Talk:Oathkeeper/Archive 2

Image File
The previous uploaded image it's clearly fair use as other seasons episodes fits exatcly in the same category (check all season 1 articles) and this article's image finds itself inside the same requirements, so why the exclusion? It fits well a polemical point decipted in the episoded, as it was made on all season 1 articles and on "Mhysa". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10mandown (talk • contribs) 03:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for coming to the talk page to sort this disagreement out. I think your reasoning is good, but I thought - in the absence of a solid precedent for inclusion, that I'd pose a question to the Fire and Ice WikiProject (you can find that here). I was hoping we could wait to hear back from them before proceeding. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I could get behind saying "This is the night's king" or "This was later revealed to be the Night's King" if such is established either in later episodes or in outside articles. Even something like, "Reviewers from [source] have speculated that this may be the Night's King" [reftag] would be acceptable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

'Adaptation' section removed
I've removed the following from the article:
 * Adaptation
 * Some of the content from this episode also appears in chapters 57, 61, and 72 of A Storm of Swords (Daenerys V, Sansa V and Jaime IX).
 * The scene at the end of the episode, which shows what the White Walkers do with Craster's sons, does not appear in the novel.

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


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


 * Besides this IGN source I added to the article's Reception section to aid me in noting differences in the source material compared to the "Oathkeeper" episode, there is this IGN source, and I'm certain there are other WP:Reliable sources for the material. I don't know about a WP:Reliable source for noting the chapters, however; perhaps westeros.org is one of the exceptions noted at Reliable sources, especially since it's fiction we are discussing in this case? Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at Talk:Breaker_of_Chains; the novel itself is a reliable source for the content of the novel. Introducing a comparative analysis of how the scenes are treated differently in both media is original research without a secondary source, but merely citing that something happens in a chapter in the book is not different to writing a plot summary using the work as the primary source, which is allowed per MOS:PLOT. Diego (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, Diego: this is being discussed in that article's talk page. It is not something in the past. In response, the novels are indeed a source for material about the books themselves. The issue here is drawing a comparison (and indeed, the very idea that these differences or similarities are at all notable) without a notable, reliable source having done so. We, as editors, cannot do so. That is certainly NOT allowed by mos:plot. If a source does not explicitly note a difference, then it is not notable enough for inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I invite anyone interested in this discussion to come on over and lend your two cents' worth to the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that no one has ever initiated a discussion regarding the usage of Westeros.org as a reliable source. I've done so here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you using the word "notable" as in WP:NOTABLE? Because that has nothing to do with the rules governing the content of an already existing article. If you're talking about what editors consider relevant for an article, that's open to editorial discretion, i.e. WP:CONSENSUS, and I don't find your arguments ("because it MUST be so") convincing at all; considering that there are policies allowing editors to make comparisons in other areas, I can't see why it should be strictly forbidden here as you say. (BTW deciding what parts of a work we want to report in a summary IS allowed by MOS:PLOT, and making a comparison is not forbidden by it). Diego (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am pointing out that neither you nor I nor anyone else editing within Wikipedia is of suitable reliability to offer interpretations of any sort. And while there is discretion as to what information is considered relevant, the point upon which any discussion of that sort is whether the information originates from within the editor's imagination or a reliable source. Consensus has zero to do with it (though WP:FRINGE does serve as a a bit of a caveat).
 * Lastly, your misapprehension of MOS:PLOT as allowing the inclusion of synthesized OR is simply broken. According to you, if we note a difference between the book and movie forms of information, we should definitely include it in the article. That's a slippery slope, as determining whether that info is trivial or Sherlocking would depend on a gangbang of fans arriving at the Wiki gates to create an illegitimate consensus based on their view of what is obvious. Imagine that applied to Triumph of the Will. And yeah, I know that's a variant application of Godwin's Law, but you are smart enough to get the point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Jack S, I was careful to phrase the section so that it contained no comparison or analysis. I was also careful to use a secondary source in addition to the primary source.  We're good to go.  However, if you'd prefer to phrase the section more like, "Danyeris chooses someone to fight the champion in chapter #" and "Sansa talks to Petyr in chapter #," that would be fine with me.  As per WP:Primary, straightforward descriptions of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the material are permitted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you are trying to be careful, but there is no perfuming a pig; we cannot be the cones drawing connection between events in the book and events in the series. A reliable source needs to do that, as making those sorts of connections are Original Research, plain and simple. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, we're not trying to say how Cogman changed or reinterpreted Martin's vision or why he made Sansa more or less assertive than in the book. We're only telling the readers where the same dialogue and events show up. "The scene with the white walkers does not appear in the novel" and "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter Z" are not OR.  They're just facts.  Please confirm that you've seen WP:Primary.
 * Let's look at it this way: What this article needs is a way for readers to find out what parts of the book to reread to find the content also seen in this episode. How would you phrase something like that if not "in chapters X, Y, and Z"?  Don't just delete content left and right; make a suggestion about how the section could be improved to fit your interpretation of what Wikipedia should be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my earlier comment re: perfuming a pig. We cannot do it, because it is you pointing out the differences. As this topic is continued int he section below, I'll confine most of my comments to there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: May statements indicating what parts of a source novel contain the same content as certain scenes from a television series be sourced to the book alone or do they need secondary sources?
Two editors feel that WP:PRIMARY allows them to state which chapters of a source novel(s) "contain the same content as" episode(s) of a television series adapted from that novel. Two other editors feel that sourcing these connections to a secondary source is required. All four are entrenched in their positions, equally convinced they are interpreting policy and guidelines correctly. An effort at DRN just concluded without resolution in the matter.
 * 1) May statements like, "This scene/character shown in the episode is not in the novel at all" be made using the novel itself as a primary source or is a secondary source required?
 * 2) May statements like, "Jaime gave Brienne the sword in chapter X of the novel" be made in an article about an episode of a television show in which that same event took place using the novel as a primary source alone or is a secondary source required?
 * 3) May statements like, "Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z of the novel" be made using the novel itself as a primary source or is a secondary source required?


 * Some other relevant questions:


 * 4. Is in the Plot section valuable for the Game of Thrones articles and their readers?
 * 5. If a secondary source states that the film is based in the book, can it be considered a reliable source for establishing that the same events happen in some scenes?
 * 6. In the event that both a primary and a secondary source support the same statement, must the tag citing the primary source be deleted? Must it be kept?

Bullet responses
''Please keep comments in this section short, clear and to the point. Feel free to explain in detail in the Discussion section.''


 * Disputed text is acceptable. OR isn't much of an issue here. The idea that we'd need a third party to say, "Galadriel does not appear in The Hobbit" seems excessive to the point of being silly.  Statements like "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X" and "Events from this episode also appear in X, Y, and Z" are straightforward facts, verifiable by anyone, as stipulated in WP:PRIMARY.  While WP:FILMDIFF might apply to full sections detailing every minute difference between adaptation and original, "Content from this episode can also be found in chapters X, Y, and Z" is a single line telling the reader what the source material was and where to find it.  No undue space is used, and no undue importance is implied.  Considering that the text in question was deleted even after a secondary source was provided, establishing that the primary source is sufficient would be very useful. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Disputed text is not acceptable. OR is absolutely an issue here. Initially the immediate issue is one of use; does the reader want to know about this? If so, how to prove that? Right after this is the deep concern that - since the television series' creators have themselves admitted that they would be drawing parts from several different books in the series - Wikipedia editors are adding where they personally 'feel' the chapters from the book correlate. This is a comparative, evaluative decision on the part of the wiki contributor - and remains one of the points of contention, despite every policy and guideline to the contrary. Were there a secondary, reliable source, this problem of OR could be sidestepped completely (leaving only the usefulness issue remaining). Yet a very small number of contributors insist upon misusing the primary source (the book) as justification for referencing it in a different medium. Additionally, arguments noting FILMDIFF as justification are being seriously misrepresented. FILMDIFF itself suggests that the information - as it is being suggested being used here - ranges from being "discouraged" through "especially discouraged" to "removed entirely as the article matures." Indeed, FILMDIFF itself suggests real-world context, as would be represented by secondary, reliable sourcing, be provided. That this seems an elusive truth to some is baffling to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Original research is not a concern, as no new idea is introduced that wasn't already well-sourced. We all agree that analysis of differences are not allowed, but the nature of the information presented (references used as an index of chapters, without any explanatory nor evaluative assertions) is essentially different from the kind covered by FILMDIFF, and OR doesn't deal with choosing what references are significant for an article - that's a concern of editorial discretion; per WP:BURDEN, it's editors responsibility to decide whether primary or secondary sources that contain the cited text are reliable and relevant enough to include it. If some people recognized the real nature of the disputed content, instead of introducing lateral arguments about concepts to which everybody agrees, they wouldn't be that surprised. Diego (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Citation for disputed text is unacceptable. Citation for an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, requires the cited source to explicitly contain what it is being cited for. Citing a source for what it does or does not contain is indicative of original research. Citing secondary sources that says what the disputed text says should solve the problem. DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Exclude per NOT: "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary".
 * If we're going into more detail than any secondary source then IMO we're not being concise.
 * Also relevant: WP:TVPLOT ("summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words"), WP:PLOTSUM.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not feel that those sentences represent OR, due to the fact that they can be verified at the source. The first is the most problematic, as it would essentially require someone checking the fact to read the entire book (or at least read from a scene known to precede it to one known to come after it), but if it's verifiable and not SYNTH, it's not OR. That being said, none of those claims need to be in articles about the show, unless that article is specifically about differences between the show and the books, or at the very least, both in a section about the differences and notable enough to matter to the plot of the book or episode. see WP:IINFO. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I've found this recent related Request for Comments involving Plot sections: RfC: Should every novel include a Plot Summary? Diego (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that none of this information, whether it would constitute original research or not, is appropriate for inclusion without independent sources having taken note of it. We establish non-triviality via sourcing, and WP articles should not contain indiscriminate information. I believe the precedent discussions I linked to in the DRN filing support that view. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussions you linked to dealt with dissimilarities between sources, not similarities (and there were editors who thought they were acceptable). Here, questions 2, 3 and 4 are about facts appearing both in the film and novel, facts which a reader can directly verify, and which are already accepted in the article as allowed by MOS:PLOT. I.e., the same facts would be included in the article whether their chapters are reported or not. Diego (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether they're similarities or dissimilarities, analysis or just pointing out facts; secondary sources should be provided as a means of establishing significance. We don't need to source the plot of the article subject because the article subject itself is the source (i.e. a primary reference is acceptable for a well-written plot summary. The minute we add anything on top of a strict summary, sourcing should be utilized. DonIago (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and I feel obligated to add that if secondary sources were provided then this whole situation could have been resolved much more quickly. Realistically in practically any content dispute where a lack of sourcing even enters into the equation, providing sources is the least stressful and most productive approach to resolution. DonIago (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Doniago, look at the article. Secondary sources were provided.  Repeatedly.    The fact that Jack deleted the content anyway is why I think that finding more secondary sources wouldn't help here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack: Can you explain why you deleted statements that included secondary sourcing? DonIago (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My point has always been that it does matter whether similarities or dissimilarities of plot points are involved, as the latter involve analysis and the former are not. Given the benefits of a plain index (of the form "this event appears in this chapter"), requiring secondary sources is overkill for the kind of content that we're dealing with here as WP:PRIMARY allows, "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge".
 * That over-specification of policy would kill any benefit of including an index for the content, as it would make it incomplete. When sources have been provided and editors disagree whether they are reliable or not, the right thing to do debate whether the benefits for including them in the article exceed the potential drawbacks (which as of today are still unclear, as no one opposing them have argued that the information provided by the primary source is inaccurate). Diego (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it could be legitimately argued that including that sort of index here is going beyond the scope of an encyclopedia and might be more appropriate for a wikia, but I also think we really need to hear from additional editors on this. At any rate, accuracy is certainly a criteria for inclusion, but there are other factors...we don't include information just because it's accurate, not even if we have sources we can use to prove that it's accurate. In any case, the index seems a bit fancrufty to me (do we have precedents?) and potentially prone to being added to in ways that will create OR issues down the line. But again, on this point I'd like to hear from other editors. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I propose adding another question to the RfC: "If both a primary and secondary source support the same statement, must the tag citing the primary source be removed?" That has also been an issue here. I have changed the rest of the wording of this RfC to make it less biased and misleading.  At no point has the issue of primary or secondary sources been in dispute.  We all agree that secondary sources are sufficient.  The issue is whether primary sources alone are enough and whether, if a secondary source is also available, whether the tag citing the primary source may be kept or removed.
 * As for my own position, WP:Primary explicitly permits using "straightforward descriptions of facts that anyone with access to the primary source may verify without specialist knowledge." Statements like "This character does not appear in this book" are no less straightforward and verifiable than "This character does appear in this book."
 * Similarly, if I can say, "This painting shows George Washington" and "This coin shows George Washington," then it's not OR to say "These images show the same person." We're not saying "Sansa gets better lines in the TV show than in the book" or "Tyrion is braver in the book" or even describing exactly how the scenes are the same and different. Those can be construed as comparisons. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's necessarily kosher to change an RFC opened by another editor, but I'll leave that to others to comment on.
 * I guess I don't see why a primary source would be necessary if a secondary source is available, but perhaps I need specific examples as far as that goes.
 * As I've tried to explain, without secondary sourcing I feel that discussing whether or not a character appears and whether or not a painting or a coin show the same person is trivia that shouldn't be included. It's not a matter of whether the information is true/verifiable, it's a matter of whether it's significant enough to merit inclusion. DonIago (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * DonIago, that reasoning is good in principle but it doesn't apply to this debate. The plot points and characters we're debating have already been included in the article, usage of primary or secondary sources doesn't change that. What we're arguing here is not merely "This character appears/does not appear in this book" (OK that's one, but not the only one); what we're trying to source to the book is the difference from "Samsa flees the city" to ""Samsa flees the city in chapter 62". Can you please explain why you think adding "in chapter 62" requires a secondary source noting the chapter in order to consider it as relevant? What benefit is gained by a third party noting it? There's no deep insight in noting the point in the book when a plot point appears. Diego (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, no strangers had shown up to comment yet, and the original wording was extremely inaccurate. If we ask newcomers to this issue, "Should I use a primary source or a secondary source," that implies "I can only use one, so tell me which is better," so most people will say "secondary." That's not going to help here because that's not what we've been fighting about. If we ask, "Is a primary source alone enough in this case?" which is the actual issue at hand, then we might get viewpoints that we can use.  Also, if we describe Side A in absolute terms but Side B in moderate terms, then we present Side B as both more likable and more reasonable, which predisposes newcomers to favor that position.  If we describe both sides the same way, then we introduce less bias into other people's perception of the issue.  We get more of what they think and less of what the person who composed the RfC thinks.
 * Okay, Don. Why do you think "in chapter X" is trivial? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't add to anyone's understanding in a meaningful way. If people care about the book(s), they can read them. By placing some events (the ones we choose to list) over others we're implying the listed events are more important than the unlisted ones. As I noted above, the "index" also seems a bit fancrufty to me and potentially subject to bloat and OR down the line. To my mind it may very well be better suited to a wikia.
 * If you want to impress me, don't just say that something is different, say why it's different. Talk about intention, or talk about critics commenting on it, or provide some real-world context. DonIago (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I count every list of chapters in a TV season (Game of Thrones (season 1), Mad Men episodes...) as a precedent. Those are divided in chapters, and they don't need secondary sources for that division (note how some chapters in Mad Men have links to critical commentary, but some others have not; and that's to reference U.S. viewers - data such as directors and writers are referenced to the primary source). "If people care about the book(s), they can read them". Precisely, the point of the index is to avoid readers having to read the whole book in order to find out the sources for a small part of the plot.
 * I basically agree with the part about differences - reporting that something has changed from the book requires analysis as to why they were changed in the adaptation process. But the index doesn't list differences, and its purpose is not to provide plot analysis, but useful data that helps the reader - an index like the one I'm proposing improves verifiability, as it makes it easier to find whether a particular plot point already in the article has been adapted from the book or not.
 * Oh - and one more time, the index doesn't place some events above others, the plot section does that. Diego (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As for precedents of articles of films/TV including plot points from the book from primary sources, Darkfrog24 had already provided a list at the former discussion (at least on of them is a Featured Article):
 * Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) cites the novel for a straight fact about the novel's plot.
 * The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)  negative statement:
 * December Boys
 * Minas Tirith (not an adaptation, but hit CTRL-F "not in the book")
 * "Differences from the book" sections with the book as at a source:   negative statement "is not in the book":
 * In Game of Thrones, the structure of the novels divides chapters by major characters, and each TV episode usually covers just one or two chapters for each character. This means that at most one reference would be needed in the Plot section for each character at each article - as in the example above; doesn't look like cruft to me.

Diego (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are multiple flaws with your argument, Diego Moya, and it is these flaws which make me resistant to the changes you support. Chief amongst these is the idea that the primary source of the novel can be used to establish where in an episode where you think the same thing happened in the cited book; in other words, comparing like to like. You believe that PLOT governs how we use references in the other sections of the article. In fact it cannot, as per WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Indeed, using the primary source of the book to say something the source does not is in fact synthesis. Plot summaries are exempt from referencing requirements because they exist as a consensus view as to what occurred in the episode. For example, Jaime gives Brienne the sword Oathkeeper to wield; a fairly easy fact to verify, as everyone saw that. But if someone suggest he gave it as a token of his love for her, not everyone is going to share that opinion and it would most likely be removed as not being the consensus view of the plot. Can a secondary source say this? Yep, and we can include it (in the production section) if the reviewer is from a reliable source. Note that in each instance I have mentioned the requirement of secondary sourcing, I have noted that the source must be reliable. The links that you note sources that I've removed (apart from a single source which was accidentally removed in the shuffle) were from Westeros.org as well as sourcing the books themselves. The latter is the source of our problem here, but Westeros.Org - as a user-driven site - is almost completely unusable as a reliable source. The inadvertent removal of the only valid source (FiveThirtyEight, as indicated by Diego's link #14) occurred because it was nestled within the book and Westeros.org references. I removed them by accident, apologized and rewrote the section to more accurately reflect the single valid source present. I uniformly reject the notion that "it does matter whether similarities or dissimilarities of plot points are involved, as the latter involve analysis and the former are not" as well as the misuse of PRIMARY ("straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"). What Diego fails to recognize is that those "descriptive statements of fact" can be made about the material being sourced, and that material only. It cannot be used to evaluate, compare, elaborate upon or otherwise discuss derived material, such as a tv series episode. That's what we have secondary sourcing for. Diego believes that the material adds value to the article. This personal belief highlights one of the basic disconnects here: he believes it. It is not a view from a source. At Wikipedia, we do not make assertions or push an agenda; we cite others from outside Wikipedia that do so. That some of the examples noted by DF and again by DM (like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc) are used to illustrate that this isn't always true is actually indicative that the linked articles need maintenance. They are not indicative of a tidal shift in the Community's view regarding the use of sources. I relaize I've presented a wall of text, but Diego Moya made several claims that needed to be addressed. I feel as Donlago does that a great deal of this issue could have been averted had some secondary sources been presented that explicitly noted the chapters used. That didn't happen, despite multiple requests. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As to the specific chapters adding to understanding in a meaningful way, it tells me where to find the source material. If it's relevant that the episode was based on A Storm of Swords at all, why wouldn't it be relevant that parts, and which parts, of the book were used?  As for "People can just read the books if they want," of course they can, but because the TV show isn't going in order, saying "just read the book" isn't going to do much to show them where to find this episode.  Specifically, the Jaime-Cersei scene in "Breaker of Chains," also notable for its controversy, had me going "Now that can't be right!" It was so crazy that I had to reread the book to make sure I hadn't overlooked it.  It took me a very long time to dig through the book and find the original version--because the TV show doesn't go in order and because so much of the continuity has been changed.
 * Look at it this way. Say you are sick and miss a week of class.  Or even say you were present and just want some more material.  You ask your professor, "Which chapter of the textbook should I read for this week's course material?" and your professor says, "Just reread the whole textbook." Now imagine that 1. your textbook has no index and 2. your professor hasn't been following the textbook in order.
 * Diego--I disagree that flat statements about differences from the book require analysis. They seem to be subject to FILMDIFF, but that doesn't make them OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This sounds very WP:INUNIVERSE to me, whereas WP articles should generally focus on providing real-world context and minimize in-universe content. You're not really helping my concerns that this would be more appropriate for a Wikia, sorry. This is another thing that would be helped by the addition of independent sources...and I'm starting to have concerns that the fact that sources aren't being provided at this point is because sources don't discuss these comparisons. DonIago (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Doniago, the chapter numbers are anything but "in universe"! :-) The fictional world is not divided in chapters. The chapter of the book on which the film is based is real-world context for the plot section, it can't be considered in universe by any logic - the book exists in the real world. (The only book I can think where chapters were in-universe was The Neverending Story) :-P
 * @Jack: can you please stop addressing points that have not been made? Nobody is interpreting why Jaime gives Brienne the sword, so why have you introduced that opinion who nobody is arguing for - have you run out of real arguments? I've quoted WP:PRIMARY word-by-word for how it allows verifiable content that can be found in the book. The material being sourced is the book, so the book is a reliable source. The chapter numbers are in the book at the top of each first page (depending on the version), as well as the scene where Jaime gives Brienne the sword Oathkeeper. Both are easy to verify in the book, so reporting those are not synthesis. If you're addressing my arguments, I've never made any point with respect to Westeros.Org as supporting the content, so once again you're chasing a shadow, not arguing against me. And of course the idea that an index improves the article is my opinion, that's how Wikipedia articles are written - by considering the opinions that editors have about what sources are reliable, and writing content based on those. Diego (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The chapter numbers themselves may not be in-universe, but what you seem to be talking about isn't providing any significant real-world perspective on the work either, as near as I can tell; you're just talking about how the episode maps to the books. I still feel this would be more appropriate for a Wikia. If you want to persuade me that it belongs there, then provide secondary sources that have discussed how events in the episode map to the books, which will firmly establish that we're talking about something that caught the attention of people other than Wikipedia editors. Or we can wait for an uninvolved editor to offer their perspective on the matter, since I feel we're just going in circles at this point. DonIago (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We are going 'round in circles, which is why I am going to hold off responding to Diego Moya's failure to actually read my post. Though I very much want to. Let's get some new input, instead of the same recurring wall of text. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Doniago, why do you think secondary sources are needed to add "in chapter X" to the article? What does an external perspective contribute to those three words?
 * Jack: I read your post, you made a very long comment and half of it or more was against arguments I didn't make. Diego (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. INUNIVERSE in fact recommends using sentences like "a character from radio, book and now film series" or "In the first book, Trillian is introduced..." or "In her backstory...", and says "it is legitimate to freely examine the fictional elements and the design of the storyline". The manual of style doesn't seem to agree with your interpretation of policy about "cruft" content which describes the original works. Diego (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, you keep linking to WP:OR et al. saying "This agrees with me!" Well, everyone here has read WP:OR and not everyone came to that conclusion. Why don't you quote the exact part of WP:OR and explain why you have concluded that WP:OR supports your position?
 * As for your Jaime-gave-Brienne-the-sword reference, no one did insert any text to the effect of, "Jaime gave Brienne the sword because [reason not explicitly stated in source material]." I think we can all agree that something like that could be construed as an interpretation of the primary source. We're not in disagreement.  The issue is whether the primary source can be used for straight facts, "Jaime gave Brienne the sword in chapter X."
 * You could say "he believes it adds value to the article" about everything in this article. Explain why you think this is different.
 * You mention "a tidal shift in the community's view." Cite something that shows that your position is the community's view and not only your own view. Cite a discussion that produced consensus.  Cite a previous RfC.  Cite a policy that makes an explicit statement about the use of primary sources in adaptation articles.  Cite precedent articles.  It didn't take me that long to find articles that show that the community has supported my position, and there are a lot more.
 * Jack, the fact that I provided exactly such a source and that you deleted the text anyway proves that "Just go find more sources" isn't going to help here. You'll just find some fault with them or bring up some other objection that you'd neglected to mention.  Also, my plan here is to go through lots of GoT articles and add chapter information to them.  Establishing categorically that it's okay to use the novel itself for that would save me the trouble of addressing every little objection to every secondary source that I find from every person who just happens to dislike such information.
 * And yes, please stop arguing about points that no one has brought up. If you ask the question, "Does WP policy require secondary sources for interpretation, analysis and evaluative comments?" you will get a "Yes" from everyone here.  We're good to go on that.
 * Doniago, how is it in-universe to say "X happened in chapter Y"? Writing about a book from outside the book and not on the ground on the level of the events that it describes is explicitly out-of-universe. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

At this point I think we'd be best off waiting to hear from editors who have not previously contributed to the discussion, as I don't feel we're making progress on our own. DonIago (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur. You think we should start a new section, nice and neat with single bullet points?  That might look more inviting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to try boiling this (and the DRN discussion, etc) down its basic points I won't stop you (though I think whatever you come up with should require endorsements from the involved parties), and I'll give it a look-over, but considering my original intention with this whole thing was to provide some precendents to guide the DRN filing and then bow-out, I'm kind of exhausted by the whole thing at this point. FWIW I'm also going to be unreachable for the next four days or so, so if anything significant comes up, silence on my part shouldn't be taken as an implication of anything. DonIago (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant this kind of bullet point section: . Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. Can't hurt. DonIago (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And we're up. I put it up top so that any new contributors would see it before they see this part. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, never gave an endorsement, and yet up it went, anyway, watering down the RfC (which makes it too wordy and confusing, imo). Anyway, I've commented. I presume its meant to provide main points without discussion, as that happens here. Now, we wait for input from new voices. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not how I'd have written it either, but at least it describes the dispute that we're actually having. Maybe if this one doesn't bring in any new opinions, the four of us can get together and work on a shorter wording.  Even having another DrN--one in which we specifically ask for a neutral fifth party to help us come up with text for a new RfC--might help.
 * The fact that it was listed in media instead of OR policy might also have something to do with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@, how can it possibly be true that "Citing a source for what it does contain is indicative of original research"? Diego (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you go through a book and determine that a source contains 2000 instances of the letter e, then it's original research. DonQuixote (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (Except when the book contains a histogram of each character's frequency). Thanks for clarification, I couldn't make sense of your wording. It seems to me that by such criteria, everything in Wikipedia that's not an exact quotation is original research; and the things that are exact quotations, are most likely WP:COPYVIO. Diego (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If a source contains a histogram of a character's frequency, then cite the histogram. And citation doesn't only involve an exact quotation, you can also paraphrase. Citation is when you attribute words and ideas to the proper sources. And quoting sources isn't a copyvio, excessive quotation of a single source crosses into copyvio. DonQuixote (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Using that academic source that you posted several days ago, DQ, we're also allowed to summarize. Saying "Brienne appears in six chapters of this sixty-four chapter book" or "Ned Stark doesn't appear in book four" would fall under that category.  As for whether summaries are allowed on Wikipedia, WP:Primary explicitly says that novels may be cited for summaries of their own plots, so there's no rule against summary in general.  As for the letter e example, "This novel uses the letter e X times" is certainly a straightforward fact that can be verified by anyone without specialist knowledge, and it's certainly not a synthesis or interpretation of anything.  The question is whether something like that counts as analysis.  Something like that could go either way.  But "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X" doesn't require anything like that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If summarizing was the only thing you're doing, then there wouldn't be a problem, and it would be appropriate in the article about the book. As I've said "Sansa escapes (cite book)" (or anything similar, like most of the examples you used) is appropriately citing the primary source because it's a summary. Stating things like "scene X in the show is based on chapter Y of the book (cite book)" is not appropriate because it's not a summary of the book. And "this scene from the show isn't in the book (cite book)" is also inappropriate because it's not a summary of the book. A summary of the book should not include any reference to the show because the book itself makes no reference to the show. DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * DQ, I repeatedly offered to rephrase the section as "[event] happens in chapter Y." Are you saying you're all right with that now? As for summaries of the book, they are explicitly allowed.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're also repeatedly ignoring bits and pieces of what's being said. "[event] happens in chapter Y" is "appropriate in the article about the book." DonQuixote (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet you've failed to explain why *the exact same content* would not be appropriate in the article about the film. We have reliable independent sources establishing the relation between the film and the book, noting how the former is based on the later. None of the policies you've quoted that are supposedly against this content do actually say anything about the "proper article" where to sourced content should be placed. Diego (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the TV episode. What purpose does summarizing the book serve here?--especially when the plot summary for the episode is already limited to ~500 words. It's only relevant if some source explicitly says "scene X is based on chapter Y", otherwise the plot summary for the book should be in the article for the book. DonQuixote (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@: Does your position mean that we shouldn't add the page numbers where content can be found when we write references in Wikipedia? Because that's the amount of detail that we're talking about. Diego (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I'm talking about the body text, not citations. Body text does not normally contain page numbers, book citations do (ideally). Let me know if I've misunderstood and this RfC does not relate to the body text. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the example linked from question 4 in the RfC, no body text is created; merely references to the points in the book where the summary description can be found (in that diff there was also some text in the "Writing" section, but that part is not included in what I call the "index", and could be excluded). The references could be made even shorter by including only the chapter number and omitting clarifying sentences like "In the original book, this happens in chapter X". Diego (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Footnotes, I see.
 * Not the same thing as citations.
 * Better than putting it in the body text but I'd still exclude it entirely. If secondary sources don't say it then IMO it's going into too much detail for us to say it.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you would oppose using the "page" parameter in references as "too much detail", if a third independent source has not noted the page where the content appears. Diego (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't. It's fine - encouraged, even - in references. You're not proposing references, are you? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am proposing references. How did you get any other impression????? Diego (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I've not been clear. I said references when I meant citations. My bad. Apologies.
 * What I meant was:
 * In citations, it's normal for us to specify the specific place (such as the page or chapter number) where the information can be found.
 * No, we do not require an additional secondary source to establish the notability of the page number of each secondary source in citations.
 * Outside of citations, if we're going into more detail than the most detailed secondary source, then (IMO) we're going into too much detail.
 * The more pressing issue here is that the plot summary is already far too long. It needs to have its length and level of detail reduced, not increased.
 * WP:TVPLOT ("summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words") and WP:PLOTSUM are relevant.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The number of words in the summary is not part of this request for comments, I don't think anyone would oppose to build a more tight summary. Now, for the part that is disputed: when writing a citation from a primary source, would it be too much detail to include the page number - or in this case, number of chapter where the content can be found? That's the part that motivated this RfC, at least with respect to question 4. Diego (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why that would be an issue. I hope we can at least all agree that references should be as specific as possible, including page numbers where applicable. DonIago (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? When was there discussion on using the primary source of the book to infer chapter occurrences within the episodes? Because I don't recall hearing a single, compelling argument that says we should scrap our policies and guidelines in favor of this, especially when a reliable secondary source accomplishes the task. We aren't here to reinvent the wheel. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been my intent since my first intervention from the initial Third Opinion request. See what I meant when I said you weren't paying attention to my arguments? Diego (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. I'm saying that when a reference that has page numbers is used, the page numbers should be provided. I am not saying, at all, that it's okay to say "part X of the episode comes from pages Y-Z of book A", whether or not page numbers were included. Not unless an independent source took note of it, as I've been maintaining for days now. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, this whole conversation has been about using a primary source to say which chapters contain the same content as the episode. People have been making arguments, compelling and otherwise, for weeks.  That is what we've been talking about.  And if any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines address this matter more directly than WP:Primary does, please link to them here.
 * So Balaenoptera. What I'm getting from you is that you don't think this is OR but you do think it's too specific, in fact you'd like to see the whole article slimmed down a lot.  Is that about right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog24, the policies that address this matter have been pointed out at least a dozen times over the past few weeks; the problem is not that they haven't been pointed out - the problem is that you and Diego disagree with how those policies and guidelines read. Don't insult myself and others who have tried ad nauseum to help you understand. The point of this RfC is to get opinions other than the four of us who initially disagreed (though, judging from the walls of text, Diego didn't get that memo).
 * And I'll point out (again, not for the first time) that you damn yourself by your own post. For in order to determine which chapters - or parts of chapters - are used in a given episode, it is you that has to determine that matter. Not the book, which tells us nothing about the series. Not the episode itself, which makes no mention of the book. It is synthesis to take one source (the book) and another source (the episode) and contend that they are linked together (a new argument). You need a reliable secondary source that makes that connection. We are not detectives. We do not get to sherlock out connections that we cannot reference. SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources
 * The argument advocating this editorial sherlocking of chapters is a slippery slope. If we allow it here, then more egregious examples are sure to crop up.
 * And I concur that the episodes are entirely too long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If SYNTH were a problem, you shouldn't have any problem in defining exactly what is the "thesis that can't be verified from sources", as we have repeatedly asked you to do but you never did. Diego (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, all. Below is my understanding of where we are. I could be wrong about any of this of course, I'm sure I can rely on other RfC respondents (who I'm sure will be along shortly) to correct me if I am. "when writing a citation from a primary source, would it be too much detail to include the page number - or in this case, number of chapter where the content can be found?" "When was there discussion on using the primary source of the book to infer chapter occurrences within the episodes? Because I don't recall hearing a single, compelling argument that says we should scrap our policies and guidelines in favor of this, especially when a reliable secondary source accomplishes the task. We aren't here to reinvent the wheel." "I am not saying, at all, that it's okay to say "part X of the episode comes from pages Y-Z of book A", whether or not page numbers were included. Not unless an independent source took note of it, as I've been maintaining for days now." " if any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines address this matter [using a primary source to say which chapters contain the same content as the episode] more directly than WP:Primary does, please link to them here." "So Balaenoptera. What I'm getting from you is that you don't think this is OR but you do think it's too specific, in fact you'd like to see the whole article slimmed down a lot. Is that about right?"
 * If it were appropriate to go into that much detail (which in this case I believe it is not) then a proper citation, using the standard citation template and including a page number would indeed be the right way to do it.
 * For TV episode plot summaries, it's not normally necessary: "Since the episode is the primary source and the infobox provides details about it, citing the episode explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." (WP:TVPLOT)
 * I agree.
 * I agree with that, too.
 * WP:TVPLOT "The plot summary is an overview of the episode's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail."
 * WP:IINFO "Summary-only descriptions of works. ... concise summary"
 * WP:PLOTSUM (essay)
 * WP:OR - whole thing, WP:PSTS in particular
 * It is original research, but
 * Original research is ok in TV episode plot summaries. WP:TVPLOT says:


 * So the question is, can a matching-up-of-TV-scenes-to-book-chapters reasonably be considered part of the plot summary? (if it could then this would make it ok even though it's original research)
 * My view is no, it can't, because it seems to me that:
 * It is not a purely descriptive claim but rather "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" - hence not allowed. (WP:PSTS, WP:TVPLOT),
 * It is not "concise" or "summary" information (WP:IINFO).
 * It is not "basic description of the plot" (WP:TVPLOT).
 * It is the kind of "minutiae" which WP:TVPLOT says should be avoided.

But more pressingly: the plot summary is way too long anyway. We need to get less specific and detailed, not more so. So even if I'm wrong about everything above, we still shouldn't add more detail. Which makes the debate about "is it OR?" "is it plot summary?" pretty much academic in my view. And that's why my !vote above was for Exclude - because the proposed material should be excluded from the plot summary on grounds of length and detail whether or not it constitutes original research and whether or not that original research is a legitimate part of the plot summary and therefore allowable. Just my $0.02, hope it helps. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You could put the proposed text on Game of Thrones Wiki: Oathkeeper instead. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but then people who come to this page for such information wouldn't be able to see it.
 * The policies you've cited seem to say 1. plot summaries should be concise, and "This scene contains content from chapters X, Y, and Z" is exactly that; statements like "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X" are slightly less concise but still reasonably so, 2. articles should not consist only of material like this, and this one doesn't. 3. WP:OR and WP:PTST/WP:PRIMARY seem to explicitly permit the use of primary sources in this way. Can you point to the part of WP:OR that you think characterizes the text in question as original research? It seems to do just the opposite.
 * How do you figure that "Jaime gave Brienne a sword in chapter X" is analysis? There's Jaime giving Briene a sword in the scene and there he is giving her a sword in the chapter.  How do you think this is different from "Jaime appears in the episode and in the book"?
 * The disputed text is not in the plot summary section. It is in a separate section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. ... To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
 * If you want to prove that it's not OR then simply "cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" and I'll be forced to agree with you.
 * If it's not plot summary then not even descriptive claims are allowed without a source. So even if it is descriptive - and although I don't agree that it is, I can see how your argument goes on that, and descriptive vs analytic/synthetic/interpretative is kind of a subjective judgement - but even if it is descriptive, then if it's neither:
 * Sourced, nor
 * Plot summary
 * then it isn't allowed.
 * That's my understanding, FWIW.
 * The 538 article that someone linked above looks like a good source to me. A statement backed up by that source could be ok, source-wise (although there's still the "is it trivia?" question).
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concur that the 528 source is a good one and, while it doesn't go so far as to outline all the chapters used, it does for at least one (which I edit the article to reflect). More refs like this would go a very long way to resolving the problem. So long as we stay away from Westeros.org; its not a reliable source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I realize that this is going to sound biased given it's coming from me, but honestly? I kind of feel like just the fact that we've gone through this much discussion over these points is an argument against including them, since I think we can all agree that they appear to be (perhaps surprisingly) controversial. Editors who wish to include them have at least two options: 1) Wikia or other less formal medium, 2) provide independent sourcing to establish significance. Personally I'm tired of going around in circles on this, and I think the reality is that unless there's a serious influx of additional editors, we're not going to reach a consensus for inclusion. While policy may technically allow for the inclusions, and there seems to be some disagreement on that, it seems clear to me that regardless of what policy says there's significant feeling that the material isn't appropriate here as-is. DonIago (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest everyone just WP:WAITs a while for some more uninvolved editors to come along. WP:TIND, WP:DONTPANIC, etc. I've just publicised the RfC at WP:ORN so we should get some more eyes shortly. (That's more than enough TLAs for one day. ). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand and share Donlago's sentiment (after all, I've been at this since the issue began), but I agree with you, Balaenoptera musculus; let's wait and see what we get. There is a large pool of experienced editors whose opinions could prove helpful. ;- Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The novel itself is 1. published, 2. reliable, and 3. directly supports the text in question. So yes, we have demonstrated that this is not OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you miss the target (and thus the need to gain opinions from users uninvolved in the previous discussions). While the book is indeed published, picking and choosing chapters out of it to support the idea that aforementioned chapters appear in a television episode requires you (the editor) to Sherlock that out. Without a reliable, secondary source to back up that statement (like a review or an analysis from 538), we cannot allow your deductions to be used. So no, you have not demonstrated that your citing of the novel in a malformed way is not OR. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the novel itself can "directly support" the assertion that scene X of the TV series is equivalent to chapter Y of the novel (or similar claims such as that an event in scene A is equivalent to the event in chapter B). For that we'd need a source that explicitly says "Scene X of the TV series is equivalent to chapter Y of the book" - like the '528' source does: "“Oathkeeper” — contained the final scene of Jaime Lannister’s ninth “Storm of Swords” chapter" - which is what makes it a good source for this purpose.
 * Because otherwise we're making that judgement from having read the book and watched the TV series ourselves, which is what makes it WP:OR.
 * But, even with adequate sources, the question remains: is the matching-up of scenes from the TV series against chapters from the book likely to be of interest to anyone other than devoted fans?
 * I realise this is a subjective question, but FWIW my judgement on that question is 'no' - it isn't.
 * There are many things we could include about the article's subject, if they were appropriately sourced (e.g. the date on which each scene was filmed, the menu at the cast cafeteria each day, how much electricity did the project use) but that doesn't mean we should include them, per What Wikipedia is not.
 * I'm guessing I'm not alone in thinking that one or two scene-to-chapter matchings-up, if they're suitably sourced and there's a specific reason for including them (a reason beyond "it's information about the episode so we should include it"), would be ok. But doing it wholesale would be a Bad Plan IMO.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * But it does support the statement, "Event X happened in chapter Y," which has been on offer since the beginning of this discussion. I prefer "Content from this episode" because a single line is more in keeping with the material's place in this article, but if anyone has concerns about OR, a slightly longer passage is possible.
 * It is not a judgment to recognize that two things are the same. If I see a painting of George Washington and a quarter coin with George Washington on it, I'm not performing synthesis by saying "These images are of the same man." It is straightforward, direct, and verifiable by ordinary people without specialist knowledge.  I don't have to measure the nose or consult reference texts.  It's there for anyone to see.
 * It's likely to be of interest to anyone who's read the books and watches the show, and one does not have to be a devoted fan to do those. Especially in the episode "Breaker of Chains," where this dispute started, the way this show changes the material from the novels to suit its director's vision certainly made me want to reread the chapter in question, and I'm not a devoted fan.
 * "Wholesale"? We're disagreed there.  I'd see no problem with every episode article containing a one-liner with the location of the source material.  It would improve them considerably. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I think we agree on "wholesale", on the trivia/notability issue I wouldn't have much problem with every episode article containing a single one-line footnote with the location in the book that the episode corresponds to, either. (If appropriately sourced).
 * I'd have a problem with every scene or every event in the TV show being matched against the books. That's what I meant by "wholesale".
 * But I don't imagine that there is a one-to-one correspondence between book chapters and TV episodes - as you say, in TV the director's vision and interpretation come into play. That's why it's not as simple as "Elizabeth Fry appears on the £5 note".
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's as simple as "Some of the content from this episode is in chapter X," or as "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X."
 * The bottom line is that when people go to the wikia, they want the in-universe perspective, the fan theories, the exposition. Some of those articles get so into things that I can't tell which source material they're using.  I recently read a few articles from the Halo wiki, and they don't even list which event happened in which game.  When people want out-of-universe information, they know to come here.  It doesn't get more out of universe than naming chapters. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The actual bottom line is that, without explicit, reliably-sourced infor naming these chapters, it is evaluative for an editor to decide that the chapter-episode linkage is a) non-trivial and, b) correctly assigned. Citing the book is okay when citing the book. It is not okay to use the book to cite a tv episode. It is that distinction which separates us from other wikias, fanblogs and other crufty corners of the intertubes. Too much time has been wasted on a pointless discussion on pretty clear policy. Get a secondary source that says what you want, or it cannot be added to the article. It is truly that simple. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, give me one reason why the material itself is not reliable for direct facts about its own content. You simply cannot legitimately argue that the novel itself is not reliable. The very policies that you are linking explicitly state that straightforward facts are permitted. "Jaime gives Brienne a sword in chapter X" is exactly the sort of thing that we're allowed to state.
 * I did get a secondary source, and you came up with excuses to delete the content anyway. How about you do some work around here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading this discussion as "No consensus to include" at this point, though if everyone feels they've spoken their piece I might recommend approaching an admin for a formal closure. In any case, I've reverted a recent change that included a citation referenced a Wikipedia page. Not kosher per WP:CIRCULAR; a better option would be to copy an appropriate reference from the other article, provided one exists. DonIago (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing it as a consensus of 4-2 in favor of adding secondary references instead of citing the book as justification. A slight consensus, to be sure, but a consensus nonetheless. I think your opinion regarding finding secondary sourcing is the appropriate course. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Jack, the reason this discussion is taking so long is that you keep hiding behind claims of OR or unreliability or this or that or the other thing. You just don't like this type of information and that's not a good reason to exclude it. When I cite policy, you ignore it. When I spend the time to dig up secondary references, you don't bother to read them before deleting the material. I meet your demands and then you demand something else. You've done no work yourself and given me no reason to think that my doing more work would satisfy you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you miss the point, which is pretty much the entirety of the problem here. There is no hiding going on. There is no preference on my part for or against the inclusion of the material you keep adding in (without any consensus to do so, I might add). I have pointed out enough times to wear out a keyboard that you cannot link to a book as a comparative source for the series episodes - not without secondary referencing from a reliable source. You keep glossing over this like I am stating an opinion instead of the set guidelines we use to create and improve pretty much most of the articles here in Wikipedia. You keep pointing out a single instance when I removed a valid secondary source, which I have repeatedly apologized for and ensured that it not only returned to the article but remains there to this date. In my defense, I missed its validity amongst the book chapters and crufty fanblog invalid references. No further valid references were removed by me, yet you seem content to make this about me, instead of focusing on the current fact that you do not have a consensus for adding your pet material.
 * You want a clear path to inclusion? Find references from valid and reliable secondary sources that point out chapter and book usage in the episodes. Then quote them and add it to the article. Unless its tangential to the piece or simply inconsequential (ie. someone writing that "Brienne is hawt! lulz"), you aren't going to run afould of me or any other editor here. Several other editors have pointed out the 'who cares' facet of correlating chapters to the episode, and that's a valid argument, but not really one I am making. You have to prove that someone outside of your head or a fanblog connected the two.
 * Lastly, stop adding the material back in. You have been through almost a month of fellow editors telling you not to, and doing so is disruptive and tendentious. More than one editor has told you how best to proceed. Follow it, don't follow it - it's your choice. Just stop edit-warring yourself into a potential block. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Jack, I haven't missed the point. You are being disingenuous.   You say "this is OR" and request an outside opinion; that person disagrees with you and you come up with another excuse.  You say "find secondary sources," so I do it, then you come up with a fresh set of objections.  If this was your real reason, why did it take you weeks and weeks come out with it?  I do the work around here and you do nothing but hit a revert button.  That must change.
 * Yes, your belief that my contributions are OR are your opinion and not fact. Wikipedia policy explicitly permits users to use primary sources in the ways in which I have used them. Information about the subject of the article is not my pet material, though it certainly seems to be your pet peeve.  No one tried to add comments about hotness or trivia or anything in any sort of inappropriate English; quit with the straw man arguments.
 * As for my putting in more effort to find more secondary sources, I want a commitment from you: No more complaints. If I do the work, you will not pull any more heretofore unmentioned objections out of your hat or anywhere else.  Either that or do some work around here that involves more finger-lifting than undoing other people's efforts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You might want to adjust your tone, Darkfrog24; I find it difficult to work with people who act like snarky trolls, and if you feel that acting this way is going to somehow magically compel me to work better with you, you might want to share whatever it is that you are smoking. In short, you don't dictate terms to me, sweetheart.
 * I am not sure who you think disagreed with me; AS I read it, every single person (except for Diego Moya) who contributed to both subsequent discussions disagreed with your assertion that these chapters should be included. Every single person, DF. So, before you call me dishonest (which borders on a personal attack), maybe you should re-read the walls of text you've thrown at the rest of us.
 * At least one other editor challenged the need for this to even be in the article, noting that you hadn't provided proof that any reliable secondary source even found this information to be of value. Two others thought it trivial. I myself thought the more important concern was that it was you - and not a source of note - felt this information was important enough to mention. That was why I asked for explicit secondary sourcing.
 * You keep claiming that Wikipedia "explicitly permits users to use primary sources in the ways in which I have used them". This is absolutely incorrect. You are citing the book and making a comparison/contrast to it and a television episode. Besides being synthesis, it is precisely what our policies and guidelines seek to prevent"


 * "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."WP:PSTS


 * In point of fact, any connections made between these two media must be cited to a "reliable secondary source", or they risk removal by any editor as improperly cited - something which has been pointed out to you by no less than three other editors.
 * Now, on to the further points of your email. Your demand for a "commitment" from me to not complain about any secondary sources you find isn't going to be complied with. If you supply sub-par secondary sources (Westeros.org again springs to mind) or make claims that the sources do not make, then I am going to point it out.
 * For instance, while I applaud you actually rolling up your sleeves and looking for the right types of sources. Unfortunately, The Observation Deck - while a part of io9 - appears to be an open forum-style blog, without editorial oversight (one of the things we need to verify reliability). If that's the case, we cannot use it as a RS. I'll pose the question at RSN and post the link and results here. In the meantime, you should carefully note which parts of the io9 article refer to the relevant chapters for this article. Do not make claims that cannot be explicitly attributed the to source. I am going to be a stickler about that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Upon further study of the io9/Observation Deck source you provided, it does not appear to make the claims you have made within the article. Rather than removing it and further frustrating you, I will give you time to adjust the statement to be in keeping with what the reference actually says. I will wait a few days. If no changes are made, I will adjust it myself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're in no position to complain about tone, Jack. You've made yourself more than difficult to deal with: "Finally" rolling up my sleeves? I was the one digging up sources before this debate started; you've only lifted a finger to hit the delete button.  You shouldn't to talk to me about reluctance to put in the work until after you do some yourself.  This is Wikipedia; no one dictates terms to anyone else, but that doesn't mean I can't tell you what I want from you.  I want you to give all your reasons why you don't want this content included so that I don't waste more of my time addressing something that turns out to be a smokescreen.
 * We've been through this: You think that the content I've added is synthesis and I don't. You think I'm misinterpreting WP:PRIMARY and I think that you are.  Stop wasting my time and yours by repeating yourself.  Your interpretations of the rules are not "point of fact"; they are opinions.  Stop acting as if I should take your word for it.  Show me precedent as I have shown you precedent or accept that we are interpreting policy differently.
 * WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says that we have to say where we actually found the information, so stop deleting the tag that cites the novel. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog, as I noted above, the substance or strength of the arguments doesn't appear to be material at this point. I think from this thread it's clear that there's no consensus for including this material, at least not without third-party sourcing being provided. Simply citing the novel is not sufficient based on how this discussion has progressed. If you disagree with my assessment you're welcome to request additional input on this RfC, or we can pursue a formal closure of the RfC so that we have an official ruling on the matter; you would then be welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution if you were unsatisfied with the outcome. DonIago (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I second Donlago's eloquent post. We cannot agree on inclusion of the book as a source for the episiode. Add to that the lack of a consensus for your personal view that we can allow a primary source to act in a way it was not intended, and are left with the conclusion that it cannot be used as a source. Continuing to re-add contentious and disputed references despite these objections is considered tendentious editing. Please understand that, due to your aggressive behavior here, I will have zero problem requesting you being blocked for continuing to do so.
 * Donlago is absolutely correct in suggesting that if you are not content with having no consensus for your interpretation, you should escalate the matter. We've tried mediation and a RfC, and the consensus of presented views was that the book should not be cited. Barring judgment to the contrary from a higher administrative source, the book cannot be used as a source.
 * Speaking of sources, I would urge you to devote less time to arguing with me and more time crafting the referenced statements tp match the actual reference. The io9 reference doesn't cite the book as exactly as you seem to think it does. Remember: it must be explicit. Nothing less is allowable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to see you, Don. If you look at the article, you will see that I've dug up more secondary sources.
 * Jack, you are in no position to say that I should devote less time to arguing; you do as much arguing as I do and far less work.
 * Jack, the Prince Albert source lists the information in question in the first paragraph. This isn't the first, second or third time you've deleted something without reading it and then accused me of carelessness in your edit summary. If you're going to be that inattentive, you shouldn't be making edits.  If you have to, take a break and come back later.
 * Stop deleting the reference tag to the book. It is where I actually found the information per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.  The objection to including it was that it was not sufficient to establish significance on its own, not that it wasn't an acceptably reliable source for facts about its own content.  That issue has been dealt with. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

To begin with, I find it highly suspect that an anonymously-authored article from a news journal that allows anonymous authorship mgically appears to present the precise information you which to add. I find this all the more worrying when considered in conjunction with how hard you hard edit-warred to have this material in. I think this is going to warrant further investigation. You have been told by no less than three other editors - all with more Wiki experience than you - to not re-add the book reference. You keep stating (without proof, I might add) that your position is supported by explicit policy. Do us all a favor after having wasted our time for over a month and a half: ask an administrator. Please. Until then, I've asked you remove the reference to the book or I will be forced to take other measures in light of your edit-warring about this material. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You are so far out of line that it's not even funny. Plug "Oathkeeper" and "Jaime IX" into a search bar and see what shows up.  Lots of Game of Thrones sources use the Roman numeral format; it's actually a great way to screen out irrelevant content.  If you spent a tenth as much time looking for sources as you do complaining on this talk page, you would know that.
 * "With more Wiki experience than you"? Keep your assumptions to yourself.  You don't know my history, my gender, my age, my marital status or anything else upon which you could base your claims or your presumptuousness.
 * I have indeed provided you with proof in the form of the policy itself, precedent articles and precedent discussions. You're the one who's given nothing but his own view and acted shocked when I preferred my own judgment and verbatim interpretation of WP:PRIMARY to your opinions.  Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it isn't real. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to do this again with you, Darkfrog24. I do not need to know your age, marital status, etc - nor do I care. I inquired about your gender because referring to you in the third person as "it" seems…uncivil. Your edit count is easily seen by anyone in WP; my comment, therefore, is both accurate and justified.
 * As well, I am not going to go into the same rigamarole about your interpretation about policy. You cherry-pick that which suits and ignore the rest. You cannot be reasoned with, and I am tired of trying. The ANI is the end result of that surrender in trying to reach you. You aren't interested in collaborative editing, and you keep grabbing unusable and/or dubious sources. Maybeyou should go off an edit another article. I hear OotS could use some work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Jack, participants in the ANI that you called said that the threshold for including this material had been met. Stop deleting it. As for who's not interested in collaborative editing, I've offered you compromise texts in which you're completely uninterested. You've contributed nothing, offered no ideas and done no work other than whining at me to do more. Show some investment in collaborative editing yourself before you complain that other people don't want to work with you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Length of plot section
I started a discussion on the length of the Game of Thrones episode plot summaries. A bit of what I stated in that discussion specifically concerns the length of the plot summary for this episode article. The WP:Permalink is here; for the current state of the discussion, see Talk:Game of Thrones. Flyer22 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Flyer22! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Further sourcing
On the off-chance that this might help, here's yet another source. If there's no further comment here&mdash;by anyone&mdash;in a day or so, I'll add it. My own take is that we had enough sources with just the book, but if one more helps, why not? [www.gameofthronesbr.com/2014] As stipulated by WP:RS, the contributing member of the staff is named and credentials are given. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We cannot use it, as it is a non-official fansite. It's a near parroting of another source (yet another unreliable source) that you provided. Alllow me to suggest that you find a source from IGN or NBC, or New York Times or some source that we could consider reliable. I'm willing to compromise with using the book, but not without an explicit secondary reliable source.
 * As an aside, I appreciate you using the talk page and not an edit summary this time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, blogs are acceptable if the content in question is attributed to a specific member of the staff and not to an anonymous contributor. Considering that we're dealing with a general-audience book and general-audience television show, Ana Carol's credentials are sufficient for a single line regarding which chapters appear in the episode to be considered reliable. (Hit CTRL-F "blog" and look for the words "exception" or "staff.")
 * If you're really interested in talking this out, then you should stop telling me how to find sources. I find it insulting that you presume to tell me how to do a job that you can't be bothered to put any effort into, regardless of your reasons.  You know perfectly well that we agree that Wikipedia's favorite food is reliable secondary sources and we have never disagreed on that point.  You also know perfectly well that we disagree about what specific sites meet the criteria in this case.  One of the main things that's making you hard to work with is that you keep repeating your own take on this matter as if it were standard, universal or official.  You can see from the RfC, third opinion, mediation, and ANI discussions that your positions are not universally held.  I recommend that you stay off any topic that we've already talked to death. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, specifically WP:USERG (and WP:SPS): "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." So, no, is not a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The very passage you cite says "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." In general, the stipulation against using blogs refers to things like medical and scientific information and political issues. The text cited here is "These chapters are in these episodes," which is a readily verifiable and in this case already verified fact.  Ana Carol has sufficient experience to be considered an expert on the SoIaF books, at least sufficient enough for her articles to be used in this way.
 * Also part of WP:RS, consider WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The Ana Carol article is reliable for the statement being made.  We're not asking Ms. Carol whether the moon landing was real.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While you are correct that the stipulation is especially important in those sorts of articles, they are no less important in media articles. We have no idea about Ana Carol's credentials (in fact, according to her Twitter account, she is a harp student in college and not a staff reporter or reviewer for any media outlet) and her closest connection to GoT is that she plays the board game. We usually allow blog posts when the person doing the posting is an actual part of the official cast or crew from GoT (there are notable instances of this, like the Harry Potter and Twilight series). We do not allow them from people sharing their thoughts. We don't allow cites from fan sites for the same reason.
 * I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but maybe consider that if you cannot find this information in standard reliable sources, that maybe it isn't considered important enough to include. I think we get that you want it in, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient references to support its inclusion at this time. That might change in the future, but for now, I think that maybe you should consider waiting a while to see what new references come up. I've noticed in Dr. Who articles that good refs appear sometimes during those times the series is on hiatus. The same thing could happen here. It just doesn't look like there are usable cites to support what you want to say at this juncture. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And those credentials are sufficient for her to look at a general-audience book and general-audience television show and observe which parts are the same. We're not citing her for any kind of advanced literary analysis.
 * If you don't want to beat a dead horse then don't. I already know your opinion on this matter and you know mine.  Sources less precise than these are used to support material more controversial than this all the time.  As for more sources coming up, yes they do.  The Prince Albert source came up after the season ended.  I don't see what waiting has to do with that.  The material is already in the article and sourced.  I'm finding more sources 1. to address your own objections and 2. to support the addition of similar material to other articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. WP:RS specifically precludes any yahoo creating a website and posting their observations and calling it a reliable source. So finding any old source isn't enough, you have to find a source considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Please stop grasping at straws and drop your personal thesis that no reliable source supports. Fan-sites are below the standards of an encyclopedia so please stop trying to cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in complete agreement with DonQuixote. Also, please stop re-adding the same material that got you blocked before. Find a solution here in discussion before implementing your interpretation in the article. Seek a solution, not a conflict. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well for "just any yahoo," I agree, DQ. But these don't seem to be just any yahoos.  If we were asking about where the SoIaF novels fit in the greater scheme of Western literature, I'd want a higher threshold for expertise, but that's not an issue here.  We're citing for straight facts.
 * Jack, stop deleting this content. Contributors to the ANI discussion that you called said that the content issues had been addressed.  The issue at hand at the moment is the addition of the Ana Carol article as a further source.  As for "got you blocked," you should probably switch to "got us blocked."  Your actions brought you identical censure. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall that part of the ANI. do you mind providing a link to the post that allows you to support primary sourcing of evaluative statements with dead (faked) links, blog posts and sources that do not say what you are claiming they say? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

((EC))Still not a reliable source as per WP:RS. Unless you can prove otherwise, the author of that blog is no more notable for citation in this article than you or I, which is the point. Please stop trying to bypass WP:VERIFY. DonQuixote (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the sources you have provided in support of the statements (and primary sourcing) you wish to add:
 * GEOS - a blog source that utilizes circular referencing to Wikipedia. Ie., it is using Wikipedia to source its infor, and we can't use a source that uses us as a source.
 * 538 - a genuine source, but it only notes that Oathkeeper "contained the final scene of Jaime Lannister’s ninth “Storm of Swords” chapter", It goes on to note that "lots of material from that chapter hasn’t been on the show yet". This supports the argument that comparing chapters and the book is evaluative.
 * Prince Albert - a dead link, which once upon a time led to a free space within the Classifieds section within this newspaper where "someone" created the article before it was shortly deleted by the same media outlet.
 * Game of Thrones Brazilian fansite - we don't use fansites, or reviews from said sources. Ana Carol is not a reporter/reviewer; she is a music student who wrote a personal blog on a fansite. As per WP:RS, this isn not a reliable source.
 * That's it. That is the sum total of all the sources which have been added to support the chapter-to-article statements. If we are to use Darkfrog's special interpretation of the RfC consensus, we cannot include the book sourcing without secondary sourcing explicitly stating the information to be added. No matter how its dissected, we do not have proper sourcing for inclusion at this time. Some time in the future, but not now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * DQ: WP:VERIFY is not an issue. The novel itself is sufficient source for that.
 * Go back to the thread and hit CTRL-F content. Also, read Dark's responses.  You will find it.
 * You forgot the novel itself, which is used for straight facts about its own content. We disagree about the OR issue, but there is no question that the content in the article is verifiable and correct.  The issue raised at the last RfC was notability, and both the volume and quality of other sources indicate that the material is notable.
 * GEOS does not specifically list Wikipedia as its source. The part of GEOS that is cited is not survey material contributed by a random user.
 * Insinuating that I wrote a PANow article myself is inappropriate. Knock it off.  Do you think perhaps the article appeared because the season had just ended?  As for its content, it's essentially product information, no different from reading specs off the side of a box.
 * Ana Carol is expert enough to look at the chapters and episode and say "These and these match." We're not asking for literary analysis or political or scientific information. These are general-audience books, meant to be understood by the public.
 * You're also forgetting the Tor and i09 sources and other sites that you rejected, which also listed these chapters. They weren't perfect, but they did show that third parties had taken note of the chapter issue.  The matter is noted and notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't make (or anything similar) a reliable source, so please stop trying to cite it. And consensus was that we should find a secondary source for verification. Citing a fan site by some yahoo that doesn't meet the standards of Wikipedia isn't going to cut it. DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Further sourcing, continued
It seems FormerIP has also closed parts of the discussion that were still ongoing. The question posed in the RfC, whether the primary source should be used alone, has ended with "no." However, I'd concur with the contributors of the ANI discussion who said that it would still be acceptable to cite the book alongside secondary sources, as is the case at the moment. And yes, DQ, consensus is that a secondary source should be found. I've found several. Some are cited in the article now and some are not.

As for the issue of notability, Slate, AV Club and i09 have both posted articles with episode-to-chapter guides through the end of the season. Unlike the Chris Kirk article in Slate that I cited on "The Climb," no one's citing Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the information they contain for this episode does not match what I've found in the book and on other sites. Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reddit is not a reliable source. Jonnyi94 is not a notable person. To be clear, we can cite AV Club and i09 for the text "fans have spent time matching episodes to books" (or similar words), but the fan work itself is not considered notable or reliable by Wikipedia. DonQuixote (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur (again) with DonQuixote. While it is true that some sources have noted aspects of the books that have been noticed in the episodes, most of them note that these chapter uses are - at best - incomplete. The article might better be served by (and this is going to be crucial, Darkfrog24) making sure that the sources are beyond reproach before they are added to the article. It is clear that you find the removal of the sources you add to be frustrating in the extreme; it is all the more important that you should add them with the assurance (from prior discussion) that they aren't going to be removed. The IGN, TOR and FiveThirtyEight sources appear to be pretty solid. this is what you should look for in sources. A good benchmark in sources is looking at the reviewer: is this their job as a staff writer? If so, they might be a good source. Is this paid staff writer working at a legitimate media outlet with editorial oversight? If so, the source becomes more credible. Are the claims being made by the reviewer fringe views? If so, someone is going to call the use of those statements as such. While the litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, it has to be a truth that is generally accepted. If it isn't, then we need to balance it out with the majority view (also supported by RS). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree DQ. Slate and i09 and AV have endorsed this chart.  However, we shouldn't use it because it is inaccurate in its current version.
 * Jack, there is no rule requiring that the sources be beyond reproach, only that they be sufficiently reliable for the material that they are supporting, as is the case here and with the article by Ana Carol, who is a staff writer for her site. You have seen enough sources to see that this information is indeed a truth generally accepted, to the point where we can expect the chart cited by these last articles to be corrected shortly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors can't just say that some previously unknown person is a reliable source. It has to be shown that the person in question is an acknowledged expert for that to happen. It takes far more than two sources to develop a person's notability enough such that he's citable in an encyclopaedia. I09 and AV Club mentioning Jonnyi94 does not make him notable enough to be citable by an encyclopaedia. This also applies to fan sites, such as the site that Ana Carol's article appears in and Carol herself whom no one (other than you) have noted. They're not notable enough and therefore not considered reliable enough for encyclopadias. So, please find sources that are generally considered reliable rather than sources of questionable reliability that just happens to support your thesis. DonQuixote (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk first, change later
Given the obviously controversial nature of these changes I believe it would be best going forward to adopt a policy of "discuss first, change later". This wouldn't be the first article to adopt such a policy, and it would prevent a whole lot of situations that resemble edit-warring. DonIago (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. This content has been in place with its current sources for weeks.  Don't change it.
 * While we're on this subject, does anyone object to the addition of further sources before discussion? I've been running sources by this talk page first just in case, but technically the rules don't require it.  Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point I object to any additions to the article relating to this type of subject matter before discussion. That includes sources, because it's been made abundantly clear that the sources being applied are considered questionable by one or more editors. Editors should bring up the full content that they wish to add, including sources, here, and we can then add it if and when there's a consensus to do so. Let's stop going back and forth on the article itself. That way lies edit-warring and blocks, because I know for myself I'm at the point of having zero tolerance for the constant changes and will report them promptly and/or request page protection. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read this discussion after - again - undoing the revert of Darkfrog24's addition of the same information that was found to be unsubstantiated. It should remain out until there is substantial citation to re-add any portion of it back to the article. I reworked the material to more properly reflect the actual statements of the sources present. As we come to more of an agreement as to what sources to add, the version in place can be added to. Piece by piece.
 * After the RfC closed with a pretty clear assertion as to why the chapter information cannot be added to the article, I would think that removing the material until there is substantial referencing to add any portion back in after discussion would be prudent. I am surprised that Darkfrog24 keeps adding in material that she has been told in no uncertain terms should not be in.
 * The version that Darkfrog24 keeps adding does not have a single reference that notes the chapter to episode usage that she wants. One or two of them note some of the changes, but none of them make the statements that all of the chapters Darkfrog24 keeps adding in. We as editors do not add material and demand that others provide citation to support it - it works the other way around. Any material added to the article must be referenced; I would think that it be crystal clear at this point.
 * Darkfrog24 should not revert back into the article the version in contention. Furthermore, she should discuss any addition of references here first, and find a consensus to do so, It is tedious, but considering what this article has already been put through, it seems an entirely reasonable suggestion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC))
 * They're not additions, Doniago. The text was already there.  The deletions are the changes.  This material is supported by so many sources that deleting it is the radical move.  If you don't want constant changes, then don't make changes.
 * The question asked in the RfC was "Is the primary source alone sufficient support for this text?" FormerIP just formalized the de facto consensus that we've been working with for months, that the book may be cited alongside secondary sources but not alone, which has been the actual state of the text for weeks.
 * As the rules do not require me to discuss the addition of sources with you first, I will do so solely at my own discretion, as I have been doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow us to be clear, Darkfrog24: as you have shown that you are unable (or unwilling) to select the correct references for the article, we are stating that you need to bring those references here, for evaluation, first. Your rearrangement of those citations is not in keeping with either the spirit or the letter of the consensus, or of the RfC closing statements.
 * If you keep adding them, I can see a number of editors seeking a topic ban in your future. I realize that you do not mind taking long breaks from Wikipedia, but the rest of us have to continually fix your mistakes, and that has to stop.


 * As for the content itself, we have several secondary sources to use alongside the novel. GEOS does contain survey information offered by the public, but that is not the information cited for the article.  In fact, at the time of access, no such survey responses had yet been submitted for the Oathkeeper entry.  We have a page from the newspaper Prince Albert Now.  As per Wikipedia's policy on dead links, WP:DEADLINK, the fact that the link went dead does not disqualify it from use.  We have an essay by a named blogger with credentials provided, per the policy on blogs, and those credentials are sufficient for her to examine a general-audience book and TV show, per the policy on context.  We also have the book itself, which, although deemed non-suitable for use alone by the recent RfC, does establish that the material in these third-party secondary sources is accurate, verifiable and reliable.  The threshold for inclusion has been more than met.
 * We also have the article by i09. Diego suggested a tag-the-plot format a month or two back on Breaker of Chains, using the novel alone as a source.  As I've said before, I feel a single line listing all the chapter information in one place works better with the article and is more convenient for the reader, but if it addresses your concerns, I could live with it.  At least the readers still get their information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The litmus for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Prince Albert Now is out, should never have been added and you are playing with fire in insisting in its inclusion. It has already been proven (by the media source itself) that the link was created about a week before you added it (odd that). It vanished about 12 hours after its true nature - create as an advert in the Classifieds section - was discovered (odder still, right?).
 * The GEOS link uses Wikipedia as a source, and is therefore not usable as a source. I was at first excited about this link, as it seemed to neatly solve all of our problems, but we cannot use a reference that itself references us. As an admin if you are unclear on this matter; we aren't going to waste any more time on explaining it to you.
 * We don't use blogs, unless the blogger being cited is connected to the article's subject or is a recognized member of the media. Ana Carol is neither one of these, and is probably tickled pink that a music student in college is being incorrectly assumed to be on par with Edward Murrow. Again, if you are unclear on how to distinguish good sources from bad ones, get a mentor and get some advice. You keep saying that these are only my opinions.I say, ask around - I am not the only Wikipedian who holds these views.
 * Lastly, while there is a consensus that we can use chapter-to-episode connections citing the primary source of the book, it is not an admission that adding them is correct. It is instead acknowledging that the book does in fact have chapters. It requires a secondary source to make the actual connection between the book and the episode. You cannot make these connections. THAT was the result of the RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * All concerns about verifiability are addressed by the use of the novel itself.
 * Jack, I don't see anything on GEOS that indicates that it copied Wikipedia, but I'm a human being and it's possible missed it. Show me exactly where the GEOS page cites Wikipedia.
 * The Prince Albert page was essentially product information, no different from reading specs off a box or DVD case. Quit the insinuations.  They are not appropriate.  There is nothing odd about material about an episode showing up right after the season ends.
 * The policy on blogs doesn't say "recognized member of the media." It says "credentials provided." This is a general-audience book and general-audience TV show. The writer Ana Carol is a student in the arts.  We're good to go.
 * "while there is a consensus that we can use chapter-to-episode connections citing the primary source of the book" -- I'm confused by what you mean by this. The RfC consensus was that the novel should not be used alone.  The consensus on the other thread was that the novel could be cited if secondary sources were cited as well.
 * I recommend rephrasing. Yes I can make these connections.  I did make these connections.  You've made it quite clear that you consider this to be a comparison and I've made it quite clear that I don't.  Stop acting as if your opinion were a given.  The RfC is right there for you to read if you're confused.  FormerIP even gave us another comment.  FormerIP will probably provide further clarification if you ask.
 * I see no objection to the i09 article and Diego format. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I notice that you guys still aren't objecting to the content per se. You don't like that I put it up, but I'm not reading anything about the content itself.  I've been interpreting silence on this issue as a lack of objection.  Sure, I'd rather write up one line and place it in the writing section, but that's not how this source is worded.
 * The i09 source specifically mentions these chapters and the events that are in them.  This is what you've been asking for.  In case there's any confusion, two i09 articles have been mentioned in this extended discussion.  This is not the one with the chart that we've agreed not to use at this time (though for different reasons).  This is the other one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm officially objecting to its inclusion unless and until there is a clear consensus for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, Don. What do you think is wrong with it?  Consensus requires more than, "I don't like it" and "No thanks." It's supported by both primary and secondary sources, which is what you guys have been asking for this whole time.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what's wrong with it is that you're being tendentious and ignoring repeated requests to discuss your changes before making them. If you want my support, I need to see some indication from you that you're attempting to edit in good faith. Thus far I'm not seeing that; instead I'm seeing edit-warring and a disinterest in working with your fellow editors. If that's a problem for you then you're welcome to escalate the matter (again), but since you must know by now that this has become highly controversial, I would strongly recommend you take a more collaborative and less "brute force" approach to having your changes applied. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Don, you didn't run anything by the talk page before making changes to the writing section. You still haven't given any reasons why you think this content shouldn't be there.  Don't expect me to go above and beyond if you aren't willing to do so yourself.  As for proof that I'm editing in good faith, here you are:


 * 1. I have repeatedly established that I don't think secondary sources are necessary to support this text. Despite this, I have spent a great deal of time and effort finding such sources anyway, for months now. (I counted the other day, and I think it was six separate sources, not counting Westeros.org, which was found by someone else.  Feels like more.) This is because I am taking your opinions seriously even though I do not share them.
 * 2. When you pointed out a specific policy, WP:FILMDIFF, that showed that a statement about the white walkers was not OR but "not encouraged," I removed that statement and ceased to argue for its inclusion. I did not put anything of the kind back in until I had run across a secondary source that drew attention to it specifically, as stipulated by that policy.
 * 3. I ran the Ana Carol source by this talk page before adding it to the article. I still haven't added it to the article, even though I find that it meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliability in this case.  See: When you guys don't change the article without discussion, neither do I, even if it is something as innocuous as adding an additional tag.
 * 4. I'm the one who's been volunteering compromise texts. I've repeatedly said that I'd be okay with rewording the content.  Right now, I'm using a format (first suggested by Diego) that I don't think is ideal, but it addresses concerns about making sure that the article text matches what the source says very closely.
 * 5. Even though I think that the conclusion of the RfC is wrong, I've stopped arguing that the primary source should be used alone to support the material. I expect this position to be reversed eventually, but for now I'm required to use the primary source alongside secondary sources or not at all, so that's what I've been doing, even before the final word on the RfC was officially given.
 * 6. I've slowed down my edits to the article and comments on this talk page, even though doing so has had very bad results for me in the past (in another discussion on another issue).
 * Now I want some good faith from you: No one can collaborate alone. I can't work with you if you won't work with me.  Instead of bulldozing the content wholesale, change it so that it better suits your vision for this article.  Then we can triangulate our way toward a version of the article that we can all find reasonably acceptable; in my experience, that's how this usually works.  Suggest a wording that would address your concerns.  Find an additional source.  You already found one Wikipedia policy, FILMDIFF, that solved one of our problems.
 * For the moment, though, I notice that you still haven't given a reason why you think that this material shouldn't be in this article, so, for now, I'm putting it back in. Yes, you don't like that I added it without your permission, but I'm not required to get your permission, just as you are not required to get mine.  Even if I were, that's not an objection to the content itself.  As of right now, every objection that has been raised to this content—reliability, notability, verifiability, OR—has been addressed.  Of course I put the content back in; every condition set down for doing so has been met.
 * Here's another proof of good faith, probably the best one:


 * 7. List your specific reason or reasons why you think this content shouldn't be included in this article so that they can be addressed. I can't promise that I'll agree with you, but I will treat them with the seriousness that they deserve and that you have shown that you deserve. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we get that you disagree with everyone else's opinion that secondary sources are required to add the material you think is helpful to the article. We get that you think that our interpretation of clearly-stated policy is wrong. We also get that you think that the RfC closing comments by FormerIP were wrong (or at least incomplete). We get it - we're wrong and you're right. At least, that is what you keep telling us.
 * This is - as you just noted - a collaborative environment. That means that that a consensus of opinion regarding edits is to be respected, not ignored. You keep stating that you are the only one who's volunteering compromise edits, but every single edit you offer in the article is precisley the same. Oh yes, you add it in different place, but it is all the same edit - an edit which is almost completely unsupported by the material you desperately keep trying to add. And your reasoning for this blatantly tendentious edit-warring? You say you haven't hear anything to change your mind, so you "are adding it back in". This is beyond edit-warring; this feels like ownership issues and a battle.
 * We've all explained to you repeatedly why the edits you keep adding are wrong, and you won't listen to reason, so I've reported you for edit-warring. I'd like to say I hoped it wouldn't get to that point, but I think the rest of us knew it would come to this regarding you. I'm sorry you couldn't work with us. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What you have explained to me, Jack, is 1. you want the material to be supported by secondary sources and 2. these secondary sources must match the article text very closely. The material that I added does both these things.
 * To be even more specific, the text says "This event is found in chapter X" and the secondary source also says "This event happens in chapter X." Hit CTRL-F "Jaime IX" and CTRL-F "Sansa V," etc. and you will see the exact lines.
 * It's not that I hadn't heard "anything to change my mind"; it is that no one has given any reason at all why they find this treatment of the material unacceptable. It deals with all problems that have previously been raised. (Jack, given your history with the 538 and Prince Albert sources, I would like you to confirm that you have looked at the source.  I'm not mocking you, but you've missed things like this before.)
 * Now, gentlemen, if you wish to exclude the content, please state your reasons.
 * If its location is an issue, I wouldn't mind putting it somewhere other than the plot section. The point is to put it somewhere 1. where the readers can find it easily and 2. where it will not distract from the rest of the article.  My preferred version is a single line in the writing/production section, but this source does not treat the material in the same way as the other sources.
 * FormerIP's closure is for the most part a formalization of the de facto conclusion under which we had all already been operating&mdash;that secondary sources are required but primary sources are not prohibited. The only thing FormerIP got wrong was whether we were fighting over whether WP:Primary allows comparisons. We were all in agreement that it does not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Request at my talkpage
Two things have been requested at my talkpage. Firstly, that I partly re-open the above RfC that I closed yesterday, because some of the comments were slightly off-topic and may still be relevant regardless of the close. I don't think I can do that, because even if the comments were off-topic, they were made as part of the RfC and it's normal to to put a box around the whole thing when its done. One of the reasons is so that it is clear what the discussion that has been closed is. As a matter of principle, it is important that the close is transparent and doesn't exclude comments that users made in the discussion, even if they are off topic. There's no reason, though, why off-topic threads of the discussion can't be picked up by starting a new section or sections below.

I was also asked to confirm that the close only addresses the question of using primary sources in combination to make comparisons, which I'm happy to do. If secondary sources can be found from which similar information can be drawn without the need for original research, then that may be fine. If there are disputes about whether particular secondary sources are suitable, the best way to resolve them might be to make use of the noticeboards (eg WP:RSN). Formerip (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Actually, there was no disagreement about whether it was consistent with Wikipedia's rules to use primary sources to make comparisons; we all agreed that it is not. We were discussing whether to state which chapters of a novel appeared in its adaptation using the primary sources themselves as support. Thanks for making your position clear.  Several secondary sources have been provided over the course of the past few months.  Feel free to weigh in on them if you see fit to do so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, Darkfrog24, the filter required for stating which chapters are used in the episode - in the absence of reliable secondary sourcing - is the editor. We don't allow that. We also do not allow blog posts, sources that use Wikipedia as a source for its statements, or links that pop in and out of existence which, with a few exceptions, are what you have been providing. I get that you are frustrated at not getting in what you think is obvious. However, we cannot state it. Sources have to.
 * We are simply asking you to provide good secondary sources as well as make sure that statements from those sources are properly attributed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jack, you have stated your opinion on numerous occasions. That does not change the fact that the issue at hand was whether or not saying "Content from this epsiode also appears in chapters X, Y, and Z" should be considered a comparison at all was the subject of the RfC and not whether WP:Primary allows comparisons.  No one was in disagreement that it does not.  Although WP policy does allow blog posts under certain circumstances, no blog sources had been suggested at the time of the RfC.  We could prevent bloat here if we could keep each thread solidly on topic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the blog sources you have offered can be used. The source that uses Wikipedia as a source cannot be used. The non-existent Prince Albert Now source can't be used, because it doesn't exist. This is not the first time you have been advised of this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Prince Albert site, if you click on WP:BADLINK, it will take you to Wikipedia's policy on dead links. No, the fact that the link is no longer working not mean that it cannot be used.  This is not the first time that you have been advised of this.  As for the blog, it is written by a named staff writer whose credentials are provided, as per Wikipedia's policies.
 * If GEOS uses Wikipedia as a source, show me where (preferably in the section above, where I first asked). I did check but it's possible I missed it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You might have missed where I mentioned tha tthe link was created in the classified section of the Prince Albert Now shortly before you added it to the article. I followed up on it, as it seemed suspiciously worded, and discovered that it was created with an IP that geolocates to New York. Immediately after I asked about the source here, the link was removed as inappropriate by PrinceAlbertNow; the link is not only dead, it is fake. If you do not want to be presumed to be the author of this fake reference, you might wish to stop presenting it as valid.
 * The blog source is not useful. The blogger is an undergraduate music student. We accept blogs that are directly connected to a series, as they are part of the show. Ana is not. Ergo, she cannot be added. Period.
 * GEOS cannot be linked, as their source material comes from us. Others have pointed this out to you previously, You need to start asking for advice from others. Your continued resistance to listening to others is considered tendentious editing, and if it doesn't stop, I will be forced to take action. Please use your time and posts wisely - seek some conformation from other, more experienced editors than yourself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me just say that given that every editor who's paid any attention to this Talk page realizes that these types of edits are now considered highly controversial, I'm inclined to assume that anyone making edits to the article page involving this type of content without passing it by the Talk page first is not editing in good faith. If the contributing editor has been an active participant in the discussions here and their contributions have not been discussed first I am likely to revert on principle.
 * If you want me to believe that you're editing in good faith, I recommend displaying some good faith by discussing your edits and achieving consensus here first. Yes, that's not standard WP policy, but nothing about what's occurred here is, for my money, standard. DonIago (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this concept. I've removed the chapter to episode pairings in the plot summary (we certainly don't do that, as per plot summaries). There are references to the book already in the writing subsection - just not the breadth of the chapters that you personally feel are important. If you find references more chapters - reliably - we can add more. Until then, we have to keep it as it currently is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Jack, Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy is all I need not to be presumed to be the author of the source. I have told you that I did not write it, and that is above and beyond what is required of me.  Frankly, if you think I'd spend money on an argument with you, then you have an inflated opinion of yourself. 2. If you bother to look at my profile, you'll see I've been editing on Wikipedia for years.  Going solely by profile information, I've been here longer than you have.  Stop making assumptions about how much experience I have. 3. I've read every post you've made.  Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're not listening to you. 4. No one is forcing you to do anything.  You choose to do what you do.  Take responsibility for your own actions. You got yourself blocked for edit warring.
 * DonIago, you didn't get consensus on the talk page before making changes. If you don't want me to do something, then you should refrain from doing it yourself.  As for consensus for this version of the text, the content was up for days and no one objected to it.  I figured you guys thought we were good to go.
 * As for good faith, you guys have been saying, "We need more sources! Secondary and specific!" and then I found one.  That's not a lack of good faith.  That is me taking your opinions seriously even though I do not share them.
 * Comments on the content itself are in the appropriate section (scroll up). Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog - I'm not the one who's pushing for edits that nobody else is backing up at this point. If you want good faith shown towards you, then as you know this has become a highly charged situation, you would come here first to allay all concerns that you may not be editing in good faith. There is no deadline for edits, so I'm forced to wonder, why are you apparently so discontent to discuss the changes you want to make before you make them? DonIago (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As for why the article remained untouched for a while with your preferred edit in place, it was to avoid the constant edit-warring that only muddies the discussion. I (and probably others) thought that if you acknowledged our concerns and took steps to - as Donlago suggested - allay them, you would eventually come to accept the consensus and remove/alter them yourself. That was the best (and probably too altruistic) approach. You should not have considered our reticence (to start another edit-war) with acquiescence.
 * If you truly meant what you said about taking our concerns "seriously", you wouldn't knee-jerk revert your preferred version back into the article. That doesn't come across like respect or collaboration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't my preferred version. My preferred version is a single line listing the chapters in the writing section.  As for allaying your concerns about OR, notability, and reliability, Jack, I have done so by finding sources.
 * No one can collaborate alone. How about instead of completely deleting my contribution to the article, you change it to something that better suits your vision?  How about you suggest a compromise text?  How about you suggest something that I haven't thought of yet?  That's how this usually works: Wikieditors triangulate their way to articles that they all find reasonably acceptable.  We can't do that if you won't work with me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We reverted your preferred version because a consensus of editors discussing the topic, an RfC closing opinion by an administrator and several folk at AN/I told you in no uncertain terms that it wasn't an acceptable version. You keep adding it in, incorrectly thinking we are accepting of your tendentious editing. In fact, we are trying to avoid-edit-warring by hoping you get the point of collaborative editing; you work with others, and when a consensus tells you not to add sources from blogs, fake links and unusable links, you stop adding them. We don't have to work with you at this point - you have to work with us. You need sources that state explicitly the content you want. Period. You cannot add it to the plot section, since sources don't go there at all. The few sources you have found that are useful have been worked into usable statements within the article, noting specific chapter use. No blanket coverage of what chapters were used. You want others to collaborate with you? Start doing precisley that, and self-revert yourself. Otherwise, you are shedding our assumption of good faith. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. It was not my preferred version but rather a version that I had worded specifically to address concerns that you and the others have raised with respect to article text following the sources very closely. That should be acknowledged.
 * 2. You know what? You bring up a good point.  You guys did refrain from deleting the chapter information that was supported by the 538 article.  But you've also deleted sourced material that had nothing to do with any of the objections that you've raised, usually as part of a blanket deletion including other text.  It would be great if you guys could keep up the 538 pattern; actually look at all the content that's been added and only delete the text that you actually don't agree with (or give the reason why you don't agree with the other material).
 * 3. The results of the RfC are that the primary source alone is not to be used to support this material. That is not the case here; both secondary and primary sources were provided; see above.  I don't agree with the RfC, but I'm not contesting it and haven't been for some time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's reboot this conversation below. I'm willing to walk the path of 'letting the past be the past'. Let's set the recriminatory behaviors aside and look at the issues we have with a fresh perspective. We all want the article to be better. We just have to find a way to accomplish that collaboratively. Since I think you have concerns that you do not feel are being addressed, I'll let you initiate the new section below (after the image section). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that a "fresh start" is probably the best path forward. Let's all try to have a clear discussion of potential contributions (as regards the controversial areas of the article) and sources and consensus regarding changes to the article going forward instead of starting another ping-pong match. I think it would also be great if we could minimize any discussion of editor conduct. Let's focus on the topic, not each other. DonIago (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. Consider it thirded. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Further sourcing of chapter information (reboot)
Regarding the material recently deleted from the article: The text says "This event is found in chapter X" and the secondary source also says "This event happens in chapter X." Hit CTRL-F "Jaime IX" and CTRL-F "Sansa V," etc. and you will see the exact lines. This article from Observation Deck is presented in addition to primary and secondary sources that have already been presented. I believe this satisfies all concerns that have been raised about OR, notability and reliability. In case there is any confusion, there have been two articles offered from Observation Deck. This is not the one with the chart. This is the one that lists chapter information in the text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ''Content Guidelines
 * ''Welcome to Kinja, where you own the story.
 * ''All we ask from our users is that they follow a few simple rules.
 * ''Carefully select your username. Your username is no place to attack or impersonate others.
 * ''Don’t try to break our site.
 * ''Don’t post spam. If you’re interested in using our platform for promotional purposes, talk to us first.
 * ''Don’t publish your porn site on Kinja. We fully embrace NSFW items, but there’s a line.
 * ''Respect the privacy of others.
 * Make sure you own the rights to anything you post.
 * ''If you believe that a user has broken any of these rules, please let us know.
 * ''(And of course, all users must follow our Terms of Use.)
 * It's user generated. Not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. DonQuixote (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with using the Observation Deck subset of io9; user-generated material. The same problem exists for the Westeros.Org and GameofThrones.br fansites. We can reference the primary source (not as before, where we list each of the chapters) as a source when we mention the book. The specific chapters used should be taken from secondary references that explicitly note what chapters were used, and it should be done using prose, as noted by the few examples we already have put in. I wouldn't mind finding more references that help us accomplish that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That is the Kinja "about us" page. This is the i09 "about us" page:   Kinja is user-generated.  i09 is a news site.
 * Jack, many, many secondary references have been provided. The primary source addresses all concerns about reliability and accuracy and verifiability.  The other i09 article, Slate article, and AV club article address all concerns about notability.  Put them all together and we're good to go. 02:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs)
 * Go to the article that you linked. Go to the very bottom of the page. Click on Content Guidelines. It's Kinja. DonQuixote (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We aren't re-hashing what sources were provided previously. We aren't focusing on petty slights or accidentally-removed references. We are in the here and now.
 * While io9 is indeed a reliable source (as verified via RSN multiple times), the Observation deck is their forum, composed of user comments and essays. They are not suitable for inclusion here. I think it bears mentioning/repeating that even if we have reliable secondary referencing, we cannot cite the material listing all of the chapters used and source it to the book. The point of the secondary sourcing is that reliably-sourced reviewers outside Wikipedia draw these connections, which we then illustrate in prose style. If the source doesn't mention a given chapter that we as editors think were int he episode, then it does not go in. The point of the primary source use is to point out that said source was in fact used in the episode. Not the list of chapters. I think that is an important distinction to make here, in order to avoid any misunderstanding as we move forward. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, previously cited sources will be brought up if there is reason to do so. You guys haven't proven that the Ana Carol site is not suitable for use, nor that the Prince Albert site is not suitable for use.  Westeros.org is a clear fansite, but there is precedent for its use on Wikipedia.
 * As for all sources, consider context: Is the source reliable for the content being cited? In all cases, yes it is: A newspaper page with product information, a blog post with a named author whose credentials are provided, the book itself.
 * The current source states "Event X happened in chapter Y," and that is the statement that it is being used to support.
 * The point of the secondary source is to establish notability. All issues with reliability and verifiability are taken care of with the use of the primary source.  We're good to go with the novel and the Slate/AV/second i09 articles alone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Er...no. You have to prove that Ana Carol is a notable person let alone a reliable source. To use a worst-case scenario as a hypothetical, for all we know Ana Carol is some Wikipedia user trying to insert original research into an article by publishing her work on a fan site...same with Jonnyi94 and artiofab. So, no, we need someone other than a Wikipedia editor claiming that those people are notable enough or reliable enough to be cited on Wikipedia.
 * And as for Prince Albert, only you and Jack have seen this supposed article, and to err on the side of caution, we need some unbiased third party to verify such an article existed let alone is reliable enough to be citable by Wikipedia. So a big no on that one.
 * As for Westeros.org, it's a fan site and by policy it shouldn't have been used as a source to begin with unless it was shown to be a notable and reliable source--so those "precedents" as it were don't mean a thing unless Westeros.org is shown to be a notable, reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you are aware of articles that are using Westeros.org, please link them here; we'll fix them immediately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just say that if there's going to be a dispute about whether a source is reliable, there's a noticeboard for that. Getting a ruling from that board might be more productive than merely claiming a source is reliable. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Don, I have presented evidence exactly as stipulated by the rule about blogs. You don't find that evidence convincing.  That's not the same thing as a lack of proof.  I'll concur that the Ana Carol article could go either way: I wouldn't call it reliable for advanced literary analysis, but it is reliable for a straight and simple fact, especially considering that those facts have already been verified in several other corroborating sources.  Let's say that you didn't find the New York Times convincing.  That doesn't mean that NYT isn't reliable.  Reliability is independent of belief in that reliability.
 * Actually, Jack, I did go around adding additional sourcing to articles that continued content like this. When I noticed that DQ was following me around and deleting the whole thing, I stopped.  One consequence of this debate is that these articles missed out on being strengthened in that way.  Of course I'm not going to give you directions to material that I think is right and good so that you can remove it.  You don't want to put in the effort to find sources for material that you don't think is good; I'm not going to put in time to delete material that I do think is good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Er...what evidence? You haven't provided any evidence to support that Carol is a notable person let alone notable enough for Wikipedia...which is completely different from the NYT which has a notable reputation for being a reliable source. Carol has no such reputation, so she fails WP:BLOGS.
 * Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis mine)
 * So, no, you have not "presented evidence exactly as stipulated by the rule about blogs" because you haven't shown that Carol is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". So yeah, it's hard to be convinced of anything when there's lack of proof.
 * As DonIago has suggested, you can take this to WP:RSN rather than merely claiming Carol et al. are reliable. DonQuixote (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one here a little disturbed by Darkfrog's statement that she refused to help improve the wiki by helping us to remove inappropriate sources?
 * Jack, it should be pretty clear that I consider the inclusion of chapter information an improvement to these articles and that I consider its removal inappropriate. No I am not refusing to help you improve the encyclopedia; I am declining to help you diminish it.  We simply have different ideas about whether chapter information is good or bad.
 * Look at it this way: You haven't brought in a single source to support the disputed content. If you cited even one that fit your personal interpretation of the rules, this dispute would be over.  Is that disturbing?  Maybe you just don't think it's your job; you once said something to the effect of preferring gnoming.  I can't read your mind, but it could be as simple as that.
 * Remember, from my perspective, I'm the one putting in all the work here. No, I don't think I should expend extra hours drawing you a map straight toward good content that I expect you'll just delete.  Frankly, Jack, you're more than capable of going through the articles yourself.  The content's not hidden.
 * And remember this: You guys asked for more secondary sources. I have put a lot of time and effort into finding them&mdash;and far more controversial content has been supported on far less.  I have not dismissed your concerns, even though I do not share them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not only is Ana Carol not a notable person, but the source of the link - a Brazilian fan site - is utterly not acceptable as well. Please accept that there isn't going to be any acceptance of sources that are not reliable, secondary and notable. You are simply wasting your (and our) time seeking to convince us otherwise. We have pointed out why these sources are not acceptable for use in an article that we seek to improve to GA and FA status. Move on. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And we've offered an alternative for guiding consensus if the current feeling that the sources are unacceptable is itself unacceptable. Get a ruling from the Noticeboard if you're not willing to believe multiple editors saying that a source is inappropriate and we'll reconsider. DonIago (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Don, what are you talking about? What "alternative to guiding consensus"?  "Multiple editors" have said that this content is okay and other multiple editors have said that it is.  It is not that I don't believe you.  It is that I don't agree with you.  You are not informing me of what policy says; you are giving your own opinion about what policy means.  No one is under obligation to conform to your way of thinking, only to policy as stated.
 * As for "we'll reconsider," remember that it is not your decision. You are not the owner of this article.  No one is asking for or under obligation to receive your permission before making changes to this or any article, just as you have not been asking for mine.
 * Jack, no one's contesting that the site is a blog. Wikipedia's policy on blogs gives criteria for when blogs are acceptable sources and those criteria have been met.  1. Article is submitted by a named member of the staff. 2. Staff member's credentials are given.  Those two criteria are flat-out met.  The issue at hand is 3. Those credentials are sufficient for the specific text being supported given the context.  This is where opinions and interpretations come into play.
 * I'm sorry, did you completely miss the part where I talked about WP:RSN, or are you just coming across as though you did? If you want sources included that you think are reliable but that others here are disputing, bring them to that board and we'll see how things play out. I don't think anyone here will dispute the inclusion of a source that that noticeboard considers appropriate. DonIago (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Doniago. Take those sources to RSN; let them explain what we have for almost two months. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, get off the high horse. No you have not been explaining how Wikipedia works.  You have been explaining your own beliefs.  They're no less valid than anyone else's, but they're not more valid either.  I have been listening to you intently, but that does not oblige me to agree with you or to prefer your judgment to my own. We've all seen here that your interpretation of the rules is not universally held.
 * No, Don, I did not miss the part about RSN and had been planning on acting on it after the weekend, I just didn't know that that's what you meant by "alternative to guiding consensus." There are about five different things to which you could have been referring&mdash;most them not things that I'd define as alternatives to building consensus&mdash;and it was not remotely clear which one you meant. My question, "What are you talking about?" was meant literally.
 * I have a request to make of both of you: Cards on the table. I've brought this up before, but I'm not sure that I asked flat-out.  Officially, the only objection to the statement "Content from this episode is also found in chapters X, Y, and Z" of the novel is the sourcing, and I have been taking that to mean that the addition of a secondary source renders this material 100% acceptable in your eyes and that you guys will then have 0% objection to its inclusion.  I have spent months digging up source after source based on this conclusion, and I want you to state right here whether it is accurate.  Is there anything else going on?  Because when you keep asking for X, and I keep bringing X, and it just seems to make you both angry, it makes it look like there's some other objection to this material that isn't making the talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can provide a secondary source that explicitly references the material you wish to include, and that either meets with no objection here or is approved by WP:RSN, I will have no objection to its inclusion. I hope that's clear enough. I reserve the right to alter my statement for the next 48 hours (I'm writing this late at night), but I think that covers my bases. If you have any questions you're welcome to ask. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just it, Don. From my perspective, I've already provided many such sources.  Far more controversial content has been supported by far less reliable sites.  Wikipedia's ordinary standards were surpassed before you even got involved.
 * Thank you for answering my question, but it's the "and that meets with no objection here" that I want to clear up; it's too vague. In this case, I am not asking about Wikipedia's policy but about your and Jack's and DQ's own beliefs.  The point of my "cards on the table request" is that I don't want to spend another two months finding still more sourcing just to have to deal with some other objection that had been held in reserve.  Yes, it's possible for people to change their minds, but right now, total benefit of the doubt, I'd like anything that anyone would bring up for the purpose of excluding this material to be disclosed. Yes, take your time on the scale of days.  Better to do it right than to do it over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * DF, I haven't seen you provide secondary sources that other editors involved in the discussion considered reliable, but if you want to recap them I'm open to revisiting them. Maybe I missed something. Whether there's material being supported by unreliable sites isn't pertinent to this. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it may be that those statements and/or sources need to be reviewed.
 * I'm not sure how "meets with no objection here" isn't clear. 1) You provide a source you want to use. 2a) If no editor objects to the source, the statement is acceptable, 2b) If any editor objects because they feel the source isn't reliable (and there isn't a consensus to the contrary), you get a ruling from WP:RSN or pursue another source.
 * Hope this clears things up regarding my perspective on the matter. DonIago (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no high horse here, Darkfrog24, just the dead one you keep beating. Cards on the table (again): there is nothing else going on - only what I (and others) have been telling you for months. You cannot source a chapter list of "X, Y and Z" of the book that you have noticed in the episode to the book, not unless - and this is crucial - unless you have a reliable reference from a notable, verifiable source explicitly saying so. This means no blogs. This means no fansites. This means no dead links. This means no Synthesis on your part presuming that if one source notes how one chapter from Jaime LMXIV (or whatever) is in the episode, that it gives you carte blanche to add in all the chapters. The problem is not that you don't know what our objections are; it is that you don't agree with them, and think that by having us repeat ourselves over and over that you are going to either wear us down or find some semantic argument that you can pounce on. It is not going to work, Darkfrog24. Now, you have - as I see it - four remaining options:
 * Find sources that meet the aforementioned criteria. - It doesn't matter if you disagree with the criteria; it isn't going into the article without them.
 * Accept the concensus. - Find a way to realize that your opinion is not the majority view and move along. Live with it, or seek a new consensus at some later date. You aren't changing our minds. At all.
 * Utilize the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to find some input as to why your sources keep getting rejected. - Frankly, I am curious as to why you haven't used this already. It's been two months. I'm going to AGF, and presume that you aren't one of those types who just enjoy arguing.
 * Go find another article to edit. - You aren't gaining any traction for your viewpoint here, and your unwillingness to work with the consensus has seen you blocked twice for edit-warring. Editing in Wikipedia should be fun and collaborative, not a constant battle with people who don't appreciate your special charm. Consider expending your efforts elsewhere.

Those are your choices as I see them. Of course, there is always a fifth one, where you keep not getting the point and end up blocked yet again. I an guessing that isn't one you want to pursue again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, put your own stick down before you go on about dead horses.
 * The part that isn't clear about "meets with no objection here," Don, is that "no objection" can refer to any objection. I could&mdash;and have&mdash;spent months finding still more sources and I don't want someone to turn around and say, "Well, now that reliability, OR, notability and verifiability have been taken care of, I'm going to object on grounds of [issue not previously raised]." That's what I don't want to have to deal with, and, frankly, that's what I think you guys owe me, that you don't save any complaints for later.  No, Wikipedia's rules don't require it; that's my own take on the matter.  I've put in a lot of work and will probably put in more before this is through.  I don't want to waste my time.  As far as multiple editors and other multiple editors, I'm referring to respondents to the RfC above, to Diego, and to other participants on the Breaker of Chains discussion.  The RfC that you cited, the discussion that led to WP:FILMDIFF, also contained many editors who did not consider the use of primary sources inappropriate for content like this.
 * Jack, it would help if you tone yourself down. "It isn't going into the article without them" is not for you or any other one editor to say. You are not the king of Wikipedia or the owner of this article.  How would you react if I said, "Well it's going into the article whether you like it or not"?  I'm betting that you wouldn't find it very convincing.
 * I've already been bringing in secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria; you just have different ideas about what those criteria are.
 * I've already demonstrated that I can act in accord with consensus even when I don't agree with it. My own belief is that the novel alone is sufficient source for this material per WP:Primary, but I've brought in secondary sources anyway.
 * We just went up on the RSN.  I tried to portray your position accurately, but I can't read your mind.  If I've misunderstood anything about your position, let me know.  That goes for both of you.
 * YOU ARE OUT OF LINE. Jack, it is not for you or anyone to tell other Wikieditors when they have to get lost.  You want to silently wish that I'd leave?  That's fine if you keep it to yourself.  Again, this isn't your article, at least no more than it's mine.  It's not your private clubhouse from which you may expel members who've displeased you.  Again, look at what I've actually been doing: Bringing in more sources for material that has been objected to as insufficiently sourced is not tendentious editing.  It is how Wikipedia is supposed to work.
 * I'm going to interpret your answer as, "Yes your conclusion is correct and no I don't plan on making any other objections to this material; a single acceptable secondary source renders the contested material acceptable in my eyes." Please do correct me if this is not the case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've told you what your options are. Act upon them as you will. To clarify, it is your responsibility to provide those sources that meet with the consensus' view of the policies and guidelines on point. Diesagree? Find an admin, and take it up with them. Until then, the majority opinion stands: you need a secondary source to back up any evaluative or comparative statement.
 * This is not a matter for further debate. Find the appropriate sources and stop arguing for inclusion of those which are considered by both Wikipedia and the consensus as inadequate and unusable. That is why you continue to encounter resistance. That is why you continue to shed the assumption of good faith like a snake shedding its skin. Let it go, give us the sources we ask for and everything will be fine. Don't do it, and you are simply wasting your time.
 * Lastly, you may not interpret my answer as "yes". You should probably read my posts more carefully. I specifically stated:
 * "You cannot source a chapter list of "X, Y and Z" of the book that you have noticed in the episode to the book, not unless - and this is crucial - unless you have a reliable reference from a notable, verifiable source explicitly saying so. This means no blogs. This means no fansites. This means no dead links. This means no Synthesis on your part presuming that if one source notes how one chapter from Jaime LMXIV (or whatever) is in the episode, that it gives you carte blanche to add in all the chapters."
 * If you need me to break that down more for you, please do ask. Otherwise, consider you proposed addition to the article as opposed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Jack, you do not tell me my options. To be absolutely frank, it is not your place.  Your place is to tell the others and me your preferences and positions, as it is my place to tell you mine.  You do not dictate terms.  This is what you keep doing that makes you hard to work with.  Doniago and DQ are just guys who disagree with me.  You are a guy who's doing something wrong.  This is what you are doing wrong: You are acting as if you have authority that you do not have.  You are presuming upon rights that you do not have.  It is no more for you to dictate my options than it is for me to dictate yours.
 * If you don't want to debate further, then don't. If you do, then do.  DQ and Diego left and as far as I'm concerned they can come back whenever they choose.  Other contributors like Bal said their piece and moved on.  But again, the issue itself isn't for you to decide.  Only your role in it is.
 * Actually, yes I can. The issue is whether or not I may.  I don't agree with the conclusion of our recent RfC and the idea that observing that such-and-such happens in this chapter or that is synthesis is ridiculous, but I have been abiding by the conclusion of the RfC.  If it's overturned or overruled, I'll be glad, but that's not the state of things right now.  As for a notable, verifiable source, the novel is both these things.  We're good to go on those two points.  What we need, according to the RfC, is a source that is notable, verifiable and also secondary.
 * Jack, please confirm that you have read WP:BADLINK. No, a link going dead does not make the source unusable.  The policy says so flat-out.  If you object to the Prince Albert source, you must give a different reason.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not call it a "bad" or "dead" link, Darkfrog24; i pointedly said it was a fake reference, created in the Classifieds section of the PrinceAlbertNowmedia outlet shortly before being cited within Wikipedia. No one on staff there wrote it, and I was advised by a member of the editorial staff that, after I inquired about the article, it was removed for violating the terms of use. So, a fake article created shortly before its presented as a source in Wikipedia vanishes like a fart in the wind when someone calls attention to it. My suspicions as to the real author of the fake link aside, I am telling you flat out that I will oppose vehemently any inclusion of it within this article.
 * I've already said my piece on the other sources. We are most decidedly not "good to go." You should probably not keep pretending that it is. You have to change the consensus, not ignore it. Yiu have not done so, in my estimation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your use of the word "fake" is inappropriate. No one faked anything.  A link was posted and an accurate reference was written.
 * Jack, please stop using crude and obscene terms. I've talked to you about this before.
 * I am not pretending anything. I just don't agree with you.  Just because someone does not share your personal interpretation of the rules does not mean that he or she is being disingenuous.  Got a problem with reliability and verifiability?  We've got that covered with the novel.  Hm, but the novel's not enough to establish notability?  Well here are some secondary sources; also covered. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I call it fake bc there isn't anything else it can be. As for my language, I'll use the words I like. If you find them offensive, well, there's the door, dear.
 * If you don't agree with me, that's fine. We told you to get clarification over at RSN. Why not wait and get that, instead of desperately seeking the last word in every effing conversation? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, it was product information. Someone was trying to sell access to the GoT episodes and provided a description of their product.  This is like reading information off a box.
 * I don't know, Jack, maybe it's because you keep begging me to. If you say something confrontational, say, like claiming that I misrepresented sources or pulled up a fake source, not "inadequate" in your opinion not "insufficient" in your opinion, but fake, then you're calling me a liar.  Yes I get to respond to that.  If you don't want me to, then knock it the heck off, and keep your comments to the point.
 * And you have absolutely no right to tell me to leave. You have no right to address me as "dear." I have told you not to address me by diminutives before.  Knock it off. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

While I think it's laudable that this has been taken to RSN in an attempt to get a definitive answer regarding the appropriateness of the sources, neither of the filings I see, seems to be as clear-cut and explicit as the noticeboard recommends. I imagine this isn't sufficient grounds for the filings to be dismissed/closed/deleted, but if the posters want to maximize their chances of getting a productive response, I would recommend reviewing the filings as they stand and consider either restating their cases or closing the existing ones in favor of more concise filings.

If the editors who posted feel that the situations are too broad to be summarized in such a manner, it may be worth considering whether that speaks to larger problems with the material under dispute.

Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to how you feel my filing was not as clear-cut as recommended. I mean that literally as a request for constructive criticism from you, Doniago.  I read the instructions very carefully, and posted links to the source being questioned, blockquoted the text in question, and even kept to a neutral RfC-type tone, which is not explicitly required for the RS noticeboard.
 * I was thinking that if this filing on the Ana Carol source doesn't get any responses, the four of us should file another one, but instead plan out exactly what to say ahead of time so that there's no back-and-forth for people to get through. I would commit to that if you guys are in.
 * I just added some info to the filing on i09, specifically a link to the article in question and to the text that it was used to support.  That might help.
 * As for broadness, it's been established that we only need one secondary source to accompany the novel, and then the material is 100% acceptable. The sources don't have to go up together.  As for larger problems, that's what my "cards on the table" request was about.  If there is a larger problem, state it here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * TL;DR: Right below the "table of contents" at the top of RSN there's an advisory that you should focus on providing the source, the article where it's being used, and the content to which the source is being applied. While I understand the perspective that providing additional context might be helpful, I suspect what's actually happened is that editors who might have otherwise gotten involved have been intimidated by the walls of text and the obviously controversial nature of the situation and have instead opted to back far, far away. Hence my feeling that a more concise approach might yield better results. DonIago (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And, for the nth time, we are going to need more than one source, if we want to list all of the chapters that you personally feel are included in the episode. Each source has to note the chapters used. I do not know why you think it is established that you can insert the statement in contention, cite it to the book, without secondary sources to back up that statement. That was pretty much the concluding statement of the RfC - and what we have been saying all along.
 * I'll tie it up in a nice bow for you, Darkfrog24: the statement will not be going in as you wish. Each chapter used will be tied to a RS, V and notable secondary source and be rendered into prose, as it is currently in the article. I know that's going to upset you, but you might want to look at both the RfC as well as some FA-quality articles. That's what we are aiming for. Nothing less is acceptable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Doniago, that's why I'm confused. That's exactly what I did:   Disputed text, check; source itself, check; neutral description of the dispute, check.  Also, I'd like to remind you that I offered to make changes to the description of our dispute upon request.  The back-and-forth was not necessary.
 * I'm pretty sure that I must be [edit for typo: mis]understanding you, Jack. Why would we need more than one source? (Not counting the novel, of course, which goes in per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, but not alone per the recent RfC.) For example, if the Ana Carol source is deemed acceptable, we could use it for the whole line because it lists all of the chapters.  Many of the sources in this article and Breaker of Chains are used for more than one piece of information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, it would help if you remembered that these things are not for you to dictate and phrased your comments accordingly. As for "not going in the way I want it," sure, let's work out a compromise text that suits everyone's vision.  If you don't like, "content from this episode ... X, Y, and Z," then how would you guys prefer to phrase it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
The preferred phrasing would be something along the lines of:
 * "Chunky Longbottom from CNN.com notes that this episode borrows heavily from SoS (primary reference here), specifically Jaime XIX, Bumblehead IV (reference). Likewise, Bob Flusterkuk of Forbes thought the episode utilized parts of Gravelshanks III, Chompers VIII and King Farquad V in a way different than the novel.(reference). Wilma Flintstone, of the Bedrock Daily, noted the complete absence of Everybody Dies XXI. (reference)."

Each comparison/linkage between the book and episode have to be referenced. We cannot just tumble it all out in a single statement and link it to the primary source of the book; it has to be cited, and it has to be reflective of the sourcing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what? I've said my piece. Until there's either a decision at RSN concluding that the sources are reliable or a consensus here to allow the statements, I don't think I have anything positive left to contribute to this discussion. Cheerio. DonIago (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See you later, Don. You want a talk page ping if we have an RfC or something?
 * Translating your format into what we've got, Jack, that would be, "According to reviewer Ana Carol, this episode contained content from chapters X, Y, and Z of the book (Character this, Character that, Character the-other-thing)" or "According to reviewers from i09, Jaime hands Brienne a sword in chapter X, Sansa does this in chapter Y and Daenerys does that in chapter Z" (pending approval of either of those sources) and "According to Tor, the White Walker scene was written for the episode rather than adapted from any existing scene in the books," but that last one's pretty much already covered.
 * As for not using the book as a primary source, we already did an RfC on that. I don't agree with its conclusion, but all parties here are willing to abide by it.  There's no reason to discuss it further unless you've changed your position.  As for a section describing how the episode is different from the book, that's also a separate issue and should be discussed in a fresh section. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure DonQuixote, Donlago and others will be watching this page, awaiting the end of the RSN requests.
 * Yes, Darkfrog24, that would be the format, pending approval of those sources. In the off-chance that they are not approved, we have to be prepared that all of the chapters cannibalized from the books will not be mentioned in this article. All of it depends on the secondary sourcing. Now that you know what sorts of sources we are looking to use (explicit, reliable and verifiable secondary sources), you can narrow down any search for those sources. About a week ago, I did a search for 'Oathkeeper/different/book'; the results were in the tens of thousands. It shouldn't present a lot of problems to find them and if we cannot, that would be the universe telling us something about the importance of that info.
 * I also agree that a differences section/subsection might need a new discussion section, once this matter is resolved. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There has never been any dispute that the sources must be explicit and reliable. I have been bringing in such sources for months.  We have different ideas about which sources meet those criteria and which do not, just like we both agree that WP:PRimary does not allow comparisons and that blogs are not to be considered RS unless they meet specific exception criteria.  The difference is in the interpretation.  So no, this doesn't change anything about the search for sources.  I have no magical telepathic powers that would tell me your or anyone else's opinion of a source ahead of time.  If I can do the work of finding the source and posting it here, then you can do the work of typing out your personal evaluation of it.  Alternatively, you could go out and find a source that is consistent with your interpretation of Wikipedia's rules yourself, and that would probably solve this.
 * Glad that we also agree on the format. Common ground is rare here.
 * Actually, no, that wouldn't be "the universe" telling us anything. If you need proof of notability, we've got articles from AV Club and Slate:  .  Also i09 .  These sources have other problems, but they do show that the material meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest running those sources past RSN. There appear to be a few problems with them, and I am not excited at the prospect of the antagonistic nature of our back and forth. Let someone else decide.
 * However, I would urge that, in doing so, you make sure you state the matter simply and correctly; it will avoid the walls of text that have previously occurred when others have had to address/correct your bias and/or assumptions. Keep it simple, straightforward and honest, and you will get an honest answer. If you could be so kind as to post a link for each RSN request here, that would be great. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See below, Jack. I just did.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

RS noticeboard
I re-filed the Ana Carol source at the RS noticeboard. I'm guessing that the wall of text turned off new participants. The new filing incorporates some of the responses that Jack made to the original, explicitly stating that Ana Carol is not a member of the Game of Thrones staff, etc. If any of you want anything added to or removed from the filing, let me know. Opinions with which I disagree will be placed in quotation marks. Be sure to say whether you want your name used or to be referred to as "a participant." I will not include any statements contrary to fact. If you have a lot to say about any source other than the Ana Carol source, it might be best to start a separate filing, as Jack has done for i09 and Westeros.org. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC) EDIT: This offer stands until we get responses from newcomers, after which point the filing should probably remain unchanged. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should probably remove the bit about "the accuracy of the facts cited is not in question"; its argumentative and as spoiling for a fight. Likewise, the italicized text at the end served no purpose except to make yourself look like the peacemaker and the rest of us look like troublemakers - a bad move when you are trying to avoid the aforementioned alls of text. In fact, the rest of the post after that is off-point. Focus on a single source at a time.
 * I will wait only a short time before posting in the RSN to address these points unless they are addressed/removed. If a new post arrives, it will be too late, and I will post corrections anyway - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the "spoiling for a fight" bit but I'll remove it anyway. I'll see about rewording the italicized text.  It's purpose is to inform other participants in this dispute that I will make changes upon request.  How would you phrase it?  EDIT: It now reads "To other participants in this dispute: Suggest changes to this filing at talk:Oathkeeper."
 * For my own edification, are you disputing the accuracy of the facts cited?
 * As for "wait a short time" remember that today is a work day. I can only check in occasionally.
 * What "post after that"? There is only one filing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you having made the suggested changes. I think that the RSN request is suitably clear and more manageable now. Thank you, Darkfrog24. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Still curious: Are you in doubt of the accuracy of the disputed text?  No one seems to have done so so far, just like no one's objected to the Ana Carol source on the grounds of it not being in English, but I might have missed something. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I find myself a bit mystified at the desire to pair up the two media, especially when the showrunners have explicitly stated on a few occasions that they are using the book as a guidebook, not a set of directions. Whether that was due to the intricacies of the source material versus the realities of plotline tv or whether it was a desire to do the story 'better' - I don't know. But since they did say that, I think that any direct comparison is often going to be tenuous, at best.
 * I object to Ana Carol being proposed as a source not because that source is in a different language (a source is still a source if it is in another language), but because she is not a notable enough for our encyclopedia. She is a music student that contributes to a fansite. She is no more notable for inclusion than you or I. That's my objection. I refuse to give the podium to someone who doesn't deserve it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's easy enough to de-mystify: I watched Breaker of Chains, saw the Jaime-Cersei scene, went, "That can't be right. Did that happen in the book?" and came to Wikipedia looking for information about which chapter to reread.  This line was useful to me and will be useful to others.  Guidebook or not, almost all the specific events from the series also happen in the books one way or another, and viewers want to know where to find them.  I'm not the one pairing up the two media.  They're already a pair: Jaime gives Brienne a sword on the show and in the book.  Sansa sees Baelish murder Lysa on the show and in the book.  Daenerys sends Jorah away on the show and in the book.  If anything, doing so highlights how the show has gone in its own direction.
 * Right. No one objected on the grounds of it not being in English (Wikipedia actually has a pretty explicit policy on that).  You might be going a little far with "music student," though.  Her bio says she's studied music and design and produced content.  If we were quoting the literary analysis portion of her article, I might agree with you, but we're not.  We're quoting a statement of fact that we already know to be correct.  As for the material itself being notable, we have the articles in Slate, AV Club and i09 for that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We view this differently, Darkfrog24. I think we need secondary sources to illustrate explicitly how they are different; we cannot be the ones to point it out, to show how the episode paired them up. The way I see it, we as editors are the unseen hand behind the articles. We cannot be a part of it.
 * I think you might want to check out her bio links - one of them states that she is a harp student at college. that aside, the Slate/AV Club/io9 articles all point to the same infograph from a Reddit user. We are still awaiting confirmation from RSN that any of them are usable in this regards. If so, then all is hunky-dorey. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The content in question does not discuss how the book and episode are different. It merely lists the chapters that contain the same events as the episode.  A passage on differences between the book and episode would be another matter.  I happen to like such sections, but they're not the matter under discussion here.
 * The Slate and AV Club articles took note of the content, therefore it is notable. We can see from the book and its many corroborating sources that the proposed text is accurate.  We have literally covered all our bases.  Do we know that the content is notable?  Yes.  Is there at least one reliable source to back up the specific facts?  Yes.  To insist that once source do all these things is unnecessary.  They only need to be done.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

So that we're all on the same page, could the specific proposed text please be provided here? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the Ana Carol source, this: Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX). For the i09 source, this . Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Observation Deck source from io9 is not going to meet a consensus for inclusion. The Slate - though still in discussion over at RSN - is going to meet with less dissent. And recall that I suggested that a flat-out statement that chapters x,y and z from book 1 and book two are not what we are looking for. You need to set the information to prose, and cite it to those explicit sources. I know I have said this multiple times. Can you try another wording? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? i09 is up for comment on the RS noticeboard.  You filed it yourself.  Why wouldn't it meet consensus for inclusion?
 * As for sources being explicit, yes they are. i09 explicitly states "B happens chapter X" and Ana Carol explicitly states "This was adapted from chapters X, Y, and Z." That's why there are two different proposed wordings.
 * I don't know which suggestion you mean. "Content from this episode is also found in chapters X, Y and Z of the book" is the single most concise way of providing this information, so it's certainly what I'm looking for. (It also is prose.)
 * As for discussing wording, yes I'm in for that, but you're going to have to be a bit clearer about what it is that you don't like about what's already been proposed. I'm not going to spend time guessing at what you might mean; it's established that we don't think about this material the same way.  One way for you to make yourself clear would be for you to suggest a wording. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason it was listed with RS is - and this is going to sound really unfair - because of your apparent uncontrollable compulsion to post immediately after I do. In offering your textwall of righteous indignation, you seem to be seeking out confirmation of your opinion instead of actual insight. No one wants to step into the ensuing muddy waters of that discussion. You seem to be curtailing this behavior, and that's a good thing, but pretending it never happened is not in my nature.
 * I am going to try and gather up the AGF I am certainly not feeling at this point and presume that you are not aware that if a request for insight is not offered at RSN, it is usually considered not worth weighing in on. A lack of response is not assent. As has been noted ad infinitum, the current consensus in the article discussion doesn't consider either the io9 or the Brazillian fansite suitable sources for the article. In short, they won't be going into the article without contrasting and compelling views offered by RSN uninvolved parties. So, do everyone a favor and focus on those arguments with traction. Any argument involving Ana Carol is a non-starter, and only sacrifices more AGF.
 * I do not think that the chapters should be listed. At all. I think that, because the chapters were not utilized in their entirety, that we should not imply that they were. If a reliable source does so, we turn it into prose and note it. Wikipedia is not a list. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds inappropriate because it is, Jack. You should probably take a closer look at WP:Civil because you've been at least borderline for much of this discussion.  I shouldn't have to specifically tell you that I don't want you to call my contributions fecal matter, but I did.  Now I'm specifically telling you not to post assumptions about me or my motives.  As it happens, I've been trying to avoid being online the same time as the rest of you.  If you want to know why I'm doing something, ask me and if it's your business, I'll tell you.  Then it won't be an assumption.
 * As for why I responded at all, your post was incomplete and somewhat misleading. You didn't include a link to the actual page that we were actually using, which the noticeboard instructions request.  That's going to skew people's opinions.  It looks like you want people to respond saying, "Yes, this is a forum," and you also said that the staff were listed as "moderators," the word used in forums, but they're actually listed as "comment moderators," the term used for articles.  That's very misleading.  You didn't even post a link to the page so that they could see for themselves.
 * As for "textwall of righteous indignation," you bet I was indignant. You 1. accused me of posting misinformation, which I had not done, 2. then you had the gall to post stuff that was flat-out contrary to fact ("Ana Carol isn't on the staff," etc.) and 3. then you accused me of faking a source.  If you don't want people to get indignant, then don't insult them.  Again, you might want to take a stricter interpretation of WP:CIVIL.
 * Yes, this is a small detail in an article that's not exactly about world peace. There are only going to be so many people who care about it when other posters are asking about the war in Gaza.  Frankly, I'm surprised that you care about it enough to make this big of a deal about it and I wouldn't be surprised if you held a similar view about me.  It's important enough to us, though, meaning the participants in this discussion, and it's going to be important enough to anyone who chooses to read this article.
 * Whereas I do think the chapters should be listed. As for not implying that they were used in their entirety, I agree.  That is why I used the wording, "Content is also found in" rather than "this episode was adapted from." If you want to suggest a wording that you feel would be even clearer, that's fine with me. "Parts of chapters X, Y, and Z" were used would do it.
 * Jack, please click the dictionary link that I provided. The proposed content is prose, in both versions.  No one suggested using poetry or iambic pentameter.  Did you mean something else? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since no one but us said either yea or nay on the RS noticeboard, I've started an RfC. As always, I've done my best to be neutral, but I'll check in here in an hour or two to see if anyone has any suggestions.  The bullet section/discussion section seemed to work well but it's up for grabs too.  Like last time, offer stands until the first new participant shows up.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Blog source--usable for facts?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A line from the first paragraph of this article has been proposed as support for this statement  in Oathkeeper.

"Wikipedia article: 'Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX).'"

All parties concur that this site should be considered a blog and/or fansite. The dispute involves whether the exception criteria in WP:BLOGS and WP:USERG have been met or not. The author of the article is a named member of the site's staff and credentials are provided (in English: ). Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Bullet responses

 * Source is sufficient for THIS text. It's a lightweight source, but it's a lightweight claim. As per WP:USERG, the author of this article is a named member of the site's staff and not an anonymous contributor and her credentials are provided. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, I wouldn't call this author an expert for literary analysis, but she's certainly qualified to examine a general-audience book and novel and tell us what page shows Jaime handing Brienne a sword. The material is also heavily corroborated: If we're concerned about verifiability, we can open the novel and see that the facts are correct or we can check out other sources like GEOS and FiveThirtyEight. It's also on fansites like Westeros.Org.  If we're concerned about notability, we can look at articles from AV Club, Slate, and i09.  The proposed text is exactly the kind of information that I come to Wikipedia to find.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This sort of thing is easily verifiable and would have been corrected by fans already, if it was wrong. It's not wrong, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Source is insufficient for THIS text. - As per WP:USERG:
 * "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable"
 * Furthermore:
 * "self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
 * The source in question is not "lightweight"; it is a fansite, and the author of the blog (calling it an article is an act of charity) is a musical harp student at college (and not a professional, dispassionate journalist). She is unconnected to the cast or crew of the program and is therefore unqualified (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) to render a notable opinion on anything related to this article. It doesn't matter that the content appears on other websites as well. There is a thriving fan community in which Sherlock Holmes and Watson from the tv show are a gay couple. It doesn't make it notable or usable by Wikipedia. Additionally, the aforementioned sources of AVClub, Slate and io9 all use the same source for their article; while all are certainly more notable than some icky fansite, that they all use the same crufty Reddit post as a source doesn't bode well for whether the info is notable by any sorts of reliable source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Source is Insufficient


 * The part of WP:USERG that refers to a member of the site's staff, has to do with reliable sources like IMDB that also has user generated content. The information from the site and its staff at IMDB is considered reliable, but not the comments or reviews posted by visiting users. This does not apply to blogs or fansites. Clearly, the author of a blog is also a/the member of the blog's staff, that doesn't make their content reliable or merit inclusion on wikipedia and these policies are designed to specifically limit where that information can be included. I suggest just using summaries or information from more reputable sites like the Washington Post or IGN. Scoobydunk (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Source is Insufficient


 * The source is insufficient for the reasons stated by User:Scoobydunk at 05:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC). However, if the claim were more specific, that material from certain specified scenes from the episode were found in certain chapters of a book. The video and books themselves would be sources for such a statement. Whether such a statement is significant enough to include in the article is a different question. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Source is Insufficient
 * The author is a non-notable fan publishing on a non-notable fansite. Fails being a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Insufficient. I see no reason to allow this self-published blog as a reliable source.  Using their opinions would be giving them undue weight.  Just because a statement is true doesn't mean that it's automatically included. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion
I am responding because one of the issues that you raised has been addressed: significance. The content is noted by articles in AV Club, Slate, and i09. An additional source was found because, among other things, the person who built the chart that to which they refer names Wikipedia as one of its sources. The Ana Carol article is here offered as a corroborating source, to be used alongside the novel and such articles. I happen to agree that the episode and novel are sufficient on their own to support the text in question, at least for purposes of verifiability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Using insufficient sources to support statements is like trying to build a brick wall with a layer of straw between rows; it weakens (and imo cheapens) both the statement and the article. As has been pointed out, the Slate, io9 and AV Club articles all use a user-created Twitter Reddit posting. Again, you should perhaps consider that - if the material is deemed overwhelmingly important, someone we can cite will get around to noting it. Until then, our hands are tied. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How fortunate, then, that the sources are not insufficient.
 * Actually, no, the Slate, AV Club and i09 articles cited above are not user-created, they have nothing to do with Twitter, and this is the first time that anyone has even alleged that they were or did. (Remember that there are two i09 articles in play in this discussion; you might be thinking of the other one.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles themselves refer to user-created content. That is, they refer to how fans have created the charts in question. So the only thing that they can be cited for is something like "Fans have created charts linking the books to the episode.(cite AV Club)" and not the contents of the charts themselves because the charts are user-generated content and not reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with stating something along the lines of how some fans from Reddit have suggested that parts of such and such chapters are used within the episode, and citing Slate or AV Club. I am not okay with us stating user-created content as cited fact. That may seem a slight difference, but I assure you, it is a vital one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The AV Club and Slate articles confirm the content's notability and we have the novel and other sources to confirm its reliability. Wikipedia's rules require that the content meet both criteria but they don't require that one source do it all.
 * Jack, I'd actually be fine with, "According to [Ana Carol/whoever/pretty much anyone], this episode was based on chapters X, Y, and Z" citing that source and the novel alongside it. The readers still get their information that way.  Tempting as it is to continue along this line, while this wording would work for earlier episodes, the season IV section of the chart has inaccuracies that, unfortunately, cover Oathkeeper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mentioning/suggesting/advocating Ana Carol as a source is not only a non-starter, its going to build resistance to any idea you submit. She will never be considered a reliable source for this article. Stay focused on looking for and accepting the inch instead of seeking the mile. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack, I find it very off-putting when you speak as if you had magical future-predicting powers. You've given your take on the Ana Carol source.  Others have given theirs.  It is highly likely that still others will give theirs.  It is not for you to dictate what will and won't happen or to act as if I should be viewing sources from your perspective rather than my own.  It's clear that I don't think that the Ana Carol article is inappropriate for the text in question.  Don't act surprised when I refer to it as such.  Frankly, considering that "Ana Carol" is used in my last post as a placeholder for "author of source in question," I'm surprised you bothered to object at all.  Don't talk to me about inches and miles when you're imagining mountains out of molehills.
 * And to reiterate, it's great to see DQ and yourself propose a compromise text. Again, I think it's a perfectly acceptable way to phrase the matter.  The readers get the information that they need, and more skeptical Wikieditors get a text that acknowledges their doubts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is, you keep hammering away at the resistance to your preferred phrasing (2½ months now and still going), belittling our overwhelming dissent by terming it a hornet's nest". You've canvassed almost 2 dozen articles and everyone who's taken time out of their day to post their view here has told you the same thing. Please let this go. You haven't found suitable references for the text you clearly prefer to put in. Instead of saying you respect the consensus of two RfCs, multiple RSN inquiries and months of discussion, can you please actually follow the result of that effort. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the five longterm participants in this discussion, two support inclusion and three oppose it. That's not "overwhelming dissent." That's a difference of opinion among a small group of editors.
 * "Everyone"? Jack, go look at our respondents again.  Of the three new people who showed up, one said "sufficient" and two said "insufficient." That's not conclusive either way.
 * Multiple RSN inquiries produced no response. There was neither objection nor endorsement to any of the sources, no matter how or by whom the posting was written.  There was nothing to either respect or disrespect.  The only conclusion we should draw from that is that most people on the RS noticeboard don't think that articles about Game of Thrones episodes are worth their time.  Hence the publicizing this RfC in GoT talk pages.
 * Jack, I found more than five suitable secondary references for this material, and the previous RfC only requires one. By the results of our efforts, the content should be in the article now.
 * You might complain that I'm still here after more than two months, but so are you. Pot.  Kettle. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You could also look at it thusly: for months you've tried to obtain a consensus for inclusion via various forums and methods, and you don't appear to be any closer now than you were when you began. This whole thing feels like a waste of time to me, and I think it's somewhat inconsiderate of you (and possibly actionable) to refuse to let the matter rest. If anything I think it's likely that your conduct in this matter has alienated support you might have been more likely to receive if you had exhibited more flexibility...but by all means, until you're actually prevented from doing so, feel free to keep knocking yourself out. DonIago (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Another way to look at it is this: A previous RfC said that further sourcing was needed. I brought in further sourcing, and you and Jack keep complaining about it.  You have not let the matter rest.
 * As for flexibility, I've repeatedly offered compromise texts and compromise formats and asked for your input on the same. This very discussion is the first time that I've seen either of you offer anything.  Was there something I missed?  That's not a rhetorical question.  Did you offer a compromise that I overlooked at some point in the past months? 12:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for other editors to chime in supporting you, at which point I'd certainly consider doing so as well. What I'm observing is that you keep reviving this issue through different processes despite the lack of even one other editor offering a significant degree of support for your viewpoint.
 * It is rather disingenuous of you to claim that we are the people keeping this matter alive when you are the one responsible for initiating this RfC, which I assume you did in an attempt to sway consensus to this point. I certainly had no intention of speaking up any further on the matter as I was and have been content with the consensus that's existed, and I believe Jack and most other editors who've contributed to the multiple discussions we've had now would feel the same way. You're the one who keeps pushing back here. DonIago (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I initiated this RfC because the RS noticeboard option&mdash;which you suggested&mdash;got us zero responses. Turns out not everyone thinks GoT is worth their time (and with articles about the war in Gaza up for RS commentary, I don't blame them).  Publicize and RfC on GoT talk pages seems to get us respondents.
 * No one person can argue alone, Don. You're allowed feel frustrated that I'm still here, but look at your own feet first.  You're still here too.  If it's not wrong for you to do something then it's not wrong for me to do it either.  There are plenty of things that you guys are doing that I don't like, but I stop and ask myself if you're actually doing something wrong or just something that rubs me the wrong way before I bring it up.
 * But back to the part that might actually help: Was there some compromise offered that I missed? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it all hinged upon you producing a source that says what you want it to say (usually, it supposed to be the other way around, where we create from sources). It isn't wrong for us to insist on you simply following the rules. If you don't understand them, go ask someone; we've seen your RSN and canvassing, but we've seen precious little of you actually asking for rule clarification, so there's the crux of the problem. The sources that you have found that are acceptable have been incorporated into the article. The ones that aren't usable aren't going to be used; the sooner you accept that, the better off we all will be. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've brought in lots of sources that support the text in question. I'm not really clear which rules you think I've broken (other than the edit warring; we've both got to watch that).
 * Wait, you want to know why I haven't been asking for rule clarification? Because I can read the rules myself, and they're already clear.  As for why I haven't asked you for rule clarification, why would I?  No one here has any specific expertise over the others.  Also, early on in this discussion, when we were still dealing with WP:PRIMARY it became clear that you and I and DQ and Diego and Don do not interpret the rules the same way.  I'm interested in reading other people's opinions (the first few times; the repetition gets old) but that doesn't mean I will automatically discard my own views and adopt theirs.  You've seen, Jack, that your interpretations of the rules are not universally held or officially sanctioned, but to outward appearances you still seem to think that they are.
 * There's a difference between "acceptable per Wikipedia's rules and practices" and "pleasing to Jack Sebastian personally." That is also the crux of the problem. There is material far less useful and far more controversial supported by sources far less concrete all over the place. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't followed all of the posts between the conflicting editors, but I believe this conversation is likely starting to fall back into where previous conversations have already gone. There was an RFC request and it appears to me that all uninvolved members that commented did not find the source as sufficient to merit the content in question. That indicates a clear consensus which does not require unanimity. So at this point, I'd ask that both parties review WP guidelines regarding editor behavior. To continue posting or editing against consensus can be considered tendentious behavior as per WP:TEND. To continue seeking additional forums after a consensus has been reached regarding this material can be considered forum shopping. This RFC was an opportunity to present the strongest argument/source for the inclusion of the material in question. The source provided does not meet WP standards of reliability and is therefore insufficient to merit the inclusion of the information. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, this RfC was not started because the Ana Carol source was the strongest source that supports this material. It was started because the Ana Carol source is the one we were arguing about and decided to seek outside input on.  The novel Storm of Swords is the strongest source.  Other sources include articles in Slate, AV Club , i09  , FiveThirtyEight , GEOS , and Prince Albert Now (link has gone dead).  As to which of them is stronger than the others, that's anyone's take.
 * As for "all editors," you might have missed InedibleHulk's comment. IH did not post in the same format as everyone else.  Hit CTRL-F "support" or "Inedible" and you'll see it.
 * As for forum shopping, there was no previous consensus on the use of the Ana Carol source. We filed it at the RS noticeboard twice and got no responses.
 * The previous RfC concluded that the primary source alone was not sufficient support for the material and that secondary sources must be provided if it is to be included. I've been bringing in such sources for months.  That's not working against consensus.  That's working with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating myself, I'd stated repeatedly that all but a few of the sources brought to the article were either fanblogs, fansites, forum posts of simply faked sources (the PrinceAlbertNow vanishing source). We have used the few acceptable sources you have presented. Additionally, a simple re-reading of the initial RfC's closing remarks seem unambiguous, and nowhere does it suggest that just any old source is going to allow synthesized statements to be sourced to the book. It would require reliable sources that provide that the information is in fact notable enough for mention. We haven't seen any sources that fulfill that criteria. Arguing that the very same sources that were disallowed by solid, consistent consensus (and the overwhelming silence from RSN to consider these sources reliable enough to comment on) should end this forum-shopping. It's been almost three months. You have not proven your point in all that time, Darkfrog24, and you aren't likely to in the near future. Move on to something else, and leave this article be, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay then Darkfrog, where in the source "Storm of Swords" does it specifically tie in events from specific chapters to what occurred in the HBO episode? I have strong feeling it doesn't. The novel is not a primary source for information about the episode. For you to take information from the novel and make "observations" about which parts of the episode correlate with the novel is a violation of WP:OR. I've already explained this you and the fact that you just, again, said that "Storm of Swords" is your strongest source, only illustrates how little support you have for you position. Even with inedible's inclusion, the overwhelming consensus is that the Ana Carol source is not sufficient. My recommendation for you to review WP:TEND and WP:Forumshopping was directed at preventing future revisions or dispute resolutions on the same/similar subject.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack, quit accusing me of faking sources. It's inappropriate.  Also remember that you saw the source before the link went dead.  It is out of line for you to tell me or anyone to leave this or any article.  You are not the gosh darn king of Wikipedia or the owner of this article.  I have proven my point repeatedly; you personally don't happen to be convinced.  That's not the same thing as failing to provide sufficient sources per Wikipedia's rules and practices.
 * Scooby, the novel is a primary source. As stipulated in WP:PRIMARY, anyone with access to the source, with no need for specialist knowledge, can open the book and see that Jaime hands Brienne a sword on this page, that Sansa and Baelish are talking on the boat on that page, etc.  Of the six participants to the previous RfC on the matter, three thought that this was not OR and three thought that it was.  It's not a universally held view, but it's not a fringe view either.  If you don't like that, you can read AV Club, i09, Slate, FiveThirtyEight or any of the secondary sources that have been provided.
 * As for Ana Carol, yes, unless we get more respondents to this RfC, it does look like I'll be bringing in still more secondary sources to support this material. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to re-read my post again, DF; Nowhere in that post did I accuse you of faking that source. In any case, it isn't usable, so maybe stop trying to sell us property in Nowheresville. Secondly, I didn't tell you to 'leave the article'. Anyone actually reading the post would see that I said "leave the article alone." Lastly, I think you are misinterpreting the previous RfC. The concluding remarks are the only thing that matters, as they sum up and conclude the RfC.
 * The AVClub, Slate and io9 articles all use the same, user-created Reddit table; to be frank, were I you, I'd be spending every little bit of my time arguing their worth instead of continuing to make tendentiously repetitive arguments about sources that no one else in their right mind would propose. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A script would be a primary source for the episode. The novel is only a primary source for the book itself or for things the author said in the book. You can not use the novel as a primary source for making claims about the episode.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the novel is a primary source for its own content; we're on the same page there. The claim made is about itself. "Jaime hands Brienne a sword in chapter X, and Sansa examines the necklace in chapter Y" etc. has been offered as a way of phrasing this information.  It's similar to what you were talking about on your talk page, but I had considerable trouble visualizing what you were proposing.  I was not under the impression that the novel would have been your first choice for content like that, though we've established that it is mine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And it has been definitively established via RfC that your first choice is dead wrong. Give it up. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

In light of the new proposal
I checked into this discussion the other day and have tried to follow it, but to be honest, it has been very long and very repetitive. I don't think I have ever seen a Wikipedia article that attributes scenes of a film or TV series to novel chapters in the way Darkfrog24 suggests. I appreciate all the effort that has been put into giving him reasons why he shouldn't/can't do it on OR and sourcing grounds, and they seem valid, but I think we all instinctually object to it for the simple reason that it feels trivial and crufty, and Darkfrog24 I'm really trying to figure out why you are so passionate about it. Is it really not enough to simply note the novel(s) that the adaptation draws from rather than individual passages? My opinion is with the group, in that the fact that the series is an adaptation distances it from the source material, and so citing passages has the taint of OR. But even if this were not the case, I can't see the reason why this information would be valuable to the article, any more than quoting the chapters would be. That said, if precedent is not enough, you seem to be largely outvoted on this issue here, so that alone should have been enough to end the discussion days ago.

I will probably support the new proposal, but I feel like it is just a formal statement of what we already know and is not under dispute &mdash; you can't make comparisons between a work and its source without a reliable source making the comparison first &mdash; and that it is just a means to stop Darlfrog24 from doing what everyone has already told him not to do.

Darkfrog24, I hate when editors suggest that other editors contribute to the ASOIF wiki because it seems so dismissive, but I like that wiki and refer to it sometimes when I'm looking for plot details and info on lesser characters, because it it so robust. I feel like the "Oathkeeper" article there and others would be a great place to collect a lot of the extra information you're interested in.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 00:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point it is a pleasure to answer questions so graciously put.
 * Simple. I came to the Breaker of Chains article looking for that exact information.  I've seen every frame of the show and read every page of the books and I didn't know that sites like Westeros.org existed.  I didn't go there looking for clear, out-of-universe information.  I came here.  It stands to reason that others will as well and they will benefit from this information.  It is less about my own interest and more that my own needs are indicative that others probably have the same needs, and will come here to meet them.
 * But yes, the suggestion that if I don't agree with you I should get lost? It is dismissive, however it's phrased.  Don't expect it.
 * You may not know of any articles that cite specific chapter information, but if you click through the GoT episode articles, you will see that many of them do. Some of them cite the novel.  Some don't have any reference tags.  I went to a few articles and added such tags, but someone else followed me and deleted the whole thing, so I stopped.  As a matter of fact, I wasn't the first person to place chapter information in this article.  It had been deleted as unsourced, and I re-added it with reference tags.
 * As for why we should list chapters instead of just the novel, I came looking for chapter information because I wanted to know which parts of the book to reread. A Storm of Swords is over nine hundred pages long, and the adaptation does not always go in order.  Imagine that you missed a week of a college class, and your professor told you "Just reread the whole textbook." No chapter.  No pages.  No good!
 * There has never been any dispute that WP:PRIMARY does not permit comparisons. However, the proposed text, "Content from this episode also appears in chapters X, Y, and Z" of the novel is not a comparison.  No one is saying that Sansa is dumber or smarter or taller or shorter, only that she is present.  That is a straightforward description of fact, as stipulated in that policy.  I realize that this position is not universally held, but if we're going to argue we should argue about that, and not about things that we all already agree on.
 * If you're having trouble following this discussion, it may be because the first half of it took place over at talk:Breaker of Chains. Our first request for outside input, a third opinion, deemed that using the novel as sole source for a single sentence naming chapters was acceptable.  It's safe to say that the community is split on this issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have said, "I have never seen a Wikipedia article that has passed a reasonable quality assessment that attributes scenes." And obviously there could be awesome articles out there that do. But it really is cruft dressed up like reference information when we're talking about an article for the show. And I have seen enough articles on topics with passionate fans (ASOIAF, Star Wars, soap operas, comics and video games ...) to know that there will always be a lot of minutae added that simply doesn't belong but no one has the interest or energy to keep up with copyediting. I understand why you think it's not a comparison because you're not drawing a grand conclusion, but you are using your own judgement to associate things, and as obvious as the "Jaime gets a sword" segment may be to connect, it's the practice itself that's an issue and not the veracity of your associations. But even if that isn't the case and there's an article in the New York Times that tells us what chapters this episode adapted, it's a whole lot of junk that just should not be here. You probably aren't the only person interested in that info that may come here looking for it, but this is not the place that info should be housed. I'd love to read a scene by scene summary of each book, and better yet a chronological, combined reassembly of scene summaries from Feast for Crows and Dance with Dragons. I will not and should not find that here either.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 04:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that one person's valuable information is another person's trivia. It's my understanding that Wikipedia distinguishes between the two using WP:NOTABILITY.  There are articles in reliable sources that have noted this material: AV Club, Slate, and i09. They didn't think it was immaterial, and neither should we.
 * That's like saying I'm using my own judgment to tell that it is Tyrion on screen just because it's Peter Dinklage in a costume. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Haha NOW I see why this discussion is so long. Like I said, as a fan I do find that stuff somewhat interesting and I can imagine that many people might like to check the text to see how dialogue was changed or something like that. But this is not a study guide. This may be the first place people look for info but that's not the type of information that should be routinely included here. It just isn't. Are there actually any other articles that do this and have been assessed? Like you'd think The Godfather or some other revered adaptation would, if anything. If you were to cite this article as you wished I'd be interested to see what assessment it would get in a GA nomination. Surely someone has come across this issue before.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 04:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be the sort of thing it belongs here if people come here looking for it? "It just isn't" isn't a good reason; it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion or personal preference, but it shouldn't come before sources.  But yes, I'm a fan of looking up precedent for this kind of thing.  Per what seem to be your standards, I heard that one or two of these got marked Good Article or Featured at some point, but that's not something that I was specifically looking for at the time.  If you know of any other precedents, I'd certainly consider them relevant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 