Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-14/Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)

Outside opinions solicited
Relisting a June 2009 request from a mediator. @harej 05:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinions are solicited on the following question:


 * WP:SYN, part of WP:OR, prohibts taking two sources to construct a new conclusion or opinion, and thereby failing WP:V. Does this still apply if the new information, that is the result of comparing two sources, thereby interpreting (dis)similarities, is verifiable on it's own? Does it make a difference if the information under discussion is visual or pictorial, as opposed to verbal or written?

Comments would be appreciated. Please feel free to familiarise yourself with previous discussions and with the case files.

Regards, AGK 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * We've had a very disappointing level of input thus far. :( AGK 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm OK with waiting--it did take a while to get the right mediator. It's really an important distinction to make, and I don't mind taking the time to get it right.  The funny thing is, if we were being less polite, we'd already be at ArbCom by now. :-) Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is this query being posted? -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Policies. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Edokter. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling that RfC will, by virtue of the low attention it receives from the community, fail to resolve our dispute. AGK 23:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get the feeling you're right. Anyone have other ideas for good community feedback? Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would Village pump (policy), and by extention, Centralized discussion be appropriate places to notify? After all, this could set an important precedent for interpreting WP:V. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if we have a choice between dying of thirst and drinking from the firehose... Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we need water... — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with whatever Arcayne opines on this matter. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that's going to put us in a better position; we needed informed opinion, precisely because it might be considered a slight shift in policy precedent. I've said it in other articles and on other occasions, and I think we might want to follow it here; there isn't a rush. Conversely, we could simply use HM's info, decide that the model name's aren't necessary and close this out. However, I think Edokter won't want that, and am thusly patient to await more input. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that I am not prepared to let this boil down to an editorial decision. After all, like you hinted: the litmus for inclusion is based in policy. WP:VPP will attract especially those editors that take interest in policy matters, and I consider them to be especially informed when it comes to interpreting policy. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Having skimmed through your case files, I'd first like to commend all parties for their professional approach to this debate. All sides have acted with the utmost civility, care and attention to detail. A very commendable effort on everyone's part. That said, my understanding is that the NOR policy is to prevent people from making grandiose conclusions without proper authority; that is to say, we don't let Joe the Plumber tell us what ended the Cold War - we cite John Lewis Gaddis, an eminent Yale historian cited by many as the dean of Cold War historians because of his expertise, many hours studying the subject, and sublime writings upon the topic. I do not believe this same spirit of rigorous scholarship applies to mere identifications. And that's what this is. The fact that I personally did not automatically recognize it as that specific robot does not mean a significant portion of Wikipedia readers couldn't, especially given my geographic distance from Japan. Edokter was able to readily identify the robot and a quick Google search and comparison of images validates his claim. That is not complex original research, that is verification. However (and this is a huge however), such information truthful and accurate as it may be clearly doesn't belong in the article's text in this specific case. It's extraneous and trivial, and without further comment upon the robot types themselves by Ronald D. Moore or other cast/crew members, such information as to their identity is as irrelevant to the overall story summary as the brand of dress worn by Caprica Six or the real-life street on which they filmed the scene. Thus, barring some big discussion of the robots in the special features of the forthcoming DVD release, the information should be removed. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to provide a thoughtful opinion. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank you too, but I do have a sidenote; wether the information should be included or not is purely an editorial consideration, not one based on policy, and it is the latter which we are discussing. Personally, I do not consider one word (the model) to be "extranious" at all; it is there to provide context, nothing more. And articles, especially those dealing with fiction, are in dire need of real-world context. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My sincerest thanks to Hemlock for submitting input on our little dispute. His comments are appreciated. AGK 17:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've have taken a look at the disputed articles talk page and left comments on the synthesis debate. My opinion may be out of left field but I think that the identification of the robots in the episode should be considered an instance of routine calculation (simple inference). My argument being that the assertion made is essentially an identity statement: the object in picture x is the qualitatively identical to the object in picture y. I may have commented on the notability issue on the other page but I'm new and don't really have a clear idea as to how the standard is enforced. Frayr (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As was noted in the article discussion page, I understand your logic, but the problem is that - while there are qualitative similarities (and not sameness) between the robot seen in the scene for a few seconds in the episode - those similarities exist with other robots and gynoids as well (for example, a RealDoll), thus the synthesis issue. As there are no citations anywhere that identify the robot (or any robot, for that matter), the problem of identification becomes one of applied knowledge and therefore synthesis.
 * If the creators of the episode or the reliable sources reviewers of the episode didn't feel the content to be important, it is my position that it isn't in our purview to lend it importance. As the model identification adds precisely no intrinsic value to the article, we don't need it. It's dead weight. The seeking of real-world context is unnecessary when the content - if named - distracts from the subject of the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your objection. I was under the false impression that there had been agreement on the make of the robots. But if there is indeed doubt this is not a routine "calculation". Frayr (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel I must point out that Arcayne has not actually contested that the robot is an Actroid, only posed that the robot might be something different, and is comparing to a sex toy, which we all agree is not even a robot. Unless Arcayne can actually demonstrate that the robot is in fact not an Actroid or that it is something else, only then do I consider it a valid contest of this information. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think demonstrating that it is something else is reversing WP:BURDEN, but asserting that it is something else is a much lower and reasonable bar. I don't think anyone has even asserted that the alleged Actroid is anything other than an Actroid. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I have argued that it might be another type of robot on at least four prior occasions. In the absence of citation, identification is up for grabs. Edokter's argument presumes a false conclusion: he asks if I can prove the robot is not an Actroid while at the same time being unable to prove that the robot is in fact an Actroid. It isn't a burden of me proving it isn't another thing, it is the burden of citation to prove that it is in fact the initial thing presumed. As there isn't citation speaking to either one or the other, my contention that the robot depicted could as easily be a Real Doll, EveR-1 Project Aiko, Meinü robot or any one of a dozen other gynoid robot models out there out there.
 * That's the problem. Edokter is convinced it is one thing, but has zero reliable citation to reinforce his/her assertion. It is this absence of citation which gives my claim of robot model as much weight as his/hers. We are being asked to elevate Edokter's personal impressions (read: synthesis) to the level of citation. Uncited information is allowed in articles - until or unless dissent is voiced. At that point, it must be cited or removed. That''s not me; that's policy and guidelines. Considering that the information has practically no value to the subject matter of the article - specifically, that it is unnecessary to the plot - the arguments against inclusion seem rather clear.
 * the other part of the discussion, the synthesis of the Magee poem and the line of dialogue, is not less important, but still a clear example of synthesis. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I missed it, but I don't recall you saying "I looked at the picture that is cited as an actroid, and I looked at the sequence of images from the episode, and I don't see that the actroid appears to look like any of the robots depicted in this episode" or the equivalent. We're agreed that you've expressed concerns that it's not cited as an actroid--there is no dispute there.  But if you've come out and said "I looked, and that doesn't look like an actroid to my eyes", I withdraw my comment and instead offer an apology for my oversight. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, JClemens, and while your apology is deeply appreciated, but it certainly wasn't taken as a slight. I think the discussion over whether it was even appropriate to have the assessment of the images (synthesis vs. common knowledge, etc) had the limelight. The correct identification of the robot model (and the non-identification of the four or five other robots displayed is important, but a moot point if we assess that the identification is one borne of synthesis - which I of course, feel it is.
 * I am not sure how much movement on this there is going to be over the weekend, but have good one. :) -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So...
I'm at a loss as to where we move on from here, or which version of the article we go wish. Shall we flip a coin to decide who's correct? Shall we call it a day and try and ignore the disagreement? (We could always revisit this dispute at a later date.) Thoughts? AGK 23:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, an apparently uninvolved party removed the fact tag from the High Flight reference several days ago and no one seems to have reverted it, I'm not sure how fervently this issue is being watched. I still want a good consensus, and am willing to help facilitate and write a Wiki-wide RfC if Arcayne is, because I think we have a good, honest disagreement and the entire Wiki would benefit from such a discussion. I'm abandoning my previous concerns of ignorant people just saying "independent RS or junk it!"--let's open up the audience more than what we've previously had, and post something on CENT or the village pump. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about this unresolved matter not 5 hours ago. I've reverted Ronin's removal of the fact tag, returning it to the pre-mediation state. However, I will agree that we haven't seen a lot of movement on this matter. I am thinking that this might be attributable to the fact that we are treading on somewhat new ground: ie, what "specialty" is there in noting connections between a line from a 1940's poem and a television episode, and is it synthesis to make a connection that isn't made explicitly elsewhere? I think the answer that we have seen from the one outside response we have received - and the thunderous amount that we have not - essentially offer the answer of "sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not". And the same issues that apply to the Magree poem apply to the robot model names as well.
 * The one comment we have received form outside our trio of opinions is that while it isn't always that necessary to cite, the larger problem of triviality is on point here. The robot model names are not important, and are in fact trivial to an understanding of the episode. The Magee poem, while similar to the dialogue, is not substantially important to note. And in both cases, we haven't a whisper of reliable citation to connect them to the subject. If we had it, I would be less inclined to fight it, though I still feel both to be trivial and offering undue weight to superfluous events in the plotline. Again, it would be like identifying the brand of shoes the characters are wearing; they aren't vital to the understanding of the subject.
 * I think our one opinion pointed out the issues appropriately in regards to the robot models; that Hemlock didn't comment on the Magree poem is due to us not listing it as part of the dispute clearly enough. At the very least, we should alter the article to reflect the opinion we sought and received. If necessary, we can submit the question about the Magee poem to the NOR noticeboard, and get teir take on it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still looking for more outside input, so I'm with JC here and post on CENT or VP. Arcayne, you say the model names are undue in relation to the plot. The article should reflect all aspects of the episode, including production. I would like to remind all that this dispute revolves around policy, not editorial content. Once policy is settled, then we can discuss the merits of inclusion based on editoral discussion. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought my post specifically reflected policy, as did that of two other editors who agreed with my view on this topic. You are correct that the article should reflect "all aspects of the episode", you haven't a citation worthy of inclusion that would justify noting this very insignificant personal recognition. I have been saying this all along, and you are of the opinion that your connecting the dits is sufficient. It isn't. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found out that this edit by removed the RFC tag, so it is no wonder we're not getting any comments. I have reinstated the tag and manually added the issue back to the Policy RFC index. —  Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Arg.Thanks for adding the issue back in, Edokter. I've tweaked it to more appropriately address the problem (the robot model has not been named in either the episode or RS; the issue is whether a personal, specific identification set is acceptable for use when disagreed upon.) -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * {Note: A discussion was previously here, but has been removed.} AGK 02:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the discussion between Arcayne and Edokter that previously was here. I would appreciate the maintenance by all of a professional tone when addressing the other parties. AGK 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will maintain professionality as best I can, but I cannot allow Arcayne to game the process anymore. The text on the RFC page will reflect the text as it is posted here, without modification, and discussion will only commence here. There is absolutely no reason to change the contested text and question. We all agreed to the phrasing of the question, and the text is exactly that which is being contested. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment below for reply
 * Arcayne has added his comments on the RFC page yet again. He will either be forced to follow the rules, or he will find himself no longer being a party in this mediation. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Was that a threat? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, both of you need to take a chill pill and focus on the dispute, not the "opposition". We have an interesting dispute where there's no clear answer, good faith editors differ, and there's a real need, project-wide, for some consensus to be developed on this topic.  "Win" or "lose", this is a worthwhile pursuit. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My problem with the re-submitted RfC is that it is substantially different than the one AGK submitted:
 * AGK's version:


 * Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-14/Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica): Outside input on interpretations of No original research and peripheral issues is requested.


 * and Edokter's version:


 * (quotebox noting a public image of an Actroid). Footage from the Expo was featured in the episode's epilogue.
 * Diputed content:


 * Among the robots featured in the final scene are a Sony QRIO and an Actroid. In the episode's podcast, Moore and his wife Terri commented that they he had trouble scouring for robot footage and clearing rights issues. They also described the Actroid as the "most disturbing" of the robots. "She's freaky. She's a Six in the making". 
 * Outside opinions are solicited on the following question: WP:SYN, part of WP:OR, prohibts taking two sources to construct a new conclusion or opinion, and thereby failing WP:V. Does this still apply if the new information, that is the result of comparing two sources, thereby interpreting (dis)similarities, is verifiable on it's own? Does it make a difference if the information under discussion is visual or pictorial, as opposed to verbal or written?''


 * In actuality, neither Moore nor his wife uttered the word "Actroid" in the cited podcast, and there is no - I repeat, no - citable support for the Actroid having been the robot used in the episode. I am concerned that Edokter's altered RfC frames the question in such a way that newly arriving editors believe that A) Moore named the robot by model, and B) from the supplied image that the model is in fact the Actroid. My comment sought to address Edokter's gaming of the process to reframe the question yet again (and again and again, to the tune of violating 3RR).
 * This is the substance of the discussion here, and I think it sneaky in the extreme to try to solicit comments from neutral sources, all the while gaming the system and attempting to influence their decision. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Arcayne and Edokter: Stop the bickering. I'm losing patience with you both. AGK 18:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't bickering, AGK. The substance of the problem here is that the submitted RfC was not what was initally agreed to and submitted by yourself. It is unbalanced and assumes a position specifically in dispute, instead of stating the dispute itself. My comments about Edokter's behavior notwithstanding, I think this a valid concern, - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will reitterate: Either Arcayne will follow the rules set forth by the mediation, or he is invited to withdraw himself. I will not be subject to his gaming. By having me blocked, be it very short, I have absolutely lost all and every bit of good faith in Arcayne. AGK, not to diminish your efforts here, but I do invite you to take a more active role in steering this discussion. You decide what to put on the RFC page. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point: AGK was the person to submit the RfC. Neither one of the disputing parties should have re-added a substantially different version, as it creates more problems for the mediation than it resolves. I am not commenting on Edokter's actions at this point, but instead on how to best seek neutral third parties in the RfC. The current version of the RfC does not accomplish that. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the content part, only leaving the original question. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Edokter. I was just about to provide how the supposedly imported language was notably different than that currently in the article (to whit, that Moore never mentioned or identified the Actroid at all), but reinstating the actual RfC issue without the "example" resolved the problem. If only reason had prevailed earlier. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertising this discussion
I move we advertise this discussion in Centralized discussion by placing a link to this page in cent. This issue is important enough to gain wider attention, as it will determine the status of visual sources. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

22 August RfC

 * RfC comment. I came here in response to the RfC posted on August 22, and I'm not exactly sure where best to post my comments, so I started this section. Here's what I think, from a position of having read all the discussion above and all the linked discussions, but having zero previous knowledge about the subject matter. As a matter of policy, the decision comes down to whether (1) it is sufficiently obvious that the image is of the kind of robot claimed to be, that it is essentially like making a common sense calculation (one RS says there are 10 of something, another RS says there are 15 of something else, and an editor says there are 25 of the total), and that is not SYNTH and should be permitted, or, (2) it is sufficiently un-obvious, that there is enough of a likelihood that the image might be misidentified, in which case concluding that it is as labeled is SYNTH, and should be reverted. That's what I think it comes down to. Now I, for one, do not know which of those two scenarios fits this case, because I haven't spent enough time examining images of this kind of robot. And the two editors who are disputing the edit are unlikely to ever agree about it. So, please let me suggest having a content RfC (maybe at art/architecture/media) asking more editors to look at the image and specifically answer the question of whether it is obvious that it is an image of that particular kind of robot (and hopefully not go on sidetracks discussing anything else!). Alternatively, one could ask the same question at an appropriate WikiProject, if there is one. Just: is it obvious that it's an image of that particular robot, yes or no? If "yes," then the edit stands, if "no," then revert as SYNTH. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't be separated
Hi, I just read through (most of) this and (most of) the linked to older conversations. I don't know how much it will help, but I have to say that my conclusions essentially mirror what User:Hemlock Martinis concluded above (namely: that the information just doesn't belong in this instance). I understand the objections that those conclusions miss the mark in regards to the actual dispute, but the reason that I think he stated the exception, and the reason that I'm also supporting that exception, is because the editorial issue of inclusion is essential to and inseparable from the policy questions that it subsequently creates. See, the policy issues are (somewhat artificially) being caused by the (seemingly poor) editorial decision to include the information at all.

I agree that this could be an interesting question, but this was probably a poor case to bring in order to highlight it. Sorry. — V = I * R  (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's an interesting question... but I think the actual policy interpretation is more important than the specific usage in one particular article. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to get at though, is that I don't think that you can completely separate the application of policy from the context in which it is being applied. Policy and guidelines can't live in a vacuum, and context is key to their actual application. — V = I * R  (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)