Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters

Arbitrary SH01: MiB-24
Okay, I guess since Lucy decided to drag me into this I’ll comment first.

This all began back in November, 2007 when Lucy merger tagged every single page relating to “24” characters except for two. She did this, in her own words, because someone had “forced” her too and even admitted they should not be merged. (By forced she was referring to being opposed on a specific merger and decided to basically tag every page she could to make some kind of point.) This is what drew me and everyone else here into a conflict with Lucy. Eventually an admin, Theresa knott, came in and put an end to most of the nonsense by removing the majority of the merger tags.

Earlier, Lucy had merged some pages without so much as an opportunity for anyone to discuss if it should be done. Eventually, after the fiasco that Theresa put an end to, this initiated a discussion if some of these pages should be unmerged. In the end, several pages, Edgar Stiles, Chase Edmunds, George Mason (24 character), and Lynn McGill were unmerged once a consensus was reached that these characters have notability and should never have been merged. Almost immediately, and before anyone had a chance to improve the articles, Lucy once again started calling for mergers.

The biggest problem that most of us have with Lucy is that she simply acts like only her opinion is valid. When a discussion occurs and every single person except for her is opposed to merging, she will claim that it doesn’t matter because in her interpretation of the rules, the discussion was just a “vote” which she claims makes it invalid. She’ll then try to get the page merged anyway.

No one is saying every single character that has appeared on “24” should have its own page. Such an idea would be lubricious. However, there are some characters that clearly have notability and should have their own page. I doubt even Lucy could claim that “24” is not a cultural phenomenon and some elements cannot be adequately discussed in a single paragraph.

Now, I am not involved in the discussions over all of the characters listed by Lucy. Other than the ones I mentioned above, I have only commentated on Martha Logan and Ryan Chappelle. The rest I do not have an opinion on which is why I have not commented on those talk pages.

All we have asked of Lucy is to stop trying to merge nearly every single page and for those that are in dispute, give the editors more than a few days to improve them as well as provide outside sources to prove notability. She needs to provide more than “the rules say I’m right” when she presents her argument as to why a page should be merged. Wikipedia rules can often be open to interpretation.

One final note; sometimes it is very, very hard to understand what Lucy is trying to say. I don’t expect her grammar to be perfect, but she should at least proof read her comments before posting them. I think this has led to more than one misunderstanding over the last couple of months. And Lucy, this is neither a personal attack nor does it violate any Wikipedia rules in asking you to do this. It is simply a request that you try to use better grammar so as to avoid misunderstanding in the future. --MiB-24 (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "lubricious"? really? --Lquilter (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like spell check got me. It should be “ludicrous.” --MiB-24 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, good. Because I really had to scratch my head and still didn't see lubriciousness.  --Lquilter (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH02: Angelriver

 * Well, I guess I'll weigh in on this issue, although MiB did a fantastic job of laying out all of the facts. The bottom line is that Lucy will never be satisfied until these pages are merged. She doesn't feel that these characters deserve their own page and so nothing is going to appease her. If she doesn't get consensus, she'll just go whine to someone else and try to get more people on her side--"independent users" as she calls them.


 * As far as the issues with "incivility".....Lucy has been extremely uncivil on numerous occasions, not only to myself, but to other editors. She's engaged in name calling, has threatened to have me banned, and has called myself, and others, stupid on more than one occasion while at the same time complaining about people being uncivil to her. She has accused TunaShushi and myself of sock puppetry even though it's blatantly false, when she, herself, has been in trouble for using sock puppets. She often uses poor grammar and spelling to express herself which has resulted in more than one misunderstanding.


 * I think that there is a pattern of behavior here where Lucy is concerned. She's run into issues involving several topics with which she has acted unilaterally without consensus and then balked and complained when called on it. She has, on several occasions, shown a lack of respect for the admins even though she runs to them when she needs help.


 * The bottom line is, that Lucy will not be happy and will not let this issue be settled until it's settled her way. Angelriver (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * These two have essentially laid out the facts very well. One thing that was missed is that when she points out rules she claims that someone isn't following, and you counter with a rule that she isn't following, she'll claim the rule you brought up is irrelevant to her. When you show her it is relevant, she'll immediately go to an admin and complain about you. She has threatened myself, Angelriver, and MIB-24 on numerous occasions, called us stupid and made petty complaints that have brought us to this point when we were willing to work with her to solve these problems.


 * She has even gone so far as to say that people who work together are a cabal. And one last note, even though this isn't against rules, as others have noted very well, she really needs to go over what she wrote, because many people have trouble understanding what she is saying. Also note, this is not a personal attack at her but if we can't communicate, we can't work together.--Lan Di (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The point here is not to attack or focus solely on discrediting one user. The point of this is to establish if these articles have notability as laid out by the apropriate policies and guidelines.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lucy, no one here is attacking you. Stop trying to deflect the discussion by saying that like you always do when you can’t get everyone to agree with you.  No one is attacking you. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lucy, you always like to toss out “consensus” and then claim that every discussion that doesn’t go your way is invalid because it was really just a “vote.” The Cambridge University Dictionary defines consensus as “a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people.” This does not mean a unanimous agreement, but rather that the majority of people involved have agreed on a stated position.  Despite what you claim, the only way to determine what the consensus is among said group is to simply count.  You might think this means it is a “vote,” but it is not. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus in a Wikipedia context is completly diffrent to that in a dictionary context please see not a dictionary . A dictionary context is how many people can you get to say the same or a similar thing. In a Wikipedia context consensus must ad-hear to relevant policies and guidelines, with BLP being paramount (although not necessarily in this case). If the dictionary definition is taken then Wikipedia becomes a democracy which is not allowed under  not a democracy, also if the dictionary definiton is taken, all policies and guidelines may just as well not exist.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:DICTIONARY says that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and articles should not be created solely for definitions. I don't see any relevance to MiB-24's comment; have you actually read it? asyndeton   talk  17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I have read the article but quoting the dictionary to try and prove a point is not relevant in this context so I think WP:DICTIONARY should include something like that.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it doesn't and this is not the place to discuss policy. Let's keep it relevant. asyndeton   talk  18:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is relevant because Lucy is always claiming there has to be “consensus,” but it can’t be a “vote.” When 10 people discuss a page and 9 oppose merging, with Lucy being the only pro-vote, she claims there is no consensus because it was just a “vote” and then tries to merge the page anyway. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, WP:DICTIONARY does not give defintions of words when used in a Wikipedia context. It does not distinguish between 'vote' and 'consensus'. It simply says, as I stated above, that pages should not be created if all they are going to do is give a definition a word; how is that related to the interpretation of two words? asyndeton   talk  18:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH03: Lquilter

 * I have no background in the ongoing disputes. I simply watch & read articles for certain TV series, and noticed the merger discussion on the Mike Doyle character article. Mike Doyle is by all accounts a minor character in a minority of episodes of one season of a six-season series. I don't believe an article has to have cites already in it to establish notability, but I do believe those cites have to be available somewhere. Nobody in the lengthy discussion on the Talk:Mike Doyle (24 character) page has adduced any cites demonstrating real-world notability. That's in accord with my own assessment (having watched every one of those damnably addicting episodes). Given that there's apparently no independent real-world discussion of this character, it seems like it best belongs in an article about characterization on 24, or a list of minor characters. --Lquilter (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Most people have simply asked to wait until Season 7 of the show begins. If the character does not return fairly quickly and in a notable role (and truly only a few characters are confirmed to return at this point thanks to the WGA strike) then a merger can be looked at again.  Our problem is Lucy just wants to merge all these pages, as if not doing so right now will mean the end of Wikipedia.  It would not harm the site to wait and see what happens. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:CRYSTAL says we assess as is and do not look into the future. If in the future they are notable then they can be de-merged as easily as they were merged. Arguments could be; lets wait for 24 season 18 because X Y or Z could re-appear there.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH04: Asyndeton
I think I ought to include my version of events. I was becoming very tired of every single character on 24 being given their own page, even if they appeared for a minimal amount of time in one episode. After reading through some talk pages, I learnt that Lucy-marie attempted to merge many of the pages before I became interested in contributing to 24 related pages. So, I brought the issue to her and said that I was keen to re-open the merger discussions and Lucy promptly jumped on board.

As far as I was concerned, everything started out fine; Lucy and I added the merge tags and started discussion on the talk pages. The only real oppostion we met with at first was from die-hard fans who felt that even the five minute one timers deserved their own page, despite the pages usually being one paragraph long and 'ful of fancruft. So they were merged and the one timers were never really mentioned again.

I started to worry when Lucy began trying to merge people like Chase Edmunds, a character who appeared in every episode of his only season, and characters who had a similar order of importance. This quickly escalated to Lucy wanting to merge every 24 character, aside from Jack Bauer and Chloe O'Brian.

While Lucy and I had always met with arms that were somewhat less than open, it was probably around this time that people really began to get angry at Lucy and things started to become personal. I will admit here that, while I also merged a couple of pages and re-initiated the whole process, Lucy took, by far, the brunt of people's wrath on the matter and soon enough it became, in my opinion, a sort of 'her against us' situation, with several editors joining forces against Lucy, discussing the situation on each other's talk pages and takling about Lucy, to each other not her, in a less than constructive fashion.

This has spiralled into a plague of edit warring, with Lucy constantly adding merge tags and various editors that she has named here constantly removing them.

Personally, I feel that adult discussion is now challenging to achieve on the article talk pages as it constantly turns into a discussion of Lucy and her past actions and their unpopularity and some of the users that Lucy named are, in my view, die-hard fans who refuse to accept that not every character deserves their own page. Just my two cents. asyndeton  talk  18:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No one ever said every character deserves its own page. As I said in my initial comment, such a suggestion would be ludicrous.  As for discussing Lucy and her behavior, I hate to say, but that is relevant to the discussion.  She will not carry on a rational discussion.  Whenever someone disagrees with her, she just replies that their points don’t matter because *insert random rule* and then claims consensus for her position.  Look at her reply above.  She’s always screaming about consensus and when I provided a reputable source definition of “consensus,” she comes right back with the typical “it doesn’t matter.”


 * As you pointed out, Lucy got on a lot of people’s bad side by trying to merge every page save two. Even then, she showed little willingness to have a discussion.  It is always her way or else.


 * As for allowing these small number of pages to continue to exist until the new season starts, I want her to explain how this is going to harm Wikipedia. No is saying “wait until season 18,” rather until the upcoming season.  After that, some of the characters such as Doyle, probably do not need their own page. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gary Matheson and Ethan Kanin are just two cases of characters who don't have the notability required for their own page and both had people arguing to let them stay.


 * As for your final point, we don't even know when the next season is going to air. Lucy has correctly stated WP:CRYSTAL; we go on what we know now, not what may or may not happen. Season 7, is in the future not the present and so we should merge the pages that have not yet established notability and we can demerge them if notability is established at some later point. Despite what people may say, it will not require an awful lot of effort on anyone's part. We would simply be upholding Wikipedia policy by doing this. And also, I think that WP:IAR would be a very weak counter argument here. asyndeton   talk  18:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya gotta know that the "it doesn't hurt" argument is a pretty weak argument and, at its best, is still tainted by association with a lot of really stupid things.
 * (2) The other main argument here is "wait and see". The thing is, we simply don't keep things around in the hopes that they will eventually become notable. To be honest, if we were to "wait and see" for notability on a fictional character, it wouldn't be until season 8 and we see if his contract is renewed. It would be wait for 10 years and see if the character was discussed in academic literature or referenced as a homage in other works. This kind of approach basically just delays decisions for no apparent good reason. In the meantime, editors fall off and continuity of process is lost, and the process has to be begun again. So what's the current status of this article? It's on a non-notable topic, a minor fictional character from a current TV series. It does not currently meet notability standards. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it, nor why people are arguing so fiercely to retain a really cursory (and largely redundant) set of information about a minor fictional character for a TV series, on a separate page rather than on a combined page. --Lquilter (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Asyndeton, this comment you made "This has spiralled into a plague of edit warring, with Angelriver and Lucy constantly removing and replacing merge tags" is not true. I removed a couple of merger tags that the consensus agreed should be removed. Theresa Knotts removed the rest. Stop acting like I go through all of Lucy's tags and remove them. That's not the case. Angelriver (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right it is not just you. I have amended that comment. asyndeton   talk  13:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH05: MiB-24
Okay, this is getting long and becoming nothing but a bunch of points and counter points. I want to comment on two things and then I have a suggestion. My statement about “this won’t hurt” was referring to how Lucy constantly says that allowing such pages to exist will harm/damage/degrade/whatever Wikipedia. My point was these pages are not causing harm to the site and that should not be used as the reason to merge/delete them. Second, if you will notice, I have not commented on the pages on Phillip Bauer‎, Mike Doyle (24 character)‎, and ‎Nadia Yassir as I have do not really have an opinion on what should happen to them. My concern is that if Lucy succeeds in mergers every page she has currently tagged, she will once again try to pull a fast one and attempt to merge nearly every “24” page, even those that everyone here would agree are notable characters and should not be merged.

Now, as for a suggestion as to how to resolve this. On these pages I just mentioned, the issue as it appears to me is if there is real world notability. How about giving those opposed to the merger one month from a set date to find outside, third party sources to establish notability? This amount of time is not going to cause Wikipedia to fall apart. Secondly, Lucy really does need to throttle back with the attitude. She often comes across as very abrasive with her “I’m right, you’re wrong, end of story” attitude which just makes some people retaliate in kind. As an example, when asked to provide a source to see if Morris O'Brian would return, Angel provided an article in TV Guide. Instead of accepting this, Lucy goes to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to try and have the source discredited. Now it appears that because I quoted a dictionary, she is suggesting that doing so be prohibited. It is actions like this that make people just dig in their heels and fight all the more. If Lucy really wants to come to a consensus, she will stop trying to discredit every source someone uses and give people time to find the requested information before yelling for mergers again. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How much more time is needed? Since November there has been opportunity to find cites since the tags were added. On a secondary point the TV guide is an unknown quantity to somebody who has no access to the publication. Going and asking just how reliable is what this person is quoting from is hardly a "slap in the face" when someone asks that question. It appears as if the small group of people opposed to mergers are against policy, guidelines and constructive discussion. Just because one quotes policy and does something people dislike does not mean the "digging their heels in and fight all the more" attitiude is the constructive way to move forwards.

The arguments bought must have some form of credibility and must focus on the external world, to fulfill the notability criteria. Quoting Lan Di on the reason why Mike Doyle should have a seperate page "how about he was only the second character in a season of 24 to be hospitalized at the end of the season". This defies all logic as to how any external notability is garnered. The arguments need to hold some weight and need to be outside the inner 24 universe.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since November it is has been nothing but a fight, mostly because of the antics you pulled with trying to merge pages like Michelle Dessler, Tony Almeida, Nina Myers, Kim Bauer, etc. Remember, that is what started this whole mess. By proving real world notability, I mean finding outside sources. Would you agree if there were articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, TV Guide, or other reputable publications about a character (and I don’t mean a plot summary, something else you love to complain about), then that character has notability or would you say those sources are invalid? You claim you want to find a resolution to this conflict and yet here is a solution that you seem unwilling to accept? Is it really going to hurt anything? Is your life going to end because a couple of pages on this site exist for one more month? If you want this to end, get onboard with this suggestion. I’m offering you an olive branch and a chance to resolve this dispute. (This does not mean I will simply let you merge any page your heart desires like you tired to do back in November.) It is a fair and rational solution to the problem. Wikipedia will not go boom because the pages exist for another 30 days. Lquilter, Asyndeton, Angel, Lan, would you agree on this as well? --MiB-24 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can settle fo 10 days, this has been active since November and notability was stated early in most if not all discussions. Each source must be viewed on a case by case basis. If the source quoted in one of the publications is a leter saying X,Y and Z is fantastic and is definatly going to return then that is not reliable. If on the other hand there is an interview saying for example X, Y and Z has had this impact and the interviewer asked what do you think the impact is on society, of X, Y and Z? etc then that is clearly much more reliable. The same sentiment about does it hurt and world ending etc is the same for both sides. The argument is weak and pointless. It could be said that an article about a mug I drink out of every day, isn't haming anyone and the world will still be here if it's gone etc. However it would be rediculous to allow that kind of an article. This is not MySpace or 24 Wikia, etc where absolutly anything is alowed if it doesn't hurt.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lucy on this one; you, and everyone else who contributes to 24 related articles, have had plenty of time to find sources and not just between last November and now. Finding sources is not an exercise to be completed once a page has been suggested for merging, it is something that should be done from the word go.


 * That said, I don't really want to see all the 24 articles disappear into a minors page. However, I also worry that this is being seen as an opportunity to give pages to people who don't deserve them. Therefore I am willing to give 15 days to find notability, since 10 seems a bit brief to me. After that, anyone without sources can go. asyndeton   talk  10:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MiB on this issue. Thirty days seems fair to me. And Asyndeton, you seem to be implying in your comment above that the editors involved in this dispute have had since before all this mess started to find sources--that we should have found sources when we created the articles. Well, speaking just for myself, I didn't create any of these articles, so I haven't had that long to do the work that you and Lucy say is required. Some editors may have nothing else to do but hang around Wikipedia all day putting up merger tags and renaming Skyscrapers without consensus, but I'm pretty sure the rest of us have full-time jobs that also require our attention. Angelriver (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am implying that people should have been looking for sources regardless of whether or not the pages were up for merging. Sources are not just found to stop a page from being merged, they are found to show that the information presented is solid. And you can say all you want about having a life outside of Wikipedia. The simple fact is that every single editor on this site has commitments in the real world but that doesn't stop them from following policy.


 * And saying 'I didn't create the article' is quite a weak argument; as Lucy stated, the lack of real world notability has been brought firmly to your attention since last November. In all that time, instead of just arguing for why the articles should be kept and complaining about Lucy, you and everyone else that wanted the pages to be kept could have been searching for the appropriate sources. asyndeton   talk  11:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You were the one who came looking for help in November when Lucy started her merger madness. I also really don't appreciate the tone of your comments to me. I'm a fairly new editor to Wikipedia and am still learning about the policies and guidelines, and I'm not exactly sure why almost every comment you make to me has to be tinged with attitude. And here's one more thought--if you and Lucy are so interested in the quality of the site and of these articles, why don't you actually improve one yourselves instead of just relying on everyone else to do the work while you sit there and make judgments? Angelriver (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well since November some may have started editing the articles, but sources for the articles are required from virtually as soon as the article is created. The fact that some people haven't had enough time, is false. How much more time is needed? Over two months to find sources, has currently been given (longer for some users) if they are truly notable how hard can notability be to establish? Also if sources are found after they have been merged they can be de-merged just as easily. Please, also comment on the content and not on individual users editing habits, this is not a game of "us vs them".--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well Lucy, for one thing, as I've already stated, I wasn't involved in creating the articles, so telling me that sources are required when the article is created is useless. For another thing, you try to discredit sources that we do find. The reference I gave for TV Guide is one example. And also, I never mentioned names and did not single out an editor. Nor did I ever say this was a game of "us vs. them". Angelriver (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the relevance to the topic of the above comments? I have also explained why, TV Guide was sent to RS and I am in no-way trying to discredit sources please read assume good faith. Please also note the omission of a name does not mean no singleing out of an editor is occuring, when quoting edits made by a specific user occurs. I also I did not say you had said it was a game of "us vs them" it is  what some comments are desceniding into. Be aware that the comments regarding notability are generic and not aimed at an individual user.


 * If notability cannot be established since 2006 when some of the earler articles were created, then that is plenty of time. Since Novmber, when some eitors started heavily contributing, no notability has been established, that in itself is long enough. If the characters are truly notable how hard can notability be to establish?--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How are my comments not relevant to the discussion? Do I also need to provide references for my comments? As I've stated time and time again, I haven't been involved since 2006, and a lot of my time since joining has been spent in these discussions. And as far as the TV Guide article goes, even after someone answered your question and told you it was reliable, you still questioned it's validity. You also made a comment that the TV Guide article wasn't relevant because not everyone gets TV Guide, so please, stop trying to backtrack on that point. Angelriver (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say TV guide wasn't relevant because I do not recieve it, I simply said as I don't recieve it how reliable is it? Weather a user has been involved since 2006 or November, is irrelevant as there has been plenty of time since November to establish notability. Instead of engaging in an "us vs them" style discussion, time could have been spent fathoming out notability, which was not done. --Lucy-marie (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion proves that some people don’t want to resolve this problem, but rather advance their own personal agenda. I offered a very rational solution and yet it was rejected so now we’re right back to warring over these pages. What is so wrong with giving everyone 30 days? As Angel said, some of us have a life outside of sitting at our computer and editing Wikipedia for 16-18 hours a day. I work full time and can’t edit from there as Wikipedia is blocked by a Barracuda firewall. (Heck, 95% of the web is blocked by that thing.) I am also a graduate student so I would hope everyone here can figure out how much free time I actually have. Asyndeton, you claim you don’t want to see every single “24” character relegated to a minor page, but that is EXACTLY what will happen sooner or later if Lucy is allowed to simply run over everyone with all of her inane merger tags. Also, it would be nice if the person who was supposed to be moderating this would chime in. --MiB-24 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, no-one is expecting you to be a dedicated Wikipedia nerd. However, you are asking for thirty days; this all started in November, which is, by my count, 45 to 60 days ago. All that time could have been used to find the sources that you want to find now. Better still, it could have been done before hand.


 * And besides, do you really think that, if we all said yes, this debate would end in 30 days? I'm sure some people would still want to keep some of the pages even if no sources were found and I'm sure that some people would never be happy with certain characters having their own page, sources or no sources - I see myself falling into the latter of the two categories. I think that among the people here, tensions are just too high and opinions too different for a binding agreement, like the one you're suggesting, to be reached. asyndeton   talk  20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that if Angel, I, and everyone else here agreed to my proposal, it would put any hotheads into an untenable position. They would not have any backing if their only claim was based on fandom.  I guess I just don’t see how a difference of 2 weeks would be such a disaster.  The end result would be the same; either the pages would have the needed citations to stay independent or they would not.  That said, this does not mean in a million years I think Lucy is right in many of the edits/tags she does and nor would I simply roll over if she tries the same antics as she did back in November. --MiB-24 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have it in mind that your proposal would be completely black and white, i.e. if you find the sources they stay, if you don't, they go? Because, like I said, there are some characters that I would just never be happy with having their own pages, as things stand at the moment, whether or not they were sourced, examples being the one season antagonists, such as Habib Marwan.  asyndeton   talk  21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Lucy already wacked that page so you don't have to worry about it.


 * It is really starting to appear that this has nothing to do with proving notability, which has been the crux of the entire argument as you and Lucy claim these characters are not notable, but rather just getting rid of pages you believe should be removed. If that is the case, then stop using the argument of notability.  I offered a solution to resolve the notability issue and now you’re saying that is not what should determine what makes a character worthy of its own page.  If these characters are not notable as you claim, then no one will be able to find the required material.  Just remember that all of this started because you and Lucy got into an argument and she went and tried to merge all but two pages, even ones you didn’t think should be merged. --MiB-24 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, Asyndeton, let's just all give up and let you and Lucy have your way then. That seems to be what you're suggesting. I think this is a more personal issue to you than you realize. You talk about how us "die hard" fans will never be happy unless every character has his/her own page (which is false, by the way and violates the "assume good faith" policy that you all keep going on about). And then here you come saying that YOU won't be happy with some characters having their own page sources or no. That is a personal opinion and a personal preference which I also understand is not allowed here on Wikipedia.

And I do find it so interesting that out of the MANY times I've suggested that you and Lucy actually help improve at least ONE of the articles, that suggestion is COMPLETELY ignored. I find that to be very telling. As I stated above, you're the one who came to us in November looking for help to STOP her. If you DID actually have any interest in protecting some of the pages, as you say you do, why not help improve them instead of sitting back and doing nothing? Angelriver (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I came to you when she decided she wanted to merge every page but Jack and Chloe, which was far from from my original intent when I first came to her. I don't want every page merged but on the same token I think that less characters deserve their own page than people here would suggest. My saying that I wouldn't be happy with certain people having their own page was meant to convey that although there may be academic literature about some characters, they still don't have enough substance to their character and impact on the 24 world to have their own page.


 * Anyway, you're right, I am sick of this argument and how cyclic it is, with constant arguing, no-one agreeing and so forth. I have also realised after your comments that, at some point, I stopped assuming good faith with people involved in this debacle. Therefore, to end my rudeness and impatience, I am withdrawing from this discussion. I hope you all come to an agreement. asyndeton   talk  22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, just for the record, I want it known that I have NEVER suggested that every character have his or her own page. When I got pulled in to all of this, I was trying to save a group of core characters that I agreed should be left alone and not merged. Those characters were: David Palmer (24 character), Sherry Palmer, Kim Bauer, Terri Bauer, Tony Almeida, Nina Myers, Michelle Dessler, Audrey Raines, Curtis Manning and Lynn McGill. The fight over Karen Hayes and Chase Edmunds came later, and I'll admit that I am less concerned about them than the other characters even though I think a good case can be made for both. The bottom line is that Lucy merged the Lynn McGill article WITHOUT consensus, and she did it in the middle of active discussions about it. The same thing would have happened to every other character she had tagged if we hadn't intervened. Angelriver (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * David Palmer was never tagged for merging as far as I can recall.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He was actually. I removed the merger tag on January 4th of this year. I'm also not accusing you of necessarily being the one who tagged him. Angelriver (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Flummoxing though this all is, I am listening. DBD 17:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH06: TunaSushi
In what has been described as enforcement of Wiki policies and guidelines, this is actually Lucy-marie vs. consensus. To focus on the issue at hand, we must also look at the reasons it is in the forefront of discussion. This is not a personal attack but rather a summation of this user's actions on the pages in question.

If Lucy-marie does not approve of an entry, she reverts it. There is no discussion, just reversion. When called on it or proven wrong in the unusual instance where she leaves a comment, she never apologizes or changes her behavior. On the occasion when she does comment, it is usually unintelligible and a rambling discordance of the Wiki policy alphabet. When I research her positions, I discover that she has usually misapplied some key point in some indeterminate guideline or has gleaned her own bizarre interpretation. I'm all for guidelines, but they are supposed to be helpful and implemented accordingly, not as policy, not binding, and not arbitrarily.

As noted in other talk pages, she forum-shops for favorable persons to enforce her edits and views. She was even chastised by administrators for this behavior. If the article's talk page consensus doesn't support her, she cries "not a democracy" and goes to Village Pump. If Village Pump isn't doing it, she goes to Mediation Cabal. In between, she complains to AN and ANI, logging complaints against anyone who dares to tell her to calm down, even administrators. This mediation is just her most recent attempt using a new means. If she's in the minority during a discussion, there's an "editor cabal" plotting against her. I was singled out and accused of sockpuppetry because not only did I have the temerity to disagree with her, I also had like-minded editors agreeing with me.

On the Minor CTU Agents page, she tried to dictate how she wanted everything to be. She merged without discussion; attempted to force a writing style, word selection, and pronoun elimination (espousing some bizarre interpretation of POV); hid active discussions in archives; and as soon as some characters won their own pages back by consensus, she added merger tags to their freshly recreated articles. When questioned about any this, she threw insults and accusations.

She doesn't understand the "In Universe" tag, yet puts it where she wants. She doesn't even see the problems that she causes. The entire fiasco of merged characters proves that she doesn't play well with others. Administrators have noted this behavior, and many have suggested blocks in the recent past. I don't know why the 24 articles are so important to her.

To paraphrase another editor, I have stopped assuming good faith on the part of Lucy-marie. Her editing and style is meddlesome and impervious to critique.

As to the discussion here, I thought consensus was to wait until the new season started. With the writer's strike, this is further out than originally anticipated. I've already stated that I thought Mike Doyle was more of a footnote than anything else, but if we want to talk about notability, Ricky Shroder was all over the media when he signed on to the show. The coverage blitz included stories about the actor's past, his suitability to 24, if his character was the heir apparent to 24 (possibly replacing Kiefer, who was renegotiating his contract if I recall), etc. In the grand scheme of 24, he looks like another throwaway cast member destined to be abandoned, but the notability criteria is very high as the corollary press coverage spiked.

I'm all for following consensus for the other characters' merge proposals, but I thought that was already determined. I'm not sure how a decision in favor of consensus will sway Lucy-marie from her behavioral aberrations. TunaSushi (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Going through the dispute resolution process is hardly "forum-shopping". Stating administrators in the plural is wrong it was one, with regards to this matter. Another administraor I went and spoke to came back with a diffrent point of view. It also appears that Tuna thinks it is inappropriate for me to go and talk to someone with out informing the user, but it is perfectly fine to have a complete and utter slating of everything I have done on other user talk pages. This strikes of double standards. During this very discussion it has been stated " Lucy has corectly cited...".


 * Particulaly on User talk:Angelriver it does appear as if a cabal is taking place. By cabal I am referring to a group of editors trying to prevent someone else doing anything, they disagre with, see WP:OWNERSHIP. Ironically that is exactly what you accuse me of doing.


 * The very first line of one of the topics is a direct attack towards me stating "This is all about a power trip for a teenage girl", comments like that hardly encourage cordial and friendly debate.


 * The same user being quoted as no longer assuming good faith also stated regarding myself "your contributions are perfectly legitimate" and also stated "as LM rightly says, whatever she's done in the past is in the past and unless you can find evidence of any current abuse by her, stop making insinuations. You are all of you welcome to ask me (or anyone) for opinions on the matter". That is coming form an administrator stating asking around is perfectly fine.


 * As for concensus over waiting that is contrary to WP:CRYSTAL and consensus cannot be between just the group who agree with you, when other people are disagree. I am refering to more than justone user disagreeing in this context.


 * Archiving is a standard procedure regulaly undertaken all-over wikipedia. Nobody had commented on the discusions for over a weak, so I asumed no one had anything more to say and archived the page as it was getting long and had very old topics on the page.


 * Other users especially on the Mike Doyle page seem amazed by the poor quality of the arguments particulaly by Lan DI. WP:CON explicitly states "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy'". This means that policies and guidelines must be followed when building concensus.


 * I would like to actually discuss the issue at hand, rather than attacking indivdual users and would also like to uphold policies and guidelines of wikipedia.


 * --Lucy-marie (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lucy, when people try to have a civilized discussion with you, the typical response we get is “you’re wrong, go read xxx rule.” If we try to discuss things with you and will not immediately assume your position on the issue, then you just slam the door and claim everyone else is wrong.


 * And BTW, if this was really a “cabal” as you put it, we’d be discussing this in a place where you would never see it which we are not doing. I will stand by every statement I’ve made regarding this dispute and your conduct in it including the “power trip” comment. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:MiB-24 is right on the money, I couldn't say it any better myself. The reason we brought up your history lucy is that you have a pattern of destroying pages, and what you are doing now is the same thing. I stopped assuming good faith when she bulldozed right over consensus, and has helped make the minor character page a mess. Notice that I didn't say she did herself, I said helped, so therefore I am not blaming her squarely, but that by her merging nearly every character, it helped contribute to the mess that has been made. I tried to reason with her several times, but she ran to the admin to complain about me and several other people when we tried to talk to her. Also, don't accuse us of a cabal lucy, as you would do, with read xxx rule, well WP:CABAL you may need to read. You know, I don't consider making accusations against other editors without proof is in accordance with good faith and civility rules.--Lan Di (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:CABAL is neither policy or guideline it is simply an essay. The arguments that Lan Di has bought have been weak, devoid of all policy and guidelines and 'fan-centric'. Trying to engage in a debate or discussion over policy and guidelines, with a user who clearly has no idea is near impossible. I provided neumerous links to policy and guidelines, to allow the user understanding of the policies and guidelines. I am unsure what 'bulldozed right over consensus' actually means, when others users are saying the arguments bought are fancilful, nonsensical and just voting. All of the pages tagged for merging have been done so appropriatly.


 * On an aside, there still seems to be a lack ok any notability, bought for any of the characters being discussed to warrent their own pages, at this time.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Lucy for making our point for us. Once again your comment can be summarized as “I’m right, everyone else is wrong so the mergers should go ahead anyway.”  No one really wants to spend the time to provide sources when all that will happen is you‘ll say they still don’t prove notability and then try to merge the pages anyway.  All you do is hide behind your arbitrary interpretation of the rules and claim that no one else’s argument matter and are simply “fan-centric” to use your word.  And just so you know, consensus does not mean 100% agreement.  There will always be a dissenter or two when a group discusses an issue (usually just you in this case) so don’t start tossing out the democracy garbage.  Just because you’ve assumed a specific position does not make it right. --MiB-24 (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The same sentiment is true just because more people are saying the same thing doesn't make it right either. The failure to provide any evidence of notability, means a violation of the notability criteria which are grounds for permanent article deletion, let alone merging.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved, but can I comment? LucyMarie seems to have become increasingly heated in this dispute. It may be better for her to briefly step off this topic and allow other users to take care of this issue. миражinred (speak, my child...) 16:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The main reason I am heated in this discussion is because comments are not on the issue at hand and are in cases solely an attack on my edits and me personally.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And you have once again, Lucy, resorted to name calling thereby violating the civility rule you always accuse others of violating when trying to have a discussion with you. Now tell me, was it really necessary to call Lan Di a "petty, ignorant, obsessed fan"? The discussions with you may get heated at times, Lucy, but YOU are the ONLY one who resorts to name calling, and it's quite immature. Angelriver (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH07: Angelriver
For the record, here are some more thoughts on this entire debacle. I don't believe that Lucy is capable of collaborative editing. Both Tuna and MiB have stated the case perfectly, and this is hardly the first time that there have been problems with Lucy. There is no middle ground with her, no shades of gray--everything is just black and white. Things have to be done HER way or else. I don't believe that ANY references we find for the articles would please her. She would demand the deletion of the articles just as she is doing right now. For some reason, this is a very personal issue to her, and I think that, maybe, she should step back from it for a period of time and let the editors do what we need to do to improve the articles instead of endlessly debating the same points over and over and over and over again. But I'm not going to put all that time into something until this Cabal mess is resolved. Angelriver (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it now appears as though Lucy has no real interest in resolving this issue and is trying to guarantee the deletion or merger of the articles despite whatever decision is reached by the person moderating this discussion. Lucy has gone to the AfD page with this request,

"Is there a way of formally requesting a merger like there is to formally requesting a deletion where the results are binding and overseen by someone independent. The only way I can find is to request an article or group of articls for deletion and give reasons why it should be deleted. Only to say actually I dont favour deletion I favour merging of the article. This is because lots of petty arguments can be bought up in a merger request which would be avoided in a more formal merger procedure.

I must admit that I have never seen behavior like this from anyone. Angelriver (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As predicted, Lucy is going to simply try and go around everyone else to impose her will on Wikipeida. She doesn’t care what other people think nor does she accept when a consensus is against her position. I said she would attempt and end run and now she’s at it. Also, her personal attacks are clearly getting out of hand. I’ve seen members warned or banned for far less. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH08: Paulbrock
This is getting ugly!! OK, so I'm also not directly involved but have been monitoring the discussions with interest. Here's how I see it:
 * 1) Lucy-marie, on the whole, has been attempting to uphold Wikipedia policies as she understands them; in this case the notability guidelines, by proposing mergers of various 24 characters.
 * 2) A lot of the regular 24 article writers disagree with the mergers and state their reasons on the talk page(s).
 * 3) Lucy-marie, and possibly others, argue the case for merger, but a majority of those involved in the discussion, if not a unanimous decision, say 'no merger'.
 * 4) The argument is then should the loose consensus hold, even if it may be against guidelines and policy. (I'm quite a fan of WP:IGNORE myself) You also need to factor in WP:AGF, and that different people should be (and hopefully are) attempting to apply the guidelines/policies as best as they can. If a majority of users feel 'no merger' is an appropriate application of policy then other users should respect that, or through civil discussion try and convince them of the alternate point of view.  It's not a perfect system, and particularly at AFD there can be more focus on 'votes' rather than one person with a strong argument and lots of people with weak arguments.

A suggested way forward:
 * 1) wrt 24 characters, it looks like a solution proposed earlier on this page - allowing 30 days to find sources for the character pages - would be a sensible way forward.  I think this amount of time will also allow some cooling off for all involved parties, and a focus on improving the articles rather than discussing them.
 * 2) Lucy-marie, I think you should re-consider how best to convince people of your arguments; a more calm, friendlier approach, assuming good faith of your fellow editors, may help in future to win people over, and I suggest this skill is as important here as knowing policy word for word.
 * 3) Other editors of 24 pages, focus on finding sources, improving character articles as appropriate, but remain open to appropriate merging of characters if after 30 days there is insufficient demonstration of notability.

Just my 2c, I write this as a suggestion, so ignore or follow it as you see fit! Paulbrock (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Finding reliable sources would be a good way to solve the problem. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, like it was pointed out, I suggested the idea for 30 days to provide the needed sources for notability. However, it was torpedoed straight away.  Some people just do not want the pages to exist, even if notability is proven beyond any doubt.  The sad truth is, if this ended with the moderator recommending 30 days to prove notability, there is no doubt that Lucy would ignore it, go somewhere else, and try to get the mergers forced though at once. I think her personal attack on Lan Di shows she has lost the ability to have a civilized discussion on this issue.  She constantly throws rules around and yet blatently violated one of her favorites, WP:CIV. --MiB-24 (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) Just FYI Paulbrock -- it is actually about a 4:3 count against merging, which is not what I would call "consensus" (even the 65% that passes for consensus in many discussions). It sounds more voluble against because most of the noise on this page has been by people upset with Lucy-marie's editing style. (2) MiB-24, I doubt that any of the editors "don't want the pages to exist, even if notability is proven beyond any doubt." The problem is that some of us don't think the pages should exist because we are pretty damn certain that notability does not exist. I do note that nowhere in this discussion, or on the talk page of Mike Doyle (24 character) has anyone really asserted real-world notability for that character, which is the only reason I got dragged into this mediation. The discussion for that character has had something like 3 months. --Lquilter (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have had more than a gut full of effectively wiki-bullying of a minority opinion that is backed up by policy. By all means have your thirty days, but I assure you unless you can prove each pages notability, which I strongly doubt. I will not hesitate to have the page nominated for deletion and I assume the result will be incredibly similar to the Noah Daniel's case, which all of you seemed to ignore. If I said what I truly though about some of the users I could be arrested let alone banned, but I have decided to put up a fake politeness. Please see the Top gear AfD where nearly all "votes" were keep but pages were still deleted, merged and redirected See Top Gear AfD. By my clock you have until February 25th.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Lucy for providing the best example yet as to why most of us have a problem with you. You have basically threatened multiple people and once again violated the Wikipedia rules you hold so dear. --MiB-24 (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way this is not a Teenage girls power trip this is a power trip for a sad middle aged loner. Move on and stop attacking a teenage girl because you disagree with her, that is hardly grown up mature discussions for a 29 year old.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just can’t lay off the personal attacks I see. You need to stop taking every comment that doesn’t agree with you as some kind of attack.  You’re the one who has gone overboard today with these very uncivil comments.  I see you went to an admin to demand he tell everyone to leave you alone.  Hopefully Iridescent‎ will be good enough to review your comments too because some clearly violate your beloved WP:CIV. --MiB-24 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It would also help if all name calling stopped such as on user talk pages such as your own Angelriver's and Tuna sushi's. There is only so much attacking one person can take from an entire group of people before they will lose it and today I lost it. It seems astonishing in my opinion that incivility cannot be recognised by the other side (yours) when they are engaging in it as well.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lucy, please show me where any of us has engaged in "name calling". Angelriver (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Attacking each other for their age is really lame. Everyone needs to keep a cool head. I think User:Lquilter's idea is brilliant. Users who want the articles to be kept should go on a quest to find reliable sources for the article to prevent further dispute. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 21:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I’m the one who originally suggested the 30 day timeframe to find the needed sources. The problem is, certain users, and I don’t just mean Lucy, have said that they want the mergers to go through because no matter what, they do not believe that notability can ever be established.  It’s funny, I have not commented on most of the pages under dispute.  I’m fairly neutral on most of them.  However, what drew me into this is when Lucy attempted back in November to merge every single page about 24 characters except for two.  It was nothing but an exercise in irrationality and in the end she had to admit she didn’t even want the pages merged, but simply did it because she was trying to make some kind of point.  (Placing bogus tags as part of a dispute should itself be a violation of the rules.) --MiB-24 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is some kind of violation; see WP:POINT. --Lquilter (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The tags placed were not "bogus" they were placed to initiate discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The tags I am referring to are for ones you placed on pages including Michelle Dessler, Tony Almeida, Kim Bauer, Audrey Raines, Sherry Palmer, Nina Myers, etc. etc. etc. Even you, by your own words, admitted they never should have been tagged and you were doing it for no other reason then you were in an argument with Asyndeton.  Thankfully Theresa knott finally put an end to that nonsense although we all knew you would try again. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the actions taken by a large number of users could be classified as violation one policy or another. So many have been violated I have lost track. Shall we move on as i am waiting for these sources for notability to materialise.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you including the rules that you have blatantly violated? Lucy, you constantly whine and report people for attacking you even as you continue to attack others. As I said earlier, when the person moderating this discussion weighs in with a decision, that is when I'll begin putting work into these pages. And despite your attitude, it's really not solely up to you whether or not the pages remain or get deleted. Angelriver (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can begin when you like, I have said 30 days from today. and on February 25 you will have had plenty of time to find sources. Mediation is not a way of delaying finding sources, sources are required from when an article is created. I have never said It is solely down to me and nor is it solely down to you and the people who agree with you, as to weather merging deletion or redirecting occurs.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, don't threaten us. Second, we have no motivation to get sources if you're going to merge them. Thirdly what is the deal with ?--Lan Di (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If sources are found for the articles, which clearly state and clarify external real-world notability there will be no grounds for merging. I am also not threatening you and I am not sure who the "us" you are referring to is.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For Naida Yassir, there are 4 sources. Go check the page if you don't believe me. They are reliable, and have real-world notability. Second, I don't know how to do the markup in WP, so I can't do it perfectly like you want me to. Third, you have threatened us on multiple occasions, but my definition and your definition of threat is probably different. As for "us", well, it is essentially you vs. the world in this case. Mostly you, but you have a few backers as we can tell.--Lan Di (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) For the record, three of those cites are interviews with the actor that plays Nadia Yassir, and the fourth is her website. Those are not "independent" cites that demonstrate real-world notability. WP:N (2) Not to worry, Lan Di: If cites are found, nobody on a collaborative project like WP has to worry about not knowing wiki-markup: simply post the cites on the article, or in the talk page, and someone else will clean them up. --Lquilter (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest that the pointless bickering stop. There seems to be some interest in a giving some period of time for people to generate cites per WP:N. Whatever anyone's opinion about other editors, the presence or absence of references is an objective criterion. If someone will produce a list of the relevant articles whose notability is questioned, I will commit to doing a search in MLA Bibliography to see what independent, notable, reliable cites that have substantive discussion of individual characters from 24 in that length of time. Lucy-marie, I take it, has agreed to follow up in whatever period of time. Do we have other commitments to move the process along? --Lquilter (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree, but I'd like to see what the person managing this case says before we all agree on something one way or the other. I believe that is the best way forward.--Lan Di (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'd like to see what the mediator thinks before we proceed. Angelriver (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH09: TunaSushi
Lucy's comments in the above exchanges are exactly why I can't assume good faith on her part. Everyone's trying to find the best path forward, and she's dictating a 30-day countdown. She's confrontational, not collaborative. I echo миражinred 's suggestion: Lucy-marie should back off the 24 articles and just go away for a while. Her involvement is detrimental to a contributory solution until she's enlightened about the spirit of collaborative editing. TunaSushi (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I say if one user should go away then all of the users currently involved in this dispute should go away. Collaborative editing between people who on their talk pages slate one user is hardly civil or a decent way to proceed. Collaborative editing is not just between a small group who agree with each other like yes men. With out any other point of view the quality will undoubtedly drop.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we have a new development for Nadia Yassir regarding the actress being nominated for an award for her portrayal of the character. Now this is outside the 24 universe, and is a test to see if there is good faith in regard to this new research and whether this counts as notable in her opinion. I'm hoping for the best, as my recent talk with lucy have actually shown that she can be respectful if she wants to. Now if this doesn't work, we will end up at square one all over again.--Lan Di (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is to do with more the actress and less the character per say. Individual documentary shorts are nominated for awards but not all of them are listed here on wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lucy, you’re showing again that you will just try and torpedo every single source because you do not want notability established. This is not a “short” and such a comparison has no bearing on this character.  All you seem to want is to merge these pages and nothing that is found will change your mind.  This article does make the character notable because without that character, the actress would never have been nominated for the award.  You’re reaching by saying this doesn’t establish a level of notability. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be more helpful if you would comment on the award than on your opinions of Lucy-marie's character and intentions. --Lquilter (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Because the award is structured as an award for the "performance", it's reasonable to cite it in the character article. However, if this were the only independent notability criteria, in my view, it would fall short of establishing notability on its own. I'm familiar with these awards, and they're primarily for the actors. In fact, that's apparent, because it's a Latino award, as is the actor, and the character is not Latino. Awards are not, in general, going to be the best place for character articles to seek notability, because few awards focus on the character. However, a performance award, in addition to some other cites, could take a borderline case and make it more notable. Lan Di's addition of this information is very helpful. (2) While the article doesn't have any independent cites now, I can easily imagine that some could be adduced. In addition to academic literature and journalism, I would look to media diversity watchdog groups, because the character was Arab-American and expressly confronted issues of racism and racial profiling. It would really move the 24 articles along if people would look for relevant resources, as Lan Di did, and give their honest opinions about them, as Lucy-Marie did. --Lquilter (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it's about portrayal, but, there are plenty of latino actresses, and for this one nominated in 2007 against 3 other actresses, that in and of itself is notable. It isn't really possible to give a fictional character an award, when that character doesn't exist, although that has been done. Yes, there are a ton of sources that are about her and the discrimination, however, most of them don't meet the WP:RS requirements. So I'm having a problem finding what is needed in regard to that problem. Give me a few days, and you'll have them, as I have to do some extremely advanced filtering using tools that aren't always available to me. --Lan Di (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH10: Sgeureka
Comment from an uninvolved editor I haven't watched anything of 24 after the beginning of Season 2, I don't know most editors here, and I just found this medcab case by accident, but admit my general interest in this topic. I cannot judge Lucy's behavior for obvious reasons, although I am familiar with similar alleged misbehavior, see Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters and Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters 2. I'll give my evaluation of the articles below: Global consensus (i.e. policies and guidelines) always trumphs local consensus. The burden of proof (policy) lies with the editor who adds or restores material, in this case who wishes to keep unsourced material. The same policy says that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The merge discussions have been going on for some time, and there doesn't seem to be any article progress except for Nadia Yassir. Lucy's behavior, although allegedly incivil, is unimportant for the mergers, all that matters is that these articles are in a really bad shape, and it is becoming hard to not merge anymore. As good faith in notability or progress dwindle, not merging would just constitute stalling of applications of policies and guidelines. In the meantime, arbcom has voted to implement a temporary injunction to stop all tagging/merging/redirections, so the editors recommending not to merge should use the extra time. – sgeureka t•c 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Phillip Bauer - major violation of WP:NOT + unsourced, no secondary sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY, therefore fails WP:FICT. WP:FICT says to merge (or delete or expand, but expansion hasn't happened yet, and deletion should always be the last resort, so merging is the best option)
 * Mike Doyle (24 character) - major violation of WP:OR, minor violation of WP:NOT + unsourced, one secondary source doesn't exactly establish WP:NOTABILITY. Should be trimmed, and then considered for a merge per WP:FICT.
 * Lynn McGill - major violation of WP:NOT + unsourced, see Phillip Bauer. Should be merged.
 * Chase Edmunds - huge violation of WP:NOT + unsourced, see Phillip Bauer. Should be trimmed and merged.
 * Martha Logan - major violation of WP:NOT + unsourced, has unsourced and trivial WP:TRIVIA. Trivia should be sourced, removed or backed up with non-trivial information, otherwise should be merged.
 * Ryan Chappelle - major violation of WP:NOT + unsourced, major violation of WP:OR. He seems to have been in several seasons, so allow for more time to establish notability, otherwise merge.
 * Nadia Yassir - alright, keep for now. Enough progress visible, although the article is rather stubby and could be considered for a merge later on if there is enough local consensus.
 * Victor Drazen - major violation of WP:NOT + unsourced, see Phillip Bauer. Should be merged.
 * Edgar Stiles - major violation of WP:NOT + unsourced, see Phillip Bauer. Should be merged.


 * Maybe, but that would bring us back to square one. The mediator made an excellent suggestion, and I agree with the mediator wholeheartedly. Regarding who wins out, the rules are not set in stone, hence WP:IAR, which I'm not using in this case, and WP:BOLD, along with WP:AGF, when we say we will make the articles better, we will, but there are time constraints that most users deal with. And global consensus doesn't beat local consensus, there is a balancing act, and when you compare the two, oftentimes the weight of the local will outweigh the global.--Lan Di (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding who wins out - this is not about what side wins, but what's best for the articles. I do realize that Lucy's behavior may have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but tagteaming against her "just because" is counterproductive to the goals of wikipedia, which is to create great articles. These articles are far from great, and cleanup is strongly encouraged one way or the other (i.e. expand or merge). Stalling cleanup is not WP:IAR, because that only applies for "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", which is at this point not really happening. I can't really tell the significance of WP:BOLD. WP:AGF has been pretty much exhausted if the articles still so widely fail core policies after so many weeks and months of discussion (that doesn't mean that bad faith should rule now, but rather how much improvement can be expected in the next few weeks realistically). As for the rules are not set in stone - policies like WP:NOT and WP:OR are "widely accepted standard[s] that all users should follow". What good reasons are there to not follow them? Personal issues with an editor (honest question)? As for And global consensus doesn't beat local consensus - read WP:CONSENSUS, which says the opposite in its intro. I say all of this as uninvolved as possible with the intention to speed up the improvement of these articles (trimming&merging is also improvement). – sgeureka t•c 09:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but we aren't stalling cleanup, that's what we want. We aren't tagteaming against her, but when a group forms against a person, that says something about the articles or the person, but I am not discussing the person at this time, as we have come to an understanding. Once again, we are working on articles one at a time, right now I'm working on Nadia, but an article on average takes at least a month, so I can't do them all at once, that is just how I do things. Once again, no rules are set in stone, and none of the articles can be said to be OR or NOT, as they are a work in progress. I do need to add that tag in, and I probably will very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lan Di (talk • contribs)


 * none of the articles can be said to be OR or NOT, as they are a work in progress - They are OR and NOT, independent of their work-in-progress status. If the unnecessary plot and OR got removed now to make the articles no longer violate policies, you'd get stubs that could be easily covered in a list of characters (I am not saying the trim&merge must happen, but that the articles should never have been created in the first place, or this discussion would be moot). Per WP:FICT, Articles dealing with a work of fiction (a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium) should be able to readily demonstrate notability by citing critical reception, viewership or sales figures, history and development, and other information from reliable sources (my emphasis). The speed of your (general you) improvement is simply nowhere fast enough. Question: How would 24 editors feel about a sloppy merge (i.e. no trim, just the merge) into a character list, and work from there, allowing un-merges once you are ready? This gives you all the time in the world, and I personally found it to work great for my fiction-related articles. It may also turn out that these characters are just nowhere as real-world notable as you believe, which happened to me when I wrote Characters of Carnivàle (a GA nonetheless). – sgeureka t•c 13:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your interpretation of the rules, my interpretation of rules to me means something different. Trust me, you haven't seen the mess of the mergers into an unreadable pile that makes no sense whatsoever. As the articles are a work in progress, and not a final article, merging them would slow down everything we have accomplished. Think of this also, if we were to work on these articles and they get merged, what will we have accomplished? Why would we work on something where the result is already predetermined. That would make no sense whatsoever. As you know, many of us have lives outside WP. Just because you don't like the speed of us improving the articles, doesn't mean we aren't trying, we are, it just takes as long as it will take. There shouldn't be an arbitrary deadline, as that would rush us and cause a sloppy article in the end.--Lan Di (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no interpretation when policies are copied here word for word. Rather, there is no proof that the articles "cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, [and are] not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." (WP:NOT). And sentences like "He tends to exceed the scope of his authority", "He also has a short temper", "He cares more about his work than personal relationships", "It was also hinted at that Mike had a troubled life", "Initially introduced as an abusive and rigid agent, Doyle changes to a more likable character throughout the season, due to his willingness to break from his own "By the book" attitude, to do what's considered to be right by the moral standards of the majority" (all from Mike Doyle (24 character)) are obviously original research, as they make "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source" (see WP:PSTS, a subsection of WP:OR). I have not seen any performed mergers and I don't need to, as I suggested a merge where nothing got removed. In the case that this got "rushed", the merged articles would be as "sloppy" as they are now, with the difference that you'd get one sloppy article instead of seven, a major improvement accomplishment in any way of interpretation. Why would we work on something where the result is already predetermined? The only thing that is predetermined is that these articles should be cleaned up to satisfy core policies as soon as possible. By starting these articles (whoever did it), the claim was made that these characters are notable, and by convention for everything non-fictional, articles are speedied if they don't assert notability right away. Now, editors have worked for two plus months to retrieve six reliable(?) real-world content sources for eight articles (if I counted right), which doesn't exactly back up notability and/or progress. If real life prevents you from actively contributing to these articles, allow other people to improve them (and as said before, merging is improvement). This is a wiki after all, and policies and guidelines are there for a reason. If these words are not helping, then forget about the articles' history with Lucy for a moment and think about whether you want seven poor articles that risk ending up on AfD any moment, or if you prefer all the benefits of time and being left alone to develop the topic at your own speed. – sgeureka t•c 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sgeureka, for someone who is "uninvolved", you sure have become involved--and very quickly, too. Angelriver (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was and still am uninvolved in the editing of these articles. I was merely offering to help in mediation, all in good faith. – sgeureka t•c 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I'm sure we all appreciate the effort, we do already have a mediator. Angelriver (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't offer my help as a mediator, I offered my opinion on these articles based on policies and guidelines to help in this mediation case. – sgeureka t•c 17:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is your offer to actually help settle a dispute, or to make sure that all the articles just get merged? Angelriver (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My offer is to help get the articles inline with core policies, and I have no opinion how this should be achieved, just that it should be achieved in a reasonable time. – sgeureka t•c 17:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then, if you've read through the entire discussion, you should know that it's being handled, and I really don't believe it's up to you to set a time frame. Angelriver (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "it's being handled". There has been little or no improvement on the articles themselves, and this has turned into some sort of referendum on Lucy marie's character. As such, in my opinion, it wasn't handled well; I declined to participate in that aspect of the mediation, because my interest was in working on the articles and I was under the apprehension that that is what this mediation was about (since I thought Lucy marie initiated it). So *I* did not comment on editor behavior, by and large, and I can see now that it resulted in a rather one-sided gang-up on Lucy marie. And still no improvement on the articles, which is why Lucy marie brought this mediation, an attitude I am beginning to understand. --Lquilter (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case, I would suggest that you take your concerns to the mediator since it was his recommendation to let the pages remain status quo for the time being. If we follow Lucy's suggestion, then you won't see any improvement because she wants ALL the current editors taken off the articles. If we go by the consensus that was reached before the mediator made his suggestions, that gives the current editors until the end of the month to improve the articles. Now, exactly which recommendation are we to follow? You can be as frustrated as you want to be and as impatient as well, but that's really not going to help anything, now is it? And just for the record in case you were absent or have forgotten, Lucy began merging the articles WITHOUT discussion or consensus which is the reason so many editors took issue with her. Angelriver (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By raising the points here, I am taking my concerns to the mediator, I believe. As for the "for the record" point, that has been raised many times; I think we're all clear that some editors feel Lucy was intemperate. I'm sure she's clear on that point by now as well. What *I* am not clear on, is what is the answer to Lucy's original reason for bringing this to mediation: Gaining consensus on fixing these articles. Several independent editors have now come in and agreed that significant work needs to be done, including merging. Two of them -- asyndeton and sgeureka -- have made good faith contributions and been driven off by what they described as a lack of good faith efforts and/or uptake on positive contributions. Frankly, I think that should be a significant concern for the mediator, and if I were the anti-merge editors, I would be taking a good hard look at my own editing and conversational habits to see what my share in that was. So my question to you, Angelriver, is, setting aside the conflicts you have had with Lucy marie, what positive recommendations do you have to address the substantive concerns about these articles? And this question can go for other editors here as well. --Lquilter (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The major issue with these articles was notability and finding references for them. That's what most of this mess has been about, and the last time I checked, everyone has pretty much agreed on the end of the month as a guideline for improvement. Are you saying that that option doesn't satisfy you? As far as the substance of the articles, it was a major battle just completing the Lynn McGill article as Lucy wouldn't be satisfied with any of the editors' suggestions. Angelriver (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I came in to a 24 article (Mike Doyle) as an editor who hadn't previously worked on those pages, and saw that Mike Doyle had significant problems, and someone was proposing a reasonable solution to one -- merge Mike Doyle. In the 3-4 months since I began participating in that article, I haven't seen any cleanup on it, very little attempted cleanup on any of the articles, and significant arguments with and about Lucy marie. She proposed "merge" on the talk page and gave significant time to allow discussion. People argued against merge but with little reason, and did not respond to reasons that Lucy marie (or me, or others) gave. I share Lucy marie's frustration at the lack of progress on this article, and I really question whether it's all Lucy marie's problem, as Tuna etc. argues below. I have certainly seen editors other than Lucy marie who would benefit as much from "mentoring" as Lucy marie would". I have offered to help work on specific articles, made substantive comments, an and assessments, and in general, seen little reciprocal interest in actually working on the articles. I made specific concrete text revision proposal to Mike Doyle, and nobody has responded to them. If this "case" is about Lucy's behavior, then there is no reason to not be working on the articles. If this "case" is about the articles, then some of the editors have significantly derailed it by discussing only Lucy's behavior, and not the content of the articles. Regardless, I have seen virtually no progress on the articles in all this time. I'm frustrated too. --Lquilter (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Lquilter, I am beginning to realize where each side's frustration is coming from. As per ''Mediation Cabal, I offered an additional opinion and pair of eyes, but as that seems to be rejected by one party, I will take my bow and leave the application of policies and guidelines for the next instance. By the way, I read the Signpost today, so congrats. :-) – sgeureka t•c 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Thanks!) -- I wish you would stick around! Lucy marie, Lan di, I, and you, have offered to do work on these articles. I personally would like it if this mediation would help us get work done. --Lquilter (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You said that no work has been done on the articles and yet you say that you have offered to work on them. If that's the case, are you not also to blame for the lack of improvements? Also, I don't believe that Lucy-marie has ever offered to actually work to improve the articles--just merge them. The same is true for Sgeureka who said he/she wasn't involved in the articles and just wanted to be part of the mediation process. Please feel free to correct me if my understanding of the issue is faulty. Angelriver (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * are you not also to blame for the lack of improvements? Sure, I'll take responsibility for the current status of the articles. Here are my suggestions/offers/actual work: (a) assessment of quality -- I did it on Nadia Yassir & Mike Doyle references; (b) suggestions for improvement -- made on the Mike Doyle talk page & on this page; (c) offers to help clean up -- offers made regarding NY, and rewritten text proposed on MD; I didn't "just do it" in the interests of preserving discussion; (d) now looking at the actual Minor characters in 24 which includes several characters that have significant WP:OR and PLOT information. Segureka has done substantial work by assessing the articles. Angelriver, with all due respect, I do think your understanding is faulty in the following ways: You seem to understand "improvement" only as adding content, when "improvement" also includes pruning inappropriate content, merge suggestions, and so on. I also feel that your comments here and on Talk:Mike Doyle reflect a general interest in "correcting" Lucy marie's behavior, rather than in addressing her substantive points. --20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do show me what comments I made on the Mike Doyle talk page that addressed Lucy's behavior. To my knowledge, there is only one comment from me, and it had nothing to do with Lucy. And no, I don't believe that improving just means adding content. As I stated above, from my perspective at any rate, this whole mess has mostly been about finding references to prove notability, and I was under the impression that we still had time to accomplish this. Angelriver (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I amended my cmt above to strike the MD talk page; I confused your edits. --Lquilter (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary SH11: Sceptre
Just a note - I proposed a three-week cleanup drive on the Firefly MEDCAB. Could be helpful. Will (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike Doyle

 * I worked on Mike Doyle, the list of minor characters, and a couple of other articles (I think) in February to try to get them into shape. I haven't seen much in the way of additional cites being added. IMO, Mike Doyle could still be merged with a redirect; once the original research and plot summary were removed, there wasn't much there. If he turns out to be a major character in season 7, 8, the movie, whatever, then of course he should be split out at that point. --Lquilter (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Restart
Seddon69, all the prior discussion should not be disregarded or pushed aside. Perhaps before we follow this new path, you should first elaborate upon your take of the previous proceedings, and also comment on why a restart is preferable to a continuance. Your thoughts vs. DBD's would also be helpful. TunaSushi (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason why i moved it was that whilst reading the 18000 word discussion that took up 32 pages very little of it was constructive. It mostly consisted of arguing who was at wrong and saying that it was all lucy's problem and that she was wrong. I see no reason why unconstructive discussion should stay there. Both sides were responsible in this and so i wish to start afresh. Seddon69 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Question 1) What do you count to be reliable sources in the context of these articles?

Reply by Lucy-marie
A source which is independent of the actor or actress and of the show. The source must be objective and preferably of a point of view which is relatively disinterested. A perfect source would be something like the New Yorker, a bad source would be 24 magazine. Other media sources which are un-reliable are online fansites and sites set up by the actor or actress themself, as the information on the site will generally give a spin on the information, to further either their image or a view on the show. A critical review or acclaim of the actor or actress in a newspaper is acceptable as long as it is not used as the main source for trying to establish notability (as every restaurant in the world could have an article). Independent awards such as the Emmmy's or Golden Globes are acceptable in conjunction with other reliable sources.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply by Lquilter
First, "reliable sources" is not quite the problem. I understand the problem to be establishing notability. Establishing notability requires reliable sources, but it also requires significant coverage in independent sources. WP:FICT makes this fairly clear.

As for reliable sources, I'm happy to use non-independent sources to establish particular facts -- 24: The Magazine or DVD commentaries and the like are perfectly fine and reliable for quotes, facts, and other aspects of the fictional universe, production, and so on. They do not, however, establish notability, because they are not "independent". That's where we run aground: there are multiple character articles where there is frankly very little coverage that is independent + reliable + significant.

Wikipedia is not and cannot maintain an all-encompassing directory of fictional characters, entities, and things from popular entertainment. I hope we're all in accord on that. So, we use WP:N and in particular WP:FICT to determine what we write about as a separate topic, and what is covered as part of a larger topic (e.g., "characters and characterization in 24"). If we did not use these guidelines to winnow out the characters, then we have stubs that are effectively directory entries that act as magnets for original research and plot summary.

I realize this is nothing new, but it bears repeating. If you look at Mike Doyle (24 character), the article that drew me into this discussion, there are, frankly, no sources that are reliable AND independent AND significant coverage. There's one and one only article that is largely a piece about Schroeder, with one author sentence about the character and a couple of quotes by the actor about the character. This in no way meets WP:FICT and I'm honestly not sure why people continue to argue that it does; it simply makes me more skeptical of their ability to actually understand WP:FICT. For six months this point has been made, with no real engagement on the question of what is or is not a satisfactory source, or efforts to locate satisfactory sources.

Lucy marie started this MedCab what, now, two months ago, to try to address the substantive issues, and it was -- IMO -- hijacked into a discussion of her behavior. *I* am only interested in getting the article space cleaner; not in participating in these endless juvenile rows about editors picking on each other. Sorry for getting irritable. But this has just been absurd. It drives away editors who might actually work to improve the articles, leaving them in a state that, surely, nobody can really be happy with.

Reply by MiB-24
Obviously some of what Lucy considers to be valid sources are, such as newspaper articles and the like. However, I do not think that magazines articles should be discounted entirely simply because they come from a publication that is tired to the show. As I have learned in graduate school, good articles need a combination of primary and secondary sources. So, since “24” is the show in question, I’ll use 24: The Magazine as an example. Let’s say they interview an actor about the role. That is a primary source and should be perfectly valid for establishing basic information on the character in question. Does using that source alone make the Wikipedia article relevant? No. However, it should not simply be dismissed because of who conducted the interview. Same would go for an interview with a writer or director. It is background material from a primary source(s) which explains details that might otherwise be dismissed as “fandom,” which is the most common excuse I’ve seen tossed around to try and nuke sources. Restricting the definition of what is a valid source to something so narrow it can almost never be met would basically be just a back channel way of ensuring notability can never be established.

As for websites, the official show website should be valid for the basic facts such as character X has held “Titles A, B, C” on the show or how many episodes in which the character appeared. Official websites of the actor in question, again same purpose, background material to provide a more complete article. (In my two years in grad school, I have used websites of people as primary sources and every professor has approved them as legit and valid.) Fan sites are too ripe with rumor, innuendo, and the like to be valid, even if there are good ones out there that stick to facts. (I run one and have 70 citations on the credits page as I believe in being accurate as possible, but I wouldn’t use the site itself as a source here. I would however use the sources from the site here as they are valid.)

Okay, as to what I consider to be sources that can prove notability, I would say newspaper articles (which are obviously NOT connected to the show) and interviews (print, radio, or TV) are valid primary and/or secondary sources. Books could also be used as sources although I haven’t seen one about “24” that isn’t connected to the show and therefore would only be useful for background material. An example of what could be a valid book would be one written about let’s say “ground breaking shows” and has a section on “24.”

Reply by Lan Di
I'm not going to write an essay like the other users in this question. The answer of reliable sources in this situation is already answered in WP:RS, WP:SOURCES, and WP:FICT. However, I don't think that there is a one size fits all answer to this question, and essentially what Steve wrote is also my views on this question.--Lan Di (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply by Steve Crossin
In the context of these articles, I would completely disagree with discounting primary sources as "unreliable". Fictional articles rely on primary sources for verification of content such as background information on the subject/characters in question, date of birth/death of fictional characters, and of course, the plot itself.

Primary sources are vital to these articles, as they provide information that you would struggle to find in secondary or tertiary sources. I am yet to see a plot summary in the Herald Sun.

Additionally, the use of primary sources in articles is not necessarily detrimental to the article. Two examples of these are Final Fantasy X, and Gregory House, a featured article and a Good Article respectively. They both quote, or use primary sources, for verification of information, in addition to the use of secondary/tertiary sources to do so. Gregory House uses the template, to cite certain information in the article.

However, there is also the factor of "burden of evidence", namely, that "all quotations and any material challenged, or likely to be challenged, should be attributed to a reliable, published source, using an in-line citation. The question is, what content is challenged, or likely to be challenged? However, this is a matter that should be addressed at a later stage in this mediation process.

So, getting back to the question, I would consider things like newspaper articles, critic reviews from recognised publications, peer reviewed journals, and similar publications, as documented in WP:SOURCES, to be reliable, third party sources.

Additionally, I would consider the TV show itself to be a reliable primary source, as well as the 24 magazine, which contains interviews from cast members, which can be used to gain background information about the character, such as their attributes, and their characteristics, as well as details of their creation etc.

As pointed out by Lquilter, notability is an issue here. WP:FICT outlines that notability requires reliable, third party sources to establish real-world notability, as primary sources only establish in-universe notability. However, this is also an issue that will be addressed later on in this mediation process.

I hope I've answered the question as thoroughly as possible. I've also taken extensive time to write this, and as such, I'd appreciate it if my statement is not discredited immediately. If there is an issue with my statement, I'd appreciate you address the content of my statement, and not the person who made this statement. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion associated with martha Logan

 * I remember reading something about Itzin and Smart, maybe something we can include in the article on Martha. I have two of the 24 magazines, I could order the rest through somewhere I think. There were interviews from Edgar, Raines, Martha, Charles, Nadia, Hayes, and Milo. There were others as well. I'd like to work on the Martha Logan article first. I feel she may be notable, but sources need to be provided. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok so are we all happy to start working on the Martha Logan first? What we need is sources providing notability from outside of 24 preferably from newspapers and magazines not directly associated with 24 but details about the characters can be used from sources like 24 magazine. Seddon69 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, I've found some reliable sources for Martha Logan, and I think we would all agree they are reliable. There are more as well, but these are the ones I've gotten so far.


 * The Seattle Times: "Seattle native Jean Smart happily back in the TV grind for a stint on "24"
 * USA Today: "Fox's '24' makes Smart move"
 * New York Times: "The First Lady Is Seriously Off Her Rocker"
 * The West Australian: "Smart as a nutter"

These are just four references, all from reliable sources, I am looking for more, and I will also work to have the article re-written ASAP. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats some good sources. I reckon we could find more with more time. Seddon69 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles about Jean Smart being nominated, twice, for Emmy Awards (and IMHO being ripped off) for the role of Martha Logan should also go a long way as a nomination for Marisol Nichols did for the article on Nadia. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Small query don't most of the sources establish notability for the actress rather than the character. Such as the title Smart as a nutter, this implies to me a source more aimed at the actress than the character.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read the "Smart as a nutter" source, personally i feel it is directed the character itself. I do not wish to comment on whether awards to actors establish notability for characters but what i will say is this, I know of no awards which are awarded to characters directly. The awards are given to an actor for his performance as a certain character. For example the 2007 Academy Award for Best Actor went to Daniel Day-Lewis - as "Daniel Plainview." Seddon69 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The details about awards cannot be used on thier own but can be used in conjunction with other evidence. Seddon69 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read them too, as I found the sources. Personally, I think we could even get Martha Logan to a GA status, rather than merging it. The sources I mentioned above I feel would be valuable to the article, the one "The first lady is off her rocker" contains a lot of info we could use in the article. Anyway, I'm still working on it, but the info could be used in the "Casting and creation" and "Reception" sections. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As one point, interviews with an actor about thier character do count as a source accourding to wp:fiction. Seddon69 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone come accross any other references? Seddon69 (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll get them on here in a little while.

I don't have the links, but I do have the article names, dates, and writers. I used LexisNexis to find it.


 * '24's' First Lady Wonders About Her Finale: Associated Press Online, February 14, 2006, BRIDGET BYRNE


 * A Smart choice for '24's' first lady: Associated Press Online, February 14, 2006, BRIDGET BYRNE


 * A new day for women of '24': no longer limited to victims or backstabbers, actresses now hold show's juiciest parts.: Daily Variety, SECTION: Pg. A12 Vol. 291 No. 48 ISSN: 0011-5509, June 8, 2006


 * Smart like a fox: VNU Entertainment News Wire, February 1, 2006, By JENELLE RILEY, Back Stage West

--Lan Di (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it possible you could email them to me? Seddon69 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I could, but Steve has copies of all the articles that I have given and it would be easier for him to get it, unless he deleted them from his computer. I deleted copies, but I can create new ones if I have to.--Lan Di (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need. I already emailed them to him. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks--Lan Di (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I would like is for Lucy to respond regarding the Martha Logan article. I feel notability has been asserted here, and as such, should be looked at by her, and if she agrees, to have it struck from the case. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel the same should be done with regard to the Nadia Yassir article, as there is no question regarding the relevancy of that article with regard to notability.--Lan Di (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I think both articles should be "!voted" on, see if they're given the all clear, and then note that notability has been established. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, then we can move on to other characters, Edgar Stiles and Chase Edmunds should be the next target, as we can only do 1-2 at a time. Once those are done, we can do Ryan Chappelle‎ and Lynn McGill, then go for the rest.--Lan Di (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I'll try to help as soon as this semester is over. Right now I just cannot spare a minute; these last 3 weeks of school are extremely demanding. --MiB-24 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)