, the danger, about their father, about the septons, about the wrath of gods. He never heard her."


 * The wording "implies rape" or "as implying rape" takes care of both of those matters (both of those views) without elaborating on that detail here (in the episode article). The detail can be elaborated on in the article about the book, if worth elaborating on with regard to WP:Due weight. However, we should not, and are not permitted to, elaborate without a WP:Reliable source supporting the elaboration. And I do think that this aspect should be briefly mentioned here in the episode article, because it's the television version of the scene that has caused fans and non-fans to reanalyze or analyze the book version of the scene and either see another aspect of rape or no rape, or a deeply troubling scene because it borders on rape. And this is what Rochelle Keyhan of HBOWatch, formerly, now , is concerned with reporting, which is why she added material on it to the Game of Thrones (season 4) article before most of the rape controversy was cut from there and some of it was merged here, and added a bit about it along those lines to this article; as seen in that diff-link, Tutelary reverted, and I commented on why Tutelary's revert was based on invalid reasoning, before adding a bit about Cersei initially rejecting Jaime's advances. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was not saying that Flyer or anyone added original research by saying that some of the readers think it implies rape. I was saying that I didn't think the information was specific enough.  On Wikipedia, we're allowed to add original research that was performed by the author of the secondary source, just not stuff that we did ourselves.  In this case, the source said something like, "some readers think this implies rape," so Flyer22 was not committing OR by adding that very information to the article.  However, the result is still really vague.
 * I think it's worth tracking down a source for some of that stuff you're mentioning, Flyer, if that is what the author of the secondary source was talking about. (As for Jaime L as an unreliable narrator, I'm not buying it. Martin doesn't do anything that subtle anywhere else in the series.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, I am 100% with you on terms of original research. It is not allowed, nor permissible to be Synthesizing the sources to meet a particularly POV or a version of what is needed. Indeed, what would you call quoting the book's version and adding your own spin to it? You looking at 'what the readers said' and attempting to gauge what should be putting into the article based on that. That's the very definition of No original research. You posting the passages of the books and elaborating on whether it was consensual or not is original research. Interpretation, evaluation, and meaning of the passage should be done with reliable sources. We as editors do not determine content, only verifiability. You even encourage this, saying, Now, if you were to include a well done, peer reviewed and researched survey of all the readers done by a respectable publication, describing that most of the readers by a majority (68%) thought it was rape, then that would be permissible. But as I see it right now, one editor gauging some readers' reaction, who are anonymous is not a credible source in terms of Verifiability.


 * I will also defend my revert. 1 The source cited is WP:PRIMARY (of the book itself). Any interpretation of the book should come from a reliable source, as you stated before. The edit you stated however did include the interpretation from the source, which is why I didn't revert it again. As well, http://screenrant.com/game-thrones-rape-controversy-george-martin-reaction/ <- Where you're getting the comments counts as self published sources. We are not going to take article commentators thoughts into consideration. Tutelary (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tutelary, as Darkfrog24 and I have made perfectly clear, I did not engage in WP:Original research. And relaying what fans think on the talk page is not WP:Original research, especially when citing a WP:Reliable source stating what fans think and pointing to what fans think. WP:Original research also explicitly states in its lead, "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)." Darkfrog24 asked what is meant by "implying rape" in this case among fans, and I answered, including by pointing exactly to what the aforementioned WP:Reliable source points to. I did not argue for what I stated here to be added to the article. I explicitly stated, "However, we should not, and are not permitted to, elaborate without a WP:Reliable source supporting the elaboration." Yes, my commentary on what fans believe can be argued as original research because we are not yet aware of a WP:Reliable source supporting it (with the exception of what the aforementioned WP:Reliable source states). But I did not violate the WP:Original research policy, per what that policy makes very clear about its rules.


 * And your reasoning for reverting Rochelle FPW is wrong, and this is for the reason I already stated; what Rochelle FPW changed the text to is supported by the sources used for the line in question, including the WP:Primary source that was there. There was no interpretation, and certainly no WP:Original research, on Rochelle FPW's part on that matter whatsoever. It is a fact that, as Rochelle FPW added, the scene "began with Cersei resisting Jaime, saying 'no' and attempting to push him off of her, but concluded with her saying 'yes' and participating in the sexual encounter." And screenrant.com counts as a WP:Reliable source. And be careful to realize that, like WP:Reliable sources, and the WP:Verifiability self-published sources section, points out, not all self-published sources are deemed unreliable by Wikipedia and therefore prohibited by Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to cede my argument. This is making me more stressed than I already am and I honestly don't want to deal with it. Do what you wish. Tutelary (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a note: Above, you made it sound like I stated the following: "Now, if you were to include a well done, peer reviewed and researched survey of all the readers done by a respectable publication, describing that most of the readers by a majority (68%) thought it was rape, then that would be permissible." I didn't state that. If that is simply your line, but it got lost in translation in a way, okay. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Novel itself as a primary source
WP:Primary states that primary sources as suitable for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source." Any educated person with access to the novel can open to the chapters cited in the article and see that they contain the events depicted in the show. No original research whatsoever is required.

I would have no objection to rewording the Production section to say something like, "Some of the events in this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z of A Storm of Swords," etc. The point is to provide the reader with the information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're comparing two primary sources. That's original research. Plot summaries (for both the novel and the show) are fine, but personal observations about what you think was adapted where requires a secondary source: from WP:WAF Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research; (emphasis mine) DonQuixote (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a personal observation about what I think. Open to the Jaime chapter and there's Joffrey's corpse and Jaime and Cersei on the floor next to it.  There is no opinion, analysis, interpretation, evaluation or explanation required.  Calling this OR is like saying I need a secondary source to say that a picture of Peter Dinklage in costume as Tyrion Lannister is a picture of Peter Dinklage in costume as Tyrion Lannister. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither primary source says that one scene was based on the other, although we can make a personal observation to that effect. Personal observations are OR. We need a secondary source connecting the two for us so that we can cite them. And your analogy is flawed. It's like saying that the Dinklage's costume was based on a description of Tyrion's outfit in such and such chapter. That's OR that requires a secondary source to verify it. DonQuixote (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article no longer says "based on." It says "parallels." That the events are the same is not OR; it is a straightforward fact. There is nothing more personal about it than about the statements "Cersei is blonde" and "Sansa wears a necklace instead of a hairnet, but both contain poison disguised as gems." The article no longer refers to who based anything on what.  It only says that the events are the same, which they are.  Like I said in my first post in this thread, if you would like to be even more explicit and say flat out, "This episode depicts events also shown in chapters X, Y and Z of A Storm of Swords," then go ahead. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Referencing to the |Book to Screen section of Elio Garcia's review at westeros.org would be the right think to do, as that's a reputable source (he's often interviewed as a ASOIAF expert, and co-authors of a book with Martin himself) --RR (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree.  Sandstein   10:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Parallels" is still a personal observation. But as RR mentioned, referencing a reputable source is the way to go. DonQuixote (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No it is not a personal observation, DQ. "Event Z happens in TV scene A" is a straight description and "Event Z also happens in book chapter B" is also a straight description. If you think it's OR to say "So scene A must have been based on chapter B," then fine; we'll phrase the article so that it doesn't say "based on." "Parallels" just means that they're the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying that they are the same is also personal observation. Making any kind of connection between primary sources is personal observation and original research. In fact, we can't even say that Game of Thrones the tv show is based on A Song of Fire and Ice novels without citing sources because that would be personal observation and original research--instead we cite reliable sources, primary sources and secondary sources, that say that one is based on the other. So it goes double so for episodes and chapters. DonQuixote (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "This is an apple." "This is also an apple." That's not personal.
 * DQ, I'm really starting to think that the "personal observation" line in the page you cited might refer to personal opinions or personal assessments, "observation" in the sense of, "I observed that Tyrion looked sad." That's not the same kind of observation as "Tyrion is wearing a brown shirt." What I'm doing here is the second kind of observation, talking only about what is and isn't in the show and book, not about what I think it means or what else surely must have happened. "A: TV Sansa finds out that her jewel was really poison" and "B: Book Sansa finds out that her jewel was really poison." If you feel that strongly about it, we can leave it to the reader to determine "Therefore C: Scene A was based on scene B." That's why I took "based on" out of the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, your analogy is incorrect. What you're saying is "This is an apple." and "That apple is the same apple as the first one (or the same species or the same prop or whatever)." That's original research which needs to be verified by a reliable source. And taking out "based on" is a good step, but replacing it with "parallels" is just as bad as saying "based on". The best thing to do was to cite a reliable source saying "based on" or "parallels" or whatever.
 * And to paraphrase WP:OR, be careful when using primary sources because it's easy to misuse them (accidentally or otherwise). The safest thing to do is cite secondary sources. DonQuixote (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then a more accurate analogy would be. "This is a picture of George Washington." "This is also a picture of George Washington." That's not original research. It's the opposite of being blind.
 * As I said in my first post in this thread, WP:OR explicitly states that "straightforward descriptions" are a suitable use for primary sources and it gives the plots of novels as an example. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying that one scene is like another scene is not a "straightforward description". It's you personal observation that one scene is like another scene. Look, saying that one primary source is based on or parallels or is like another primary source without a reliable source verifying it is original research. Given that, saying that a particular scene in one primary source is based on or parallels or is like another scene in another primary source without a reliable source verifying it is doubly so. That is, saying that one picture of George Washington is the same as another picture of George Washington, just because they look similar, is original research if you don't have a reliable source to verify it. DonQuixote (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that they're like each other. It says that they have the same events.  No one is saying that the pictures of George Washington show him from different angles or that one is bigger than the other or that he seems older or younger or that he's on a horse in one and on foot in the other.  It's just saying, "There he is over here and there he is over there." The article is not claiming that the TV scenes were better or longer or shorter or duller than the book scenes, only that they both exist and it tells the reader where they may be found.
 * Look at the actual text of WP:Primary: Primary sources may be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. Any educated person with access to the book can look at it and see that it contains this content. No original interpretation or original analysis is required.  It's like saying I need a secondary source to say "Sansa appears in both the episode and chapter XY." Original research would be something more like, "Sansa is sadder and more timid in the book than in the episode." That is equally true, but I'd need a source for it because that requires an assessment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Don, please stop deleting the reference tag. Whether you think the book should have been used as a source or not, it was.  The information in the article came from that book and including a reference to it in no way detracts from the article's accuracy, from its compliance with Wikipedia's rules or from the reader experience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing the book to support your assertion that the scenes are similar is original research. And it is completely unnecessary since a reliable secondary source does all that for us. DonQuixote (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * DQ, I'm going to assume that you've bothered to read WP:Primary, including the line where it cites using novels as primary sources for information about themselves, and that you just don't agree with me. I've read WP:OR and I don't agree with you.  If you want to explain why you think this is OR, I'll listen to you some more, but if you're just going to repeat yourself, save us both some time.
 * DQ, I am assuming that this is the source that was actually used when the original poster placed this information in the article, and I know it's the one I looked at when I reverted the deletion. It is not OR or in any other way inappropriate to cite a novel in a passage about itself.  As you say, we already have a secondary source, so what's the harm in also listing the place where the original Wikieditors actually found the information? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I keep repeating the same thing because you keep failing to listen. Yes, you can use primary sources, but comparing two primary sources is original research. That is, it is OR to cite a novel in a passage about something else, such as a TV episode, or more precisely claiming that the scenes in the TV show are similar to the scenes in the book cited. DonQuixote (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I haven't been paying attention, sorry about that, but we're both at the 3RR mark. So I'm going to back off for a while and just say this. The original edit involved comparing two primary sources without a reliable source verifying the connection. That's original research. Citing the book to support this doesn't make it any less original research since it doesn't say that the scenes in the episode were based on the scenes in the book--the reader has to go off and do original research to verify it (comparing scenes in two primary sources). Leaving this as-is is against OR and it just encourages further OR in other articles. Citing a secondary source is preferable. DonQuixote (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The original edit referred to the content of the book and did not require any synthesis or interpretation. As stipulated in WP:Primary, any educated person with access to the book can open it and see that the information is there.
 * And look at it this way, the secondary source that RR recommended isn't very good. It's a wiki that can be changed.  It may have been used before, but it doesn't strike me as the most reliable source I've ever used.  The fact that the book, the actual source material, is cited as well gives the secondary source's content more credibility.
 * If I'm right and adding this content is not OR, then referring to the novel itself is right and proper because that was the source used. If you're right and it is OR, then referring to the novel still does absolutely no harm.  We either gain by leaving it in or lose nothing by leaving it in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You still fail to understand that any act of analysis such as comparison is original research. Yes, the information is there, but the reader has to compare the two primary sources in order to come up with the same conclusion as the editor. Adding links to the primary sources does not make it any less original research. Using the novel as a citation for "Breaker of Chains contains scenes..." is incorrect use of citation because the source says absolutely nothing like that. If a link should be included, then it should be in "See also" or "References" something like that.
 * And if the secondary source is as flimsy as you say, then this tidbit of information may be too trivial to include in an encyclopaedia article. DonQuixote (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not a comparison; it is an observation. Here's Tyrion on the show.  Here's Tyrion in the book.  No one is saying "Tyrion is taller on the show than in the book" or (at least not in this passage) "Here is how the TV show scene between Jaime and Cersei was the same and different from the book scene." This source is only being used to say, "The book has a Jaime-Cersei scene." What analysis do you think I performed?
 * At this point I have to ask: Have you seen the book? I'm assuming you've seen the episode.
 * What link are you talking about? It's my understanding that we're talking about the reference tag citing A Storm of Swords.
 * Whether something has been properly sourced and whether something is trivial are two different things. As for whether it's trivial, given the nature of this fandom, readers will probably want to know where in the books to find these scenes.  I know I wanted a reread after seeing this episode. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

We're going in circles. Here's a thought, DQ: Would you feel better about this if the Production section were reworded to say, "The novel has a Jaime-Cersei Sept of Baelor scene in chapter ##; the novel has a Jaime-comes-to-visit-Tyrion scene in chapter ##," etc., giving enough description for the readers to conclude that these are the same scenes without explicitly stating that these are the same scenes? I feel that would make the section longer and clunkier than necessary, but that is a minor problem. I also have no problem with renaming the section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "It is not a comparison; it is an observation."
 * And as I've said from the beginning, personal observation is original research. From WP:WAF: "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research;"
 * "Here is how [the scene] was the same and different from the book scene....What analysis do you think I performed?"
 * You answered your own question. Comparing two primary sources and finding similarities and differences is original research. (Oops, misread that.)
 * From WP:OR, which you quote, "Primary sources may be used for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". That is, writing "Sansa escapes King's Landing (cite novel)" is acceptable. This is not the same thing as writing "Breaker of Chains contains scenes...(cite novel), which is a comparison, which in turn is an observation.
 * And as for what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the proper use of citations and reliable sources and avoiding original research. We can avoid the section being clunky or trivia by leaving the original research to reliable sources and citing the reliable sources.
 * "As for whether it's trivial, given the nature of this fandom, readers will probably want to know where in the books to find these scenes"
 * That's not the purview of Wikipedia. This tibit should only be included if reliable sources mention it, otherwise it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You know what? We're going in circles. I've explained why this isn't a comparison. You don't agree with me and don't seem to feel like explaining your position. Fortunately, this hasn't been about the content itself for a while but rather about which sources should be listed. DQ, please name at least one way in which including the reference to the novel detracts from the article. From over here, it looks like it does some help and no harm. Tell how you think citing the source that I saw harms the article or the reader experience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from original research, which is against policy, you can't use a primary source to "shore up" a weak secondary source. That's not how reliable sources work--you can only use other secondary sources to that effect. So it's an improper use of citations.
 * "Chapters adapted from A Storm of Swords to the episode were chapters 55...." That's comparison and original research--you've compared the two primary sources and inferred that those specific chapters were adapted. But more importantly, that line is nowhere to be found in the primary source that you're trying to cite, which is another improper use of citations. DonQuixote (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I removed those words last month, changing "based on" to "parallels" and "contains scenes also found in." I see someone else has changed the section back. It now reads, "Content found in 'Breaker of Chains' can also be found in chapters 55, 57, 61, 62, 65, and 66 of A Storm of Swords." No inference, no analysis, no comparison.  I'm fine with rewording it further so long as the readers still get their information.
 * Any OR objection to including the reference to the novel is rendered moot by the use of the secondary source. If I'm right, then including the reference tag is right and proper.  If you're right, then it still does no harm.  Primary sources do not have to be cited verbatim; we are specifically allowed to summarize them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be frank, removing those words is trying to obfuscate the issue, which is dishonest. You can't get around the fact that it's original research, which is why citing reliable secondary sources is the requirement.
 * As for "still does no harm"--improperly using citation and primary sources is harmful because you're using them improperly. And, no, you're not summarizing the primary source when you cite it like that. A summary is "Sansa escapes King's Landing (cite book, chapter, etc.)." It is not "scene X is similar to scene Y" because the primary source doesn't say anything like that, so by definition it's not a summary of what's in the primary source. You're improperly citing the primary source. Stop doing that. Cite the secondary source which explicitly says things like that. DonQuixote (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obfuscate the issue? You claim that saying "this was based on that" is OR, so now the article doesn't say that any more.  That solves the issue.
 * "What's in the primary source?" "The same stuff as in the episode." Yes that is a summary.
 * As I said earlier, I'd be fine with rewriting the section so that it reads, "Sansa talks to Littlefinger in chapter X" and "Jaime and Cersei have sex in chapter Y" and letting the readers figure "so scene Z must have been based on chapter Y" on their own. It's not OR to say "This is a painting of George Washington" with the painting as its own source and "This is a coin showing George Washington" with the coin as its own source.  No one is claiming that the coin was struck based on the painting or the painting based on the coin or even that the painting is bigger than the coin. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The same stuff as" is not a summary, it's a comparison, which is analysis. You deny you're making a comparison but your words say otherwise. As I have said above, you can only cite a source when it says what the text says, otherwise it's an improper use of a citation. DonQuixote (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN
Would you guys consent to participating at the dispute resolution noticeboard on this topic? It seems you guys have discussed extensively, and cannot come to a decision. Tutelary (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that'll be great. DonQuixote (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've requested a third opinion. DonQuixote (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Either one of you can file, but I recommend that you do it after if the 3rd opinion doesn't solve anything. I'm not going to as I'm not personally involved in this particular dispute. Tutelary (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've come here from the third opinion request. I'm writing my reply, will post it here soon. Diego (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. Can't wait. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just read DQ's request for a third opinion. It is inaccurate in one spot: Right now, we're arguing about whether or not the reference tag citing the novel A Storm of Swords in the production section should be kept or removed from it, not about the text of the article itself. (The issue of whether the content of the Production section is OR was rendered moot when someone recommended a secondary source.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So, here's my reply, in glorious wall-of-text format. The issues at hand are those of MOS:PLOT -how to report about fictional events- and WP:SYNTH - whether reporting about the book side by side with the film advances a position not stated by the sources. According to WP:OR, misuse of primary sources occurs when the article contains interpretations of the source material; I'm using SYNTH as the relevant part of WP:OR because that's the situation if we remove any assertion that there's a match between both media, and simply report the scenes in the episode and the same scenes from the book, which is the minimum way in which this can be written.

Usage of primary sources is covered by WP:FICTIONPLOT, which allows using the original fiction itself as a source "to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge"; I'm inclined to think that verifying the appearance of characters and major plot points in a chapter is reasonable under this light, as this is what allows editors to write plot summaries in the first place. The point of contemption is then the attempt to find what events depicted in the TV episode were taken from the book.

Now, synthesis appears when the editor adds to the article an interpretation not made by a secondary source. Interpretation is different from mere factual assertions; judgement values such as "it's a faithful adaptation" or some "significant events were altered" could be rightly considered OR, depending on their severity. Note though that similar assertions are sometimes made at other articles about fictional works, so it wouldn't necessarily be a crime to have them here, though that's not what's being proposed for this case. The contested version asserted that the scenes in the episode are the same as those in the book. Is this SYNTH? I don't think so, as long as the content of such scenes is not detailed in the article, and the major plot elements in the scenes are the same. In case of doubt, the common events appearing in both media could be listed as plot summaries of each chapter so that verification is easier for the reader.

Look at this fragment found in What SYNTH is not (an essay, but linked from WP:SYNTH for clarification of policy): "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources". But it is verifiable from the sources that the major events depicted in the TV episode are the same in the respective portions of the book, so reporting about both in a neutral tone, without advancing a position or value judgement, is not synthesis. In my mind, it's no different that using WP:CALC to include in an article the number of elements in a list, or the age of a person; even if the reported number does not appear directly in any source, the reader can access the reference and verify that the count is accurate.

"This thing exists" and "this other thing exists" are factual claims, not open to interpretation, and easily verifiable. "Sansa escapes King's Landing in chapter X in the book", and "Sansa escapes King's Landing at minute Y in the episode" are both true, and convey a relevant point about the fiction that is allowed in both cases per WP:FICTIONPLOT. If there are still doubts that including in the article assertions explicitly noting the parallelism would be OR, we can simply avoid wordings such as "this parallel this other" and "contains scenes also found in..." and merely report the same plot point appearing in both media, although I don't think that such style is necessary.

So, in short: it doesn't matter whether the third party is reliable or not - the coincidence can be verified directly from the primary sources. It's OK to have third-party confirmation, but not required; if Westeros.org reports the same that any reader can verify by themselves, then it is a verifiable source for this context - which is, to check that the essential content of each scene in both media is the same. Diego (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , the Production section is not discussing the deviations but the similarities. Those similarities are verifiable by reading the books and watching the episode. You're right about the interpretation of the title, that one needs a secondary source. Diego (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, that is a novel interpretation of our guiding principles. We as editors are not potted plants, but we are are likewise not notable enough to add any of our own critical assumptions about material. Our position as editors is to collate the material from references in such a way so as to create a cohesive picture of the subject. We are not the glue, mortar or chewing gum bridging any informational gaps. I know it seems clearly obvious or "common-sensical" to connect facts to provide comparison - and we do this all the time in the RW. However, Wikipedia is not the Real World; we agree to edit under the metaphorical physics of this world. That means that our viewpoints, our intuition or deductions are not allowed here.
 * We need a source that notes these (dis)similarities, as they are notable and reliable. We cannot. There isn't really a way around this, and a failure to realize that is failing to see the forest for the trees.
 * Lastly, this isn't really a sourcing problem, as I can think of at least 5 sources that do precisely that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with respect to "critical assumptions", but merely asserting that a character takes an action in the plot has not a bit of criticism in it; if it were, we couldn't write our own plot summaries, and we would be limited to reference rewordings of summaries made by third parties. Consider this:
 * We can write a summary about "Breaker of Chains" episode in this article.
 * We can write a summary about "A Storm of Swords" book in this article.
 * We can create a "See also" link at from Breaker of Chains to A Storm of Swords.
 * So, how is it that if we skip the link and summarize parts of "A Storm of Swords" in this article instead, we're suddenly breaking the laws of the universe? One more time, you need to take into consideration the nature of the material reported from the original work, as it makes a difference whether it's factual (which is allowed) or creative (which is not); but you're simply ignoring that part of the argument. Diego (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop being melodramatic, ; you see me as ignoring parts of your argument, whereas I am stating that your reasoning is faulty. We can write a summary about Breaker of Chains, as its the subject of the article. We can say that elements are drawn from Storm if Swords, because there is plenty of citable references that explicitly say so. The key part of that sentence is the bit about explicit, citable references. Without them, it becomes us drawing conclusions, and we do not - repeat, do not - get to fill in the blanks where a reliable source decided it was cruft or irrelevant. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. We do not get to make those connections. We have sources to either do that; the absence of sources negates the notability of the differences.
 * For that reason, we cannot include a summary of Storm of Swords in this article, but we can indeed put a 'see also' link to the article about the novel. I am unsure how to make the matter more clear. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, we can't cite the novel for the sentence "[these scenes] are based on [these chapters]" because the novel doesn't say anything like that. That's an improper use of citation and the source material. DonQuixote (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I read your words ("get to fill the blanks", "drawing conclusions") but they don't make sense to me, not for this case. If we have enough references to put the See also link to the article about the book, there are enough references to write a summary of its Plot section. Two editors now have proposed to rewrite the section in that style, so that the article contains exclusively explicit, citable primary references (the book and the episode) and no comparison is explicitly made between both. Also, you still have not provided an answer to the core argument: that citing a list of facts from the book is no more creative than writing the episode's summary. Diego (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Three editors, if we count DonQuixote's words (and I quote): 'writing "Sansa escapes King's Landing (cite novel)" is acceptable' as support for writing the section in that style. ;-) Diego (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing a list of facts from the book is acceptable, but that is not what's being done here. However, we must also ask the question, why are those scenes notable in the first place? That would require a secondary source to answer. DonQuixote (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference here is one of perspective, I think. For me, I look at the fact that we have reliable, explicit citation that the episode is based upon aspects from Storm of Swords. We can connect the two because of that. If we had reliable reference stating that such and such scene from the series was lifted from the book, or what was left out or what the differences/similarities were, we could include that. That the two are connected doesn't give us license (imo) to add a summary from the book. It furthermore doesn't allow us to evaluate differences or similarities. The book cannot serve as a source for discussing the differences because neither the book nor any other reliable, notable source discusses those differences/similarities.
 * In short, because the book doesn't discuss the similarities or differences between itself and the series, we cannot. This is why I utilized the term, "explicit, reliable sources". The sources need to make the comparisons, not us. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, how about if we do this. We look at the A Storm of Swords summary to see what scenes our editors have considered relevant to the book's plot (something that is clearly our editors' prerrogative). We look now at this article's plot summary, and for those sentences in the Plot section where the same things happen, we add a footnote stating what happens in the book where, such as: We have confirmation from reliable sources that the episode's plot is based on the book, so we *know* that having some facts appearing in both media in the same way is not a coincidence; it's implicit in "based on", which has been stated by the author - this is what "based on" means, for goodness' sake. This way we don't make comparisons, we don't analyze similarities or differences, we don't write a summary of the book, and we don't build any discussion about the contents of either retelling of the story. But the reader still gets the relevant information of what scenes appear in both media, which is the point of this exercise, with everything being impeccably and directly sourced and verified. How's that for you? Diego (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "In the book, King Joffrey is poisoned in chapter X", or
 * "Sansa meets Lord Petyr Baelish in page Y".
 * The point of this section is to show readers which parts of the book to read or reread if they want to find the content used in this episode. If anyone wants to write that in a longer form than the one I used, that's fine with me, but let's be clear: There's nothing OR about saying "X happened in chapter Y." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your intention, Darkfrog. Unfortunately, that isn't what Wikipedia is for. Maybe Westeros.org is good for fans of that sort of thing, but here is a concise overview of a topic. And allow me to be clear, if you as an editor say that 'X happened in chapter y' in an article about the tv series, that is in fact trivial. Furthermore, in the absence of citation from a reliable source considering it relevant in a discussion about the episode, it is synthesis in that you are Sherlocking two pieces of information and smooshing them together to make a connection that a source did not. So yes, there is something wrong with saying that 'x happened in chapter y' in an article about the tv episode. Were you talking about the book, you'd be fine. Here, not so much.
 * And, for the sake of assuming good faith, could you please resist the impulse to keep reverting until the discussion here is complete? It only complicates matters. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And in answer to your question, Diego, I have zero problem with the inclusion of the information, so long as any comparison between the series and the book (x from the series happened in chapter y in the book) is explicitly cited to a reliable source. We cannot make the connection; I believe I've made that point abundantly clear, - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, no it is not synthesis for me to say "Sansa appears in this scene" and "Sansa also appears in this scene." Saying "So the first scene must have been based on the second one" might be construed as synthesis, but that's not how the article is phrased. Please explain what analysis or interpretation you think I performed.  No your point is not clear.
 * As for "not being what Wikipedia is for," let me tell you, when viewers of the show want to know what chapters of the book to reread, this is where they come to find out, so yes, this is arguably what it's for.
 * Regarding the current format, I think it's a lot clunkier than we need and it would be best to put the information in one section instead of scattered throughout the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reverted out the addition of the book stuff yet again. The next time it is added prior to the conclusion of this matter, I'm going to seek administrative redress for the situation. Please work here to resolve the disagreement, because there is no way in hell you are going to force me to accept your changes by reverting the live-long day.
 * Darkfrog, it is indeed synthesis to point out that, in an article about a tv episode, you point out the character's differing (or similar) actions in another medium. You need a reference from a reliable source to EXPLICITLY make that point. You cannot, because you are not a citable source. You cannot read inferences or implications You cannot Sherlock any deductions about what the differences mean. Your job is to write about what other people say - that is the job of any editor within Wikipedia. ANY comparisons between different mediums for the same topic REQUIRE citation from reliable sources. If you do not have one, you cannot include the information. If this is presents an insurmountable problem for you, Wikipedia might not be for you.
 * Likewise, if you feel this format is too clunky for you, you may suggest another at either the Village Pump, or at one of the connected Wikiprojects within whose realm this article lies. Until then, work within the format given. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tone yourself down, Jack. It is just as permissible for editors to insert content as it is for other editors to delete it.  So far, Diego and I have been the ones offering new formats and new phrasings and trying to work out something that all parties would find livable.  It's time for you to do less posturing and more of the work: How about you recommend a way of phrasing this material that would suit your vision of how this article should read?
 * 1. Per WP:V, not all material must be cited so long as the source exists. The threshold is that it must be verifiable. 2. The material in question is verifiable and multiple sources have already been cited, including A Storm of Swords and Westeros.org.  I don't think Westeros.org is the best source but it's been used elsewhere in this and other articles and seems to be good enough. 3. WP: Primary explicitly permits using novels as source material for straightforward facts about their own plots.  Frankly, it doesn't get more reliable than that.
 * You seem to have misunderstood: The format that I think is too clunky is scattering notes throughout the plot description rather than having one sentence saying, "Content can be found in chapters X, Y, and Z."
 * You argue that it is WP:SYNTH to provide information. Explain your position. The article states "A: X is in the TV show." "B: X is also in the book." Where's the "Therefore C"?  There doesn't seem to be one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Answered on order of your points: The point where your editing goes from gentle misunderstanding of the editing process to one of tendentious reverting ad infinitum has already passed. When someone tells you to work out your issues on the talk page, you do so. Continuing to edit does nothing to calm things down and indeed makes it even harder to get your point across, since you've muddied the water by pissing off the pother contributors. This isn't "posturing"; you've been told what our policies are and you keep arguing that they aren't. The work has already been done. The only way to add the material you wish is to - and I am hoping that this is the last time I will have to say this (tho' I suspect it won't be) - is to have a reliable source explicitly make the comparison you wish. There is simply no ther way it can happen. Sorry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, you seem to be confused about why I am not obeying you. It is because the things you say contradict Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia doesn't require me to follow other editors' interpretations of the rules. It requires me to follow the rules themselves. Here, the rules say that it is acceptable to cite primary sources for straightforward descriptions of facts. If there is some other rule that trumps WP:Primary, please post a link and I will read it. You say that I have "misunderstood" the editing process. Point out how and I will hear you out.
 * Again, if you think a comparison was made, state clearly what that comparison was. If you would prefer to word the section, "Sansa does X in chapter Y" and "Tyrion does Z in chapter Q" that is fine with me, but it seems unnecessary.
 * If you're looking for someone who was shown a clear-cut policy and continued to revert edits and disagree with other editors, a mirror will do. It is no more or less objectionable for me to disagree with you than for you to disagree with me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This argument has gone on for almost two weeks at this point. I've been observing you guys go in circles. I urge one of you (though make sure the other isn't doing it) to file at dispute resolution noticeboard. You've already tried the third opinion, and that didn't work, so I figure this would be the next step. Tutelary (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, before asking others to 'contribute to the discussion before reverting', you should be willing to follow your own advice. You have reverted edits from two other editors, and you're failing to even acknowledge the points that Darkfrog and I have explicitly made about how our version is compliant with policy, and why the sources provided are reliable for the points made. At this point your own behavior is bordering the disruptive. Diego (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have acknowledged your and Darkfrog's arguments, and I've told you in no uncertain terms that you are misunderstanding the policies and guidelines in place for articles. Several times. I've made several attempts to point out why your proposed changes are non-compliant with those rules and policies. I urge you to file (or re-file) at DRN, though I understand that DonQuixote has already filed a report there regarding another article where you are seeking the same sort of maneuver as here. In the interest of AGF, I'll try one last time to acknowledge your points, and why I dismiss each of them in turn:


 * Your ultimate goal is to show a correlation between the book and the series, specifically, what scenes are covered from the series within the books.
 * You cannot do this without providing a reliable source that has chosen to illustrate this. You - as an editor - cannot put the puzzle pieces together, as that constitutes original research, and specifically synthesis in that you are taking two separate mediums and connecting them in the absence of reliable referencing.You cannot take two separate pieces of information and join them in comparison, as that creates a new idea. That idea must originate not from you but from a source outside of Wikipedia.
 * Because of this major stumbling block - one, I might add, you have not considered overcoming, anything else you propose in how to position this comparison is going to fall on deaf ears. You need to understand this, Diego. I need to believe that you aren't too far down the rabbit hole to see the main point everyone else hase been making: you need a source making the comparison. You cannot make the comparison.
 * You wish to utilize www.Westeros.org as a reference in support of your preferred edits
 * You cannot use Westeros.org as a source, as it is a user-driven fanblog, for the most part. This last caveat is an acknowledgement that very occasionally, it has interviews with notable persons speaking in their position in the series. Everything else is junk as far as Wikipedia is concerned.


 * If the above doesn't clarify my position with your proposed edits - a position that has not changed one iota in two weeks, then consider filing an escalation of the matter at DRN. You and Darkfrog have degenerated into appearing chronically unwilling to listen to reasoned explanation, even when that reasoning is provided by at least two editors with an enormous advantage in editing experience over yourselves. That last isn't meant to make you feel small or stupid. It's meant to help you realize that we have been trying to help you, and are running out of patience. If you refuse to get the point because it isn't what you want to hear, no amount of talk from experience is going to help. Maybe escalating the matter will allow the crush of experienced editors telling you what DQ and I have been for two weeks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and from my perspective, you are misinterpreting and misunderstanding policy. You want to know what Deigo and I don't agree with you?  For my part, it's because you're wrong.  I disagree with you and you disagree with me.  You reverted my changes and I reverted yours.  You don't get to cry "degeneration" for doing the exact same thing that you are doing.  Don't say that you've deigned to acknowledge other people's arguments as if it's some great gift.  We've done the same for you.  Listening to people who don't agree isn't above and beyond the call of duty; it's Wikipedia.
 * Yes, my ultimate goal is to show the readers where to find the episode's content in the books. That does not mean that said content is or was improperly sourced.  WP:Primary allows me to say "X happens in the book" with the book as a source and "Y happens in the show" with the show as a source.  You say that I am not allowed to put the puzzle pieces together?  I didn't.  I merely put them in the article where the readers can put them together themselves.  You have failed to show any specific rule that forbids me or anyone from making these statements in the article space.
 * Sure, this might be he-said-she-said, but I can cite policy that specifically supports my position. Do the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Er...no. You keep claiming that that policy supports you, but it doesn't. Seriously, the way citation works is that the text should be a direct quote or a paraphrasing of the source you are citing. This is basic stuff that you should have learned in school. The fact that you are doing neither of this is why no policy supports your position. DonQuixote (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, DQ, how are "this scene is not in the book" and "this scene is in the book" anything but straightforward descriptions of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source material? You haven't been able to answer that question so far.
 * You say that "citation" only applies to direct quotes and paraphrasing. Post a link to a Wikipedia policy stating this.  WP:Primary says that I'm allowed to do this, so show me some other policy that says I'm not.  So far, the affirmative evidence is in my favor.  Show me something other than your own opinion, as I've shown you something other than mine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the very definition of citing a source. You can only cite sources for facts that they contain--cite the page number!
 * From University of Pennsylvania: "In writing a paper, [citing a source] means: Showing, in the body of your paper, where the words or information came from, using an appropriate format;"
 * "This scene is not in the book" doesn't come from the book--it comes from you original research (or the original research of a reliable secondary source which is acceptable). This only goes to show your lack of understanding of citing a source. DonQuixote (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The information "This isn't in the book" does come from the book. I learned it from reading the book; it is a simple fact, verifiable by anyone who reads the book.  The UPenn quote does not exclude negative information such as, "Walden does not list the specific species of frogs that live in the pond" or "Thomas Jefferson does not mention King Francis in The Federalist Papers."
 * Now please tell me which of Wikipedia's policies states that only affirmative statements are acceptable or that lack of a specific page cited indicates that the author misused the source. WP:citing sources is clear that page numbers are not required every time. Right now we have one policy, WP:Primary, saying that straightforward facts about the source's content are allowed and no policy saying that they are not.
 * I realize that I've asked you this before, but could you please confirm whether you have read this specific book? Talking in general and extrapolating from other experiences is still fair enough, but your claim that the material is not readily verifiable would carry more weight if you've seen it yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The book doesn't say "this isn't in the book", you having learned it from reading the entire book is original research. Any such negative information is original research. For an academic paper, any such observations don't require a citation because it's your original work. Citation is used to show where previously published "words or information came from". Wikipedia's policy is no original research. That means we only cite previously published works through direct quotes or paraphrasing and don't include personal observations.
 * And my having read the book (which I have) is irrelevant to you not understanding what citing a source is. Fully citing a book includes citing the page number. Although this isn't a full requirement for citation on Wikipedia, any properly cited text can cite the page number when challenged. You not being able to do that means that you're improperly using citations. DonQuixote (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * DonQuixote, the current version of the article uses references for specific plot points that are cited to the chapter in the book where that plot point can be verified; and we could easily extend it with the exact page supporting each claim. Could you please clarify where do you stand with respect to this style to document the work's media adaptation in the Plot section? Diego (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still comparing scenes in the episode to scenes in the book. That's still original research. You need to be citing secondary sources which does all that for you. DonQuixote (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have then to agree with Darkfrog24 when he request that you further explain your position in the light of the arguments we have made as to why this is allowed:
 * how is directly stating a fact from the book a comparison, if the text doesn't actually compare both media?
 * why is not enough for you the available secondary reference explicitly stating that the TV episode is based on the book?
 * how is this different from MOS:PLOT, which allow us to determine what scenes in the original media are significat? How is this OR, but MOS:PLOT not OR?
 * how is this different from the WP:CALC policy, which doesn't require a secondary source that directly supports the content of the article? Diego (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. You're placing it next to text describing the episode. Ergo, you're comparing the episode with the book, which is original research.
 * 2. The only thing the secondary source says is that the episode is based on the book and that's the only thing we can state without going into original research.
 * 3. Summarizing the contents of a source is not the same thing as comparing two sources.
 * 4. This is not a routine calculation.
 * DonQuixote (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And none of those differences is relevant to the application of policy; sincerely, I expected that you would try to provide some insight in how the principles behind those policies are not applicable to this case because of some fundamental difference on how they are supposed to affect editors, instead of this mere recollection of their trivial and superficial dissimilarities. I have chosen those arguments because they show how your inflexible, absolute position (that the only words that go into an article are those that can be found in a secondary source) is a false interpretation of the Original Research policy when taken as an absolute rule as you did, as those exist as commonly accepted counter examples of your statement, i.e. as content that editors regularly add to articles without copying them from a reference that explicitly makes the same assertion. Diego (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Er...what? I don't know what you're blathering about, but I answered your points directly. And thanks for your straw man. I never said that the only words that go into articles are those found in secondary sources--I said don't do original research. That's a huge difference. You can quote primary sources, but the moment you try to state what primary sources don't state outright (that is, in words and sentences), then you're crossing into original research, which can be avoided if such things (like comparisons of primary sources) can be found in secondary sources. That is, anything that's original research should be attributable to secondary source. Anything that's not original research is fine. This is the original research policy. DonQuixote (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for interpreting that sentence as requiring that we can use only words from published works; I though that when saying only you meant "only" (BTW everything I added to the article can also be found in the references). Yes, you've answered my points directly, but as I said your replies don't demonstrate in any way that the principles at hand in MOS:PLOT and WP:CALC couldn't be applied here - namely that not everything not explicitly found in secondary sources is original research. I know the original research policy as well as you. My point has always been that my additions are not original research, as everything in them is easy to verify. And if it's not original research, then it is fine. Diego (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Er...yeah, read within context. The context was about citing sources as in "". And here's another reiteration of the same point: . Nothing like what you're reading it as.
 * And I've explained that MOS:PLOT is about summarizing sources not comparing two sources. As for WP:CALC...this is not a common calculation. That's why those things don't apply here. Direct answers.
 * Here's the thing, everything can be challenged, including common calculations like 2+2=4 and common knowledge like the sky is blue. When challenged, it's very easy to find sources for citation (that's why it's unlikely for them ever to be challenged). The fact that you're trying everything other than simply and directly citing a source when challenged is a fair indication that it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And as I explained, summarizing the book is in no way making a comparison of how the scene has been adapted. I have provided lots of sources directly verifying the notes in the Plot section (one for each note). The fact that you don't accept those sources is only an indication of your personal opinion about what sources are reliable for the content. At this point, the only reasonable action would be agree to disagree with my own opinion, instead of insisting that you know the only possible way in which policy must be interpreted. Diego (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's right, summarizing a book is in no way making a comparison. Therefore, making a comparison is in no way summarizing a book. By placing notes about a book next to text describing an episode, you're making a comparison between the two. That's why MOS:PLOT has nothing to do with what you're doing and so it doesn't apply here. DonQuixote (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

nailed it, really. But I suspect you already know this, and are well aware of both his and my arguments. You cannot use a book to reference a tv episode, because - even though they one is based upon the other, there are notable differences. Those differences present a barrier to any Wikipedia editor from creating a bridge from one to the other. Darkfrog has readily admitted he wants to be able to cite the book to compare it to the episodes; this is the very definition of synthesis. Nowhere in the book does it compare itself to the series, and nowhere in the series content does it compare itself to the book. Reviewers make that comparison. Diego and Darkfrog are not reviewers, or even usable sources of information. Editors do not contribute content. They cite the content from others. That's how it works. I urge the two of you to ask around about your viewpoint. You will find it is not just an "opinion" that DQ and I have, it is in fact the policy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So is your view. But you deliberately forget that Wikipedia rules are not to be applied as laws that govern our behavior, but as best practices to be followed when they improve Wikipedia as determined by consensus on how the rule applies to the case at hand (and I have seen no effort on your part to achieve a consensus solution). Or, if that oversight is not deliberate, then your grasp of how Wikipedia rules work is not as good as you think it is. To apply a rule you need to show how it improves the project, but you insist on imposing compliance with the way you see the rules, with no expected benefit other than following the rules for their own sake - which is actually against our behavioral guidelines. Diego (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW I'm aware of your arguments (which I find lacking in substance and not that well grounded in policy); but you seem to be unaware of mine. Your earlier recollection of the arguments completely failed to understand the points I'm making based on Wikipedia policy and keep misrepresenting them, and in one case you attributed to me the opposite of my real position (with respect to using www.Westeros.org, which I explicitly stated that is not needed). But it's no wonder, as you've decided to be deaf to anything I have to say. If the dispute resolution is going anywhere, I politely request that you at least recognize the arguments I'm actually making and agree to disagree with those, instead of with a mischaracterization of them. Diego (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Re: Can't we simply agree to disagree on that assertion, please? You can't seriously argue that this claim is directly supported by the WP:OR policy with no possibility that it's open to interpretation, when WP:OR includes no text about what constitutes a comparison. As Darkfrog24 stated, your analysis of WP:SYNTH lacks the "therefore C" step that would constitute original research. Diego (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No because the latest iteration of what you are doing is annotation. Annotation is almost invariable original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Two comments:
 * 'cause you say so, and
 * Then, following your logic, you should be OK with creating an Adaptation section which only contained sentences like "In the book, Samsa does X (ref book)" and "In the book, Jon does Y (ref book)", as those are not annotations but summary. Diego (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Dictionary.com: "Annotation: a critical or explanatory note or body of notes added to a text." And the only reason that your putting those notes at those places is to compare the episode with the book. You just can't escape the fact that you're comparing the two sources.
 * 2. The correct way to cite a primary source is "In the book, Sansa does x (ref book)", etc. I'm okay with correctly using citations. An adaptation section is okay if you can avoid original research. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can create an adaptation section comprised solely of things like what you're suggesting. Why are you putting summaries of the novel in an article about a TV episode? Is it notable? Etc. DonQuixote (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What you call a comparison is not original research if such comparison is verifiable. This is what I tried to explain when mentioning WP:CALC (which allows for making comparisons that are not original research), not that these notes are a way to perform a calculation as you inferred.
 * Because we have reliable sources stating that the TV episode is based in the novel, and notability has nothing to do with article's content. Diego (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is indeed OR, since you have yet to produce single reliable, secondary source that explicitly discusses the differences between the book and the episode. Rather than argue for weeks about this, why not find a review from a reliable source that indicates the importance of this information, because as of now, only you and Darkfrog seem to think this is critical to the article.
 * You have a source that says the episode is based upon the novel. Your source says nothing about what parts of the novel were incorporated. Without that, you are dead in the water, my friend. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'cause you say so?
 * You seem confused about content policies. Verifiable content that is referenced to primary sources is not original research.
 * If you want to play number games, only you you and DonQuixote seem to think this is forbidden in the article, so we tied even. Diego (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because the rest of active Wiki editors think so. I am not your problem. Your interpretation is.
 * It is original research when you make a claim beyond the source material. If you disagree, you should feel entirely free to cite where in the book (or the episode) that explicitly tells us it is adding or removing material. If you don't have it, it becomes you making the decisions, and that is a misuse of our sources to enforce a viewpoint on your part that these differences are important. As mentioned before, you should - instead of arguing with two well-intentioned editors - is to find the reliable secondary source that talks about the differences or similarities. That would solve just about every problem here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually and to address a valid point that you made, I'll say there's a good reason why I insist that it's reasonable and beneficial to allow this mapping from episode events to books events from primary sources. If your interpretation of policy were held as the only valid, it would severely harm Wikipedia as it would force us to trim such mappings from all articles were they're made, for no gain. I agree that finding secondary sources is better, as it would allow us to decorate the article with the opinions that critics have made about the adaptation work, thus expanding the plot section beyond the perfunctory statements that Verifiability from primary sources allow. What I'll dispute is that finding those sources is a requirement, as no Wikipedia rule can force editors to make the project worse only to satisfy some checks, only to be able to state that procedure was followed. Diego (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IAR is not a blank check to misuse sources to support a unique and incorrect viewpoint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * How fortunate, then, Jack, that no one has misused any sources and that the text of the article supports no viewpoint at all. IAR isn't a blank check, but WP:Primary isn't blank at all.  It says that we can use a novel to cite facts about its own content.
 * Correction, Diego, myself and the editors who originally added the content thought it was relevant to the article, at least enough to add it.
 * Like I said on "Oathbreaker," secondary sources were provided, and sure you're allowed to question them, but the fact that you and DQ have rejected every source and suggestion without visibly doing any affirmative work of your own makes me think that maybe OR isn't the real or at least not the only problem that you have with this text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * …And that is where you and Diego get all twisted up: "we can use a novel to cite facts about its own content" - that is true, but you aren't adding it to the article about the novel. You are seeking to add it to an article about something else. Because of that, you cannot use PRIMARY as some sort of shield. You need a reliable secondary source that ''explicitly says all that (and be aware that Westeros.org is not considered a reliable source). As for the sources that you and Diego "and others" (read: IP addresses that seem to have popped up to defend your edits from you basic geographic location - odd, right?), the only ones we have nixed are those from Westeros.org, a user-driven fanblog and any primary sourcing to the book. While I inadvertantly removed some of the secondary ones, I've partially reverted them.
 * Again, instead of complaining about us difficult editors who are ruining your usage of primary sourcing, why not just get the friggin' secondary references from a reliable source. Enough with the drama. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:Primary doesn't stipulate what kind of article a primary source can be used in. It stipulates what kinds of facts may be attributed to that primary source.  There is precedent for using novels as primary sources in articles about adaptations so long as they are used for straight facts.
 * Like I said on Oathkeeper, I did find secondary sources, which you didn't bother to read before deleting the content as unsourced. That makes me think that WP:OR is at the very least not your only objection to the material and that if I spend another hour digging through the web, you'll just raise some new objection that you've kept under wraps until now.
 * Also, that doesn't address the issue of keeping the tag citing the novel. The novel is 1. the most reliable source possible for this information and 2. where I actually found said information.  It is right, proper and beneficial to cite it, regardless of what other sources are or are not used. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you read PRIMARY wrong. Again. You can use primary source of a novel to describe the novel, not how it interacts with something else. You wish to compare the two - you've admitted as much - and comparison is an evaluative effort. Evaluation - as per WP:NOR - requires secondary referencing.
 * I'v already noted (several times now) that if you find secondary, reliable sources that ''explicitly state what chapters appear in which episode, then you are golden. Do I need to use all caps to further highlight this? Without secondary references, you are dead in the water, since it is incorrect, improper, and deleterious to include a malformed citation reasoning in the article. Someone would have to fix it later. Why not do it right the first time, instead of bitching about why I am such a meanie? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement "Danyeris chooses a champion in chapter X of the novel" doesn't discuss how the novel interacts with something else. It simply relays a straightforward fact about the novel, which WP:Primary explicitly permits.
 * Actually, I'd prefer it if you stopped repeating yourself. I heard you the first fifty times.  You think I'm wrong.  I think you're wrong.  On a similar matter, please stop acting like we haven't discussed secondary sources.  I did find some, but you didn't read them and deleted the content anyway, which makes me believe that no amount of extra work would satisfy you.  If you want, you can prove me wrong by doing some of the sourcing work yourself, or perhaps suggest something else that would address this issue, but until then, please take the record off the turntable.
 * And considering that WP:Primary permits the use of primary sources for straight facts I did do it right the first time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I cannot help you anymore. I've already told you umpteen times that I was sorry I removed your two secondary references. I put them back in. I've already told you how PRIMARY works and does not work, and you refuse to even consider that you are wrong. I cannot assist your learning curve any longer, as my time is too valuable to waste. I will contribute to the DRN until you learn from the host of others who will also tell you that you are wrong. Until then, I will simply remove any addition of primary sourcing to the article.
 * And since I know you just love having the last word, I'll let you go ahead and take another shot at me. I get it; you appear to be the sort who needs that sort of little victory. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Anymore"? Jack, you haven't helped at all.  You've participated. That's not bad but it's not the same thing.  Explaining your position isn't an above-and-beyond service that you perform for other people; it's par for the course.  Trying to get other people to agree with you isn't the same as helping them.  I've told you how WP:Primary works.  Would you describe that as me helping or educating you?
 * If you want me to believe that you are right and I am wrong, here are some ways you can do it: 1. Cite a Wikipedia policy that explicitly supports your interpretation of the rules. 2. Show me a precedent, an article in which the rules as you interpret them were held true (like I did for the use of novels in articles about their adaptations). 3. Show me a resolved discussion in which your position was established as the consensus. It is very arrogant of you to just expect me to prefer your opinions to my own.
 * And for the record, no you didn't apologize. I didn't ask or expect you to, but lets keep it to reality with regard to what did and didn't happen.
 * No, you don't know any such thing about me, and claiming otherwise is inappropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of precedents, I found a whole lot of them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Second Request for DRN

 * This argument has gone on for almost two weeks at this point. I've been observing you guys go in circles. I urge one of you (though make sure the other isn't doing it) to file at dispute resolution noticeboard. You've already tried the third opinion, and that didn't work, so I figure this would be the next step. Tutelary (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * DonQuixote filed there last night, actually. No takers so far.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for dispute resolution and hope that it will achieve that all arguments made are heard and acknowledged by the participants. Diego (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's up there now, Diego. Jack S listed him/herself as participant, so I guess you could too if you want.  You've contributed strategies for placement of the content and attempted to reach a compromise version. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, . If you are confident in your arguments, please bring them to DRN. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until the DRN is open, as it says that discussion should be kept to a minimum until then. Diego (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I finally made an initial statement in the DRN, as I've found out that the requirement to keep discussion to a minimum refers only to interaction between editors, not those statements. Diego (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, we should take this discussion there, then? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight
The one citation of one person's review, and the offmark of the reaction I've seen on Twitter, in emails and on other blogs suggests nobody is agreeing with Graves' interpretation of the scene and are viewing it as rape, plain and simple. is undue weight to the claim of 'generally interpreted as rape by viewers.' Anybody can claim that it was 'generally' done, but what credentials does this person have? According to the person's Wikipedia page, they are a television reviewer and a writer. They reviewed it, that's it. They don't have the statistics nor anything of the sort to verify the vague claim. They 'suggested' something, and it gets reported on Wikipedia as 'generally interpreted as rape by viewers'? That's the definition of undue weight. Tutelary (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no. The undue weight policy provides that "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." Considering that, in this case, the view that the scene at issue did not portray rape is not, as far as I know, represented in any reliable source, it would on the contrary be undue weight to include that view. What you refer to is a different question, namely, whether Alan Sepinwall writing in HitFix is a reliable source for the statement that viewers interpreted the scene as rape. Considering that he is a reputed journalist writing for a reputed publication, and no source has been cited for any opposing view, I think the question answers itself.  Sandstein   16:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am referring to undue weight in the context that this person is a reviewer of television shows and a writer. I believe that the statement 'generally interpreted as rape by viewers' should be better more attributed to a better reliable source, as it implies via juxtaposition that it was the primary and dominant role of what had happened. We are giving it undue weight by not attributing it to one individual. Their observation does not meet the entirety of 'generally interpreted as rape by viewers'. Now, if there were to be actual statistics, say online polling, where a majority of people indicated that, then it would not be undue weight. This however is one person's 'suggestion' that most people supposed it as rape. As well, the burden is not on me to produce the sources, but on other people to provide them. Reliable sources should be used in effect. The lack of sources stating that it wasn't rape is not my point, nor my onus. Tutelary (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: The section does include WP:Reliable sources showing that some people, including one of the actors, did not view the scene as rape. That view, however, going by the vast majority of sources on this topic, is the minority view. As such, it's covered in that section with appropriate WP:Due weight which demonstrates it as the minority view.


 * As for the source at hand, I see both Sandstein and Tutelary making good points, though my initial thought was that Tutelary is misapplying the WP:Due weight policy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is entirely not an issue of weight, but an issue of verifiability. I submit that a highly reputed media journalist's observation of Internet responses to a scene (not merely a "suggestion") is well suited to serve as a source for a statement about how viewers interpreted a scene. Statistics are not necessary for that. The observation is attributed to Sepinwall by way of the footnote.  Sandstein   17:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'suggestion' bit was not added by myself, but by the author themselves. Tough there aren't comments on these reviews at the moment, the reaction I've seen on Twitter, in emails and on other blogs suggests nobody is agreeing with Graves' interpretation of the scene and are viewing it as rape, plain and simple. The author is not asserting it, but suggesting it, which only dampens this even further with undue weight. The author does not state that they stated that, only suggested it. I believe a good compromise solution would be to directly quote the author and exactly what they said. Additionally, if this is the majority view point, there would be more sources stating that 'it was generally interpreted as rape' with slight synonyms of wording.Tutelary (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done such. Tutelary (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with this edit by Sandstein. Not only was the blockquote visually unappealing, to me at least, it gave WP:Undue weight to that quote out of all the other quotes in the section. WP:Blockquote recommends that "a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length)" be placed into a blockquote. I often find it easier, and prettier, to break up a quote (such as with "he said") instead of putting it in blockquote. I would have removed the blockquote you added, but I wanted to see if Sandstein or anyone else would address that edit. As for whether or not the majority of viewers interpreted the scene as rape, I think that reports on the matter show that they did; the reason that we emphasize the "it was rape" viewpoint in the section far more than the "it wasn't rape" viewpoint is because there are far more WP:Reliable sources interpreting the scene as rape than there are ones that don't. So we have given WP:Due weight to the view expressed in the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, like we should. I agree, however, that it's best that a source actually states "generally" or a synonym for it, or shows some data that it's a "generally" matter, before we state "generally." Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: With this edit (followup here), I altered the Alan Sepinwall text a bit. Per WP:In-text attribution, it's better to use "stated" than "According to" in this case. Even using "stated" is questionable for that piece, since it's a fact that many (obviously not all) viewers interpreted the scene as rape. Flyer22 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Writing section
I noticed that FiveThrityEight was used as a source to note that this episode was mentioned there. Looking at the linked reference, it appears that they do not mention this episode at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Oathkeeper
There's an RS-related RfC on Oathkeeper. Participation and fresh voices would be welcome. The matter concerns a single-line reference to the chapters upon which the episode was based. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Westeros.org an expert SPS?
There is an RfC at Oathkeeper regarding whether the site Westeros.org meets the criteria for an expert self-published source (and is therefore suitable for use on Wikipedia). It is being cited as a source for the statement "This episode was based on [specific chapters of] [specific book]." This article is likely to be affected by the outcome. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?
The RfC concerning Westeros.org was closed with the result that the value of the disputed text should be addressed separately. This RfC is meant to determine whether Game of Thrones episode articles should have a statement like "This episode was based on [specific chapters] of [specific book]" in the body text. (This article had one not long ago.) The outcome of this RfC is likely to affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. Participation is greatly appreciated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Forces himself upon" vs. "has sex with"
A number of editors have gotten involved with this on both sides. Some people have objected to saying that Jaime "forces himself upon Cersei," preferring "has sex with a reluctant Cersei" on the basis that the idea that Jaime forced himself on Cersei is just an opinion. There are two problems with this.

A) When the woman is saying, "No no! That's not right!" and trying to push the guy away, then "That's a rape scene" is not an opinion.  It is an observation.  Since the majority of reliable secondary sources made the same observation, it is okay for us to restate that observation on Wikipedia.

B) "Has sex with" is not a neutral phrase. In this context, it has very strong connotations that the act is consensual.  If it's "just an opinion" that this is a rape scene, then it's also just an opinion that it shows consensual sex.

The plot summary should state that this was rape or at the very least not imply that it was consensual, but there's more than one way that the article could express this.

Here are some options:

1) Say "forces himself upon Cersei" and have a large section later in the article that discusses all the scene's complexities in detail (article's status quo before this issue came up).

2) Say "in an act that most critics and viewers interpreted as rape".

3) Say, "pushes Cersei down next to Joffrey's bier and has sex with her despite her protests" (which would dispel the connotation).

4) Other suggestions (please add below). Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Critics' consensus is that this was a plain act of rape, see Breaker of Chains, and "has sex with" is an euphemism. I am in favor of version 1, which is the same as 4 but more concise.  Sandstein   17:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I usually wouldn't state that "has sex with" is an euphemism, but I can see how it's one in this case. Still, it's usually argued that "make love" is an euphemism, and editors have cited the WP:Euphemism guideline for using "has sex with" instead of "make love." But, anyway, "forces himself upon" is truer to what viewers interpreted of the Jaime and Cersei sex scene. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * On a side note: I wouldn't approve of "in an act that most critics and viewers interpreted as rape"; this is because that wording takes the plot summary out of WP:Inuniverse style, and suddenly starts referring to the real world. I prefer plot summaries to be WP:Inuniverse, unless presented like the Pauline Fowler article's plot summaries; but if they are not WP:Inuniverse, I would rather that be the case throughout, not suddenly out of nowhere referring to the real world. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)