This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
12 Monkeys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12 Monkeys has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The Development section states that "Universal took longer than expected to approve 12 Monkeys, although Gilliam had two stars (Willis and Pitt)..." However, the Casting section states that "Pitt was cast for a comparatively small salary, as he was still relatively unknown at the time." These seem to be contradictory, and unfortunately the references for these are not available online (Christie's book and the DVD production notes). Could someone with access to both of these sources check them to see if this is a transcription error, or if the sources are contradictory? RobRoyDuncan ( talk) 19:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Most articles about fiction don't ref their plot section, but most articles' plot section contains WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. By using references we stem original research like this and differentiate between verifiable information and original research. MOS:PLOT encourages citing sources, even primary sources like the work of fiction itself. Bright☀ 12:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Are there any elements of the plot that are unclear to an average viewer on a single run through of the film?I don't see how that's a hurdle that needs to be passed in order to cite the plot to the primary source. MOS clearly states "key or complex plot points", there is no need to show that "the average viewer" is unclear on them. By default, a reference to a reliable source is better than no reference. WP:PRIMARY explicitly permits the use of primary sources to describe the plot of a work of fiction. There is no sense in removing these references because they're "ersatz" or because other articles ignore the importance of referencing "key or complex plot points". Bright☀ 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
interpretation- there is no interpretation at all. The article states "Cole is interviewed by a panel of doctors, and he tries to explain that the virus outbreak has already happened, and nobody can change it." This is literally what happens on-screen, and the quote in the reference is verbatim. There is no interpretation. Bright☀ 17:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Assuming this issue isn't settled (four days without discussion, so maybe?), might I suggest that those concerned that sourcing should be provided give us specifics that we can discuss? As the concerns expressed here seem to revolve around whether we're regurgitating plot or adding interpretation or otherwise enhancing it (for lack of a better term), it would at least be helpful to me to have specific examples to analyze. DonIago ( talk) 20:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.The plot points referenced are perhaps the two biggest key plot points in the story: nobody can change the past, and Cole has traveled to the past to gather information. Each of these plot points is repeated around three times throughout the movie.
I have restored the hidden comment at the end of the plot, asking that editors not offer an interpretation of the ending of the film. The ending was clearly left ambiguous and we should not be in the business of explaining what it means. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 23:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Sourcing and quotations
The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation
editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps to discourage original researchand
using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
[James Cole] is coerced into travelling back in time to 1996 - just before the epidemic broke out - to discover the source of the virus, not to prevent the cataclysm but for future's research.
Nick James (1996), Sight and Sound, Interview with Terry Gilliam
In Terry Gilliam’s Twelve Monkeys, Willis goes back in time to confront an insane Brad Pitt before Pitt releases a virus that’s destined to kill five billion people and drive the rest of society into hiding (as it turns out, Pitt is merely trying to release a bunch of giraffes from the Philadelphia Zoo, which is only slightly more confusing than the presence of Madeleine Stowe in this movie). What’s distinctive about Twelve Monkeys is that the reason Willis is sent back in time is not to stop this catastrophe from happening, but merely to locate a primitive version of the virus so that scientists can combat the existing problem in the distant future (where the remnants of mankind have been to forced to take refuge underground). Willis can travel through time, but he can’t change anything or save anyone. “How can I save you?” he rhetorically asks the white-clad dolts who question his sudden appearance in the year 1990. “This already happened. No one can save you.” Twelve Monkeys makes a lot of references to the “Cassandra complex” (named for a Greek myth about a young woman’s inability to convince others that her prophetic warnings are accurate), but it’s mostly about predestination—in Twelve Monkeys, the assumption is that anyone who travels into the past will do exactly what history dictates. Nothing can be altered.
Chuck Klosterman (2009), Eating the Dinosaur, page 60
you selectively quote from policies and guidelines that support your position
You say so but you don't actually show it, or show which policies contradict what I'm saying. Meanwhile, I've shown which policies and guidelines contradict what you're saying and doing. I feel that the quotes are simply unnecessary
For the tenth time, being unnecessary is not a reason to remove something. that they do not illuminate the plot
Funny, because reliable third-party sources use these exact quotes to illuminate the plot. So either you're wrong, or the reliable sources are wrong. And in that case, Wikipedia prefers reliable sources over an editor's opinion. the points you regard as contentious are not so
and yet you feel it's necessary to touch upon those points with hidden text that tells people not to add speculation, instead of using the guideline-stated way to do it, with references. What's more, they need not be contentious, only key or complex plot points. Since reliable sources discuss them as key plot points, again it's you against reliable sources. You against reliable sources, you against Wikipedia guidelines, you against Wikipedia policies... ersatz references
primary sources are valid referencs, your insistence to dispute them shows your disconnect from Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which you keep failing to follow. They are proper references in accordance to Wikipedia policies. At some point, you simply have to let the matter rest.
This is the "consensus by bullying" or "consensus by mob" I was referring to. Instead of following the policies and guidelines, you demand that everybody else stop following them.
In short, nothing you said actually contradicts the guideline or supports your removal of the reference:
Sourcing and quotations
The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation
You are attempting to discourage original research with hidden text. I am discouraging original research with citations. You claim the references don't support "contentious" plot points. I (and third-party sources) claim they support key or complex plot points, per the guideline. Bright☀ 18:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Cole is selected to be trained and sent back in time to find the original virus in order to help scientists develop a cure. [1] Meanwhile, Cole is troubled by recurring dreams involving a foot chase and shooting at an airport.
Cole arrives in Baltimore in 1990, not 1996 as planned. He is arrested, then hospitalized in a mental hospital on the diagnosis of Dr. Kathryn Railly. There he encounters Jeffrey Goines, a mental patient with fanatical views. Cole is interviewed by a panel of doctors, and he tries to explain that the virus outbreak has already happened, and nobody can change it. [2]
References
James Cole: I just have to locate them because they have the virus in its pure form, before it mutates. When I locate them, they'll send a scientist back here; that scientist will study the virus, and then when he goes back to the present, he and the rest of the scientists will make a cure.
Doctor: Are you going to save us, Mr Cole?
Cole: How can I save you? This already happened. I can't save you. Nobody can. I am simply trying to gather information to help the people in the present trace the path of the virus.
For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot. Now the question is, why are so many editors "misreading" Wikipedia policies and guidelines and seeing things that aren't there? Perhaps what they feel should be in the article is making them ignore these policies and guidelines...The first argument for removing the references was
not needed, which is classic WP:OWN. Then it changed into
you need secondary sources, which is not true (see direct quote from WP:PRIMARY and WP:PLOT), but I provided secondary sources anyway, one of which uses the same quote to illustrate the key plot point that Cole can't save anyone and can't change anything. Then the argument changed to
these quotes don't illuminate the plot, in which case the secondary source chose this quote to explain the plot even though it doesn't explain the plot... then the argument changed to
you're dealing with themes, not plot summaryimplying it's analysis and doesn't belong in the plot section, but the quotes literally explain the plot, and do not touch upon any analysis of themes. And now we're back to
there is no need for any primary sourcing herewhich, again, is WP:OWN, enforcing a certain version without saying that a different version is detrimental, just that it's "not needed"... and now, bizarrely,
Either you should source it all , or source nothing, which goes directly against the guideline and policy:
Sourcing and quotations
The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
WP policy and guideline presume that the work itself is normally sufficient as the implicit reference for a plot summary.I agree and I never said otherwise.
adding only a couple of primary sources doesn't helpThen why is it explicitly supported in the policy and guideline? Sigh. It shows the reader that the plot summary is faithful to the primary source, particularly for key or complex plot points per the guideline, and it quotes passages from the primary source per the policy.
it's overlooking the work itselfWhat?
it's inconsistent (you should do the whole plot that way or otherwise not).Which policy or guideline exactly states "you should do the whole plot that way or otherwise not"? Because from where I'm sitting, the guideline says key or complex plot points. Maybe there's a man-in-the-middle attack on my Wikipedia connection and everybody is seeing a different guideline and policy?!?! Bright☀ 16:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
User:TheOldJacobite: local consensus does not override Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You claim consensus but consensus is not mob rule:
|
The discussion above provides no consensus for removing the references. There is a policy and a guideline that support the reference, and there are a bunch of people who WP:DON'TLIKEIT and engage in WP:OWN behavior: "the edit is not necessary so here's my preferred version." Bright☀ 10:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
By which you mean policies and guidelines interpreted by you for your own benefit.- there is zero interpretation. The policy and guideline are explicit:
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
Sourcing and quotations
The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation
The quotes you added are not references- this is your main point and it's simply wrong; read the policy: For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. They are references to the primary source, and they offer no interpretation. You may also want to read the citing sources guideline: A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference.
And, in the RfC, this idea has been rejected in favor of using secondary sources for complex plot points- That's an outright lie as the RfC has not been concluded and the majority are in favor of the policy and guideline as it currently stands.
It's really rather pathetic that you think you should have your way when not a singly other editor agrees with you- But they do. The problem is that you and a little mob claim WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overrides Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which is, again, against Wikipedia policies and ArbCom decision. Bright☀ 18:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
In case you find it hard to keep track of all the arguments you raised:
"does not need refs" | against policy | "not needed" is an invalid reason to revert an edit. See this helpful flowchart. |
not references | against guideline | References can and should contain quotations. See citing sources guideline. |
should only be cited if plot is unclear to average viewer | restriction not in policies or guidelines | MOS only mentions key or complex plot points, and there are reliable third-party sources that say these plot points are key or complex ("distinctive"). |
can't be primary sourced because it's an interpretation | false | There is no interpretation. The referenced sentences offer no interpretation of the material, they mention it plainly and directly. |
you don't have consensus | article ownership | As explained above, there are policies and guidelines supporting these edits, and policies and guidelines represent global Wikipedia consensus. Local consensus does not override policies and guidelines. |
you just repeat the same thing over and over again
- TRUE! That's because you keep repeating all the five bad arguments above:
What you're characterizing as "repeating the same thing over and over again" is giving you the policies and guidelines that support this edit, while you repeat your wrong reasons to remove it. You can't have local consensus against policies and guidelines. This is article ownership. You don't like this policy- and guideline-backed edit so you revert it on the basis of "not needed"... Bright☀ 18:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no "must" in there. That means that whether to include the quote refs should be left to local consensusMy point was never that it must be included, my point was that its inclusion is supported by policy ("cite passages to describe the plot") and guideline ("using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful"), and your revert reasons and talk page arguments (as outlined in the handy-dandy table above) are not backed by policies or guidelines. "You don't have consensus" is not a reason in and of itself to remove material from Wikipedia. Consensus is the process and decision that is made by "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." None of your arguments had anything to do with Wikipedia policies or voiced any valid concerns over the issue. You have "consensus" by mob rule here, not by Wikipedia policies or guidelines or legitimate concerns. TheOldJacobite decided the references are "not needed" and everyone tagged along to that argument, straying here and there to the other four invalid arguments. That's not consensus. Bright☀ 07:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
there's a clear majority to not include these references, and guidelines clearly support thisThere's a majority, but it's not backed by guidelines or policy, which makes it consensus by mob rule. Nobody expressed how this addition is detrimental, viewed through any policy or guideline. TheOldJacobite tried saying it's not a reference; that's wrong. You tried saying it's analysis or that plot points should only be cited if they are unclear to the average viewer; that's wrong. The main argument is "it's not required"; that's true, policies and guidelines do not require the improvement of articles, but they do require that if you assign priority between two versions, you need to have a policy- or guideline-backed reason. Here, we see you and other editors assign priority to a version without articulating in any way how it's better, other than "it's not required", which is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 18:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Neither side has a "policy" advantage hereUsing brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. There is a guideline here that says it's helpful to source key or complex plot points to brief quotation citations. There's no "must" in the vast majority of policies of guidelines, but reverting a helpful change because it's "not needed" is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. If your entire argument here is that "it's not required" or "the guideline doesn't use the word must" then it's article ownership and consensus by mob rule. Bright☀ 19:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't seen any other editor agree that the points you provided citations for are either "key or complex", which voids the entire sentence.Whether they agree or not is irrelevant as I have provided third-party reliable sources that name these plot points as key or complex.
quotes should be used if you believe they will be helpful...but not necessarily if others disagree.This is exactly WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. If a policy and a guideline support something, you have to have a reason to edit against them. "Not necessary" is not a valid reason, it's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 08:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
many other people have told you that they just do not interpret the policy the way that you do.That is not what they said. They argued against an interpretation of the policy and guideline that I never gave. See above, or I can repeat it for the nth time. Bright☀ 18:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
we neither feel the plot points in question are sufficiently key or complex
The first point has been raised and refuted with citations, and it's also ridiculous; it's not a key plot point that the past cannot be changed? Please. Either way there are third-party reliable sources that do name it as a key or complex plot point, so your opinion doesn't matter. nor do we feel that these citations are in fact helpful
Again, "I don't think it's helpful" without specifying why is
WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. As for
WP:IAR, see
this handy chart. There is a guideline on the matter, ignoring it without a reason is
WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.
Bright☀
13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No one has denied that's not a key plot pointDonIago just did: "we neither feel the plot points in question are sufficiently key or complex, nor [...]" but as I said what anybody on Wikipedia feels about the plot points is no longer relevant because there are reliable secondary sources that name it as a key or complex plot point.
no one else feels that we have to cite theseAgain this is not a have to or must case. Article ownership is about taking two versions and reverting to one without a valid reason. Your reasons (and by "your" I mean everybody in this talk page thread) amount to "it's optional", "it's not needed", "it's not required", "it's not a must", "we don't have to do it" and so on, all of which is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. The versions aren't even equivalent; the version with the references is supported by the guideline, while removing the references is completely arbitrary and without any specified reason, i.e. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 17:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Technically, that's OWNership the other way, towards you, trying to conform the article to what you wantNo, this shows a deep misunderstanding of OWN. My edit is backed by policy and guideline. The revert is backed by "not needed". It doesn't matter how many people think it's not needed; if "not needed" is their sole reason (as reviewed above), that's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 17:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Consensus has decided not to include that.Consensus is not mob rule. If consensus is not backed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's exactly the same as article ownership. Bright☀ 17:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"It's not required" is a guideline-based argument- no. You are taking two versions, one that is encouraged by policy and one that is merely sufficient, and you are assigning priority based on "not required". That is ownership, literally following the example given on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I am concerned that a Wikipedia administrator thinks that "not needed" is a reason to revert an edit that a policy deems "encouraged", and doesn't understand that reverting because something is "not needed" is article ownership. Bright☀ 18:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@ BrightR: you've made your point repeatedly (ad nauseum, even), and it's been rejected. It's time to drop the stick and stop making personal attacks in the form of accusations of article ownership. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the discussion on RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections. Since the main argument here is that there is "no consensus" for adding sources despite the guideline clearly stating that this is encouraged, I have started an RfC about the guideline itself to gauge whether there is consensus for it. Bright☀ 13:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The RfC was concluded with the following summary:
The question asked was Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? Due to potentially unclear intent of the RFC question, and due to muddled discussions, it is best to break down the result in pieces:
- The guidelines clearly encourage references to secondary sources where appropriate, with abundant support.
- The guidelines clearly encourage references to the primary source where appropriate, and there is little or no dispute on this.
- In regards to removal of references deemed inappropriate by formal or informal local consensus, and particularly removal of primary source references deemed inappropriate by formal or informal local consensus: The prevailing view is that such removals are compatible with the guidelines, and that it is endorsed.
Note: Not all participants appear to have been aware of discussion point #3. However I find that sufficient participants either explicitly addressed that issue or tangentially touched upon it. In any case, it is clear that this discussion has not generated any result to bar or overturn such removals.
Can anyone articulate why these references are "deemed inappropriate" with reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense? Reasons that are not based in policy, sources, or common sense should not be raised. I'll start you off:
All you have to do is refute any part of that argument. Or make your own! As long as you actually have a valid argument according to Wikipedia policies, sources, and common sense. My argument is, because adding the references is supported by the guideline, then the revert and subsequent consensus-by-mob is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I see no requirement that editors stipulate why they feel the references are inappropriateThat's because you're ignorant of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Read up. Willingly ignorant, I might add, since I quoted the relevant section above. Bright☀ 09:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
12 Monkeys article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12 Monkeys has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The Development section states that "Universal took longer than expected to approve 12 Monkeys, although Gilliam had two stars (Willis and Pitt)..." However, the Casting section states that "Pitt was cast for a comparatively small salary, as he was still relatively unknown at the time." These seem to be contradictory, and unfortunately the references for these are not available online (Christie's book and the DVD production notes). Could someone with access to both of these sources check them to see if this is a transcription error, or if the sources are contradictory? RobRoyDuncan ( talk) 19:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Most articles about fiction don't ref their plot section, but most articles' plot section contains WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. By using references we stem original research like this and differentiate between verifiable information and original research. MOS:PLOT encourages citing sources, even primary sources like the work of fiction itself. Bright☀ 12:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Are there any elements of the plot that are unclear to an average viewer on a single run through of the film?I don't see how that's a hurdle that needs to be passed in order to cite the plot to the primary source. MOS clearly states "key or complex plot points", there is no need to show that "the average viewer" is unclear on them. By default, a reference to a reliable source is better than no reference. WP:PRIMARY explicitly permits the use of primary sources to describe the plot of a work of fiction. There is no sense in removing these references because they're "ersatz" or because other articles ignore the importance of referencing "key or complex plot points". Bright☀ 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
interpretation- there is no interpretation at all. The article states "Cole is interviewed by a panel of doctors, and he tries to explain that the virus outbreak has already happened, and nobody can change it." This is literally what happens on-screen, and the quote in the reference is verbatim. There is no interpretation. Bright☀ 17:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Assuming this issue isn't settled (four days without discussion, so maybe?), might I suggest that those concerned that sourcing should be provided give us specifics that we can discuss? As the concerns expressed here seem to revolve around whether we're regurgitating plot or adding interpretation or otherwise enhancing it (for lack of a better term), it would at least be helpful to me to have specific examples to analyze. DonIago ( talk) 20:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.The plot points referenced are perhaps the two biggest key plot points in the story: nobody can change the past, and Cole has traveled to the past to gather information. Each of these plot points is repeated around three times throughout the movie.
I have restored the hidden comment at the end of the plot, asking that editors not offer an interpretation of the ending of the film. The ending was clearly left ambiguous and we should not be in the business of explaining what it means. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 23:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Sourcing and quotations
The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation
editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps to discourage original researchand
using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
[James Cole] is coerced into travelling back in time to 1996 - just before the epidemic broke out - to discover the source of the virus, not to prevent the cataclysm but for future's research.
Nick James (1996), Sight and Sound, Interview with Terry Gilliam
In Terry Gilliam’s Twelve Monkeys, Willis goes back in time to confront an insane Brad Pitt before Pitt releases a virus that’s destined to kill five billion people and drive the rest of society into hiding (as it turns out, Pitt is merely trying to release a bunch of giraffes from the Philadelphia Zoo, which is only slightly more confusing than the presence of Madeleine Stowe in this movie). What’s distinctive about Twelve Monkeys is that the reason Willis is sent back in time is not to stop this catastrophe from happening, but merely to locate a primitive version of the virus so that scientists can combat the existing problem in the distant future (where the remnants of mankind have been to forced to take refuge underground). Willis can travel through time, but he can’t change anything or save anyone. “How can I save you?” he rhetorically asks the white-clad dolts who question his sudden appearance in the year 1990. “This already happened. No one can save you.” Twelve Monkeys makes a lot of references to the “Cassandra complex” (named for a Greek myth about a young woman’s inability to convince others that her prophetic warnings are accurate), but it’s mostly about predestination—in Twelve Monkeys, the assumption is that anyone who travels into the past will do exactly what history dictates. Nothing can be altered.
Chuck Klosterman (2009), Eating the Dinosaur, page 60
you selectively quote from policies and guidelines that support your position
You say so but you don't actually show it, or show which policies contradict what I'm saying. Meanwhile, I've shown which policies and guidelines contradict what you're saying and doing. I feel that the quotes are simply unnecessary
For the tenth time, being unnecessary is not a reason to remove something. that they do not illuminate the plot
Funny, because reliable third-party sources use these exact quotes to illuminate the plot. So either you're wrong, or the reliable sources are wrong. And in that case, Wikipedia prefers reliable sources over an editor's opinion. the points you regard as contentious are not so
and yet you feel it's necessary to touch upon those points with hidden text that tells people not to add speculation, instead of using the guideline-stated way to do it, with references. What's more, they need not be contentious, only key or complex plot points. Since reliable sources discuss them as key plot points, again it's you against reliable sources. You against reliable sources, you against Wikipedia guidelines, you against Wikipedia policies... ersatz references
primary sources are valid referencs, your insistence to dispute them shows your disconnect from Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which you keep failing to follow. They are proper references in accordance to Wikipedia policies. At some point, you simply have to let the matter rest.
This is the "consensus by bullying" or "consensus by mob" I was referring to. Instead of following the policies and guidelines, you demand that everybody else stop following them.
In short, nothing you said actually contradicts the guideline or supports your removal of the reference:
Sourcing and quotations
The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation
You are attempting to discourage original research with hidden text. I am discouraging original research with citations. You claim the references don't support "contentious" plot points. I (and third-party sources) claim they support key or complex plot points, per the guideline. Bright☀ 18:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Cole is selected to be trained and sent back in time to find the original virus in order to help scientists develop a cure. [1] Meanwhile, Cole is troubled by recurring dreams involving a foot chase and shooting at an airport.
Cole arrives in Baltimore in 1990, not 1996 as planned. He is arrested, then hospitalized in a mental hospital on the diagnosis of Dr. Kathryn Railly. There he encounters Jeffrey Goines, a mental patient with fanatical views. Cole is interviewed by a panel of doctors, and he tries to explain that the virus outbreak has already happened, and nobody can change it. [2]
References
James Cole: I just have to locate them because they have the virus in its pure form, before it mutates. When I locate them, they'll send a scientist back here; that scientist will study the virus, and then when he goes back to the present, he and the rest of the scientists will make a cure.
Doctor: Are you going to save us, Mr Cole?
Cole: How can I save you? This already happened. I can't save you. Nobody can. I am simply trying to gather information to help the people in the present trace the path of the virus.
For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot. Now the question is, why are so many editors "misreading" Wikipedia policies and guidelines and seeing things that aren't there? Perhaps what they feel should be in the article is making them ignore these policies and guidelines...The first argument for removing the references was
not needed, which is classic WP:OWN. Then it changed into
you need secondary sources, which is not true (see direct quote from WP:PRIMARY and WP:PLOT), but I provided secondary sources anyway, one of which uses the same quote to illustrate the key plot point that Cole can't save anyone and can't change anything. Then the argument changed to
these quotes don't illuminate the plot, in which case the secondary source chose this quote to explain the plot even though it doesn't explain the plot... then the argument changed to
you're dealing with themes, not plot summaryimplying it's analysis and doesn't belong in the plot section, but the quotes literally explain the plot, and do not touch upon any analysis of themes. And now we're back to
there is no need for any primary sourcing herewhich, again, is WP:OWN, enforcing a certain version without saying that a different version is detrimental, just that it's "not needed"... and now, bizarrely,
Either you should source it all , or source nothing, which goes directly against the guideline and policy:
Sourcing and quotations
The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
WP policy and guideline presume that the work itself is normally sufficient as the implicit reference for a plot summary.I agree and I never said otherwise.
adding only a couple of primary sources doesn't helpThen why is it explicitly supported in the policy and guideline? Sigh. It shows the reader that the plot summary is faithful to the primary source, particularly for key or complex plot points per the guideline, and it quotes passages from the primary source per the policy.
it's overlooking the work itselfWhat?
it's inconsistent (you should do the whole plot that way or otherwise not).Which policy or guideline exactly states "you should do the whole plot that way or otherwise not"? Because from where I'm sitting, the guideline says key or complex plot points. Maybe there's a man-in-the-middle attack on my Wikipedia connection and everybody is seeing a different guideline and policy?!?! Bright☀ 16:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
User:TheOldJacobite: local consensus does not override Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You claim consensus but consensus is not mob rule:
|
The discussion above provides no consensus for removing the references. There is a policy and a guideline that support the reference, and there are a bunch of people who WP:DON'TLIKEIT and engage in WP:OWN behavior: "the edit is not necessary so here's my preferred version." Bright☀ 10:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
By which you mean policies and guidelines interpreted by you for your own benefit.- there is zero interpretation. The policy and guideline are explicit:
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
Sourcing and quotations
The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.
Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation
The quotes you added are not references- this is your main point and it's simply wrong; read the policy: For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. They are references to the primary source, and they offer no interpretation. You may also want to read the citing sources guideline: A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference.
And, in the RfC, this idea has been rejected in favor of using secondary sources for complex plot points- That's an outright lie as the RfC has not been concluded and the majority are in favor of the policy and guideline as it currently stands.
It's really rather pathetic that you think you should have your way when not a singly other editor agrees with you- But they do. The problem is that you and a little mob claim WP:LOCALCONSENSUS overrides Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which is, again, against Wikipedia policies and ArbCom decision. Bright☀ 18:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
In case you find it hard to keep track of all the arguments you raised:
"does not need refs" | against policy | "not needed" is an invalid reason to revert an edit. See this helpful flowchart. |
not references | against guideline | References can and should contain quotations. See citing sources guideline. |
should only be cited if plot is unclear to average viewer | restriction not in policies or guidelines | MOS only mentions key or complex plot points, and there are reliable third-party sources that say these plot points are key or complex ("distinctive"). |
can't be primary sourced because it's an interpretation | false | There is no interpretation. The referenced sentences offer no interpretation of the material, they mention it plainly and directly. |
you don't have consensus | article ownership | As explained above, there are policies and guidelines supporting these edits, and policies and guidelines represent global Wikipedia consensus. Local consensus does not override policies and guidelines. |
you just repeat the same thing over and over again
- TRUE! That's because you keep repeating all the five bad arguments above:
What you're characterizing as "repeating the same thing over and over again" is giving you the policies and guidelines that support this edit, while you repeat your wrong reasons to remove it. You can't have local consensus against policies and guidelines. This is article ownership. You don't like this policy- and guideline-backed edit so you revert it on the basis of "not needed"... Bright☀ 18:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no "must" in there. That means that whether to include the quote refs should be left to local consensusMy point was never that it must be included, my point was that its inclusion is supported by policy ("cite passages to describe the plot") and guideline ("using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful"), and your revert reasons and talk page arguments (as outlined in the handy-dandy table above) are not backed by policies or guidelines. "You don't have consensus" is not a reason in and of itself to remove material from Wikipedia. Consensus is the process and decision that is made by "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." None of your arguments had anything to do with Wikipedia policies or voiced any valid concerns over the issue. You have "consensus" by mob rule here, not by Wikipedia policies or guidelines or legitimate concerns. TheOldJacobite decided the references are "not needed" and everyone tagged along to that argument, straying here and there to the other four invalid arguments. That's not consensus. Bright☀ 07:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
there's a clear majority to not include these references, and guidelines clearly support thisThere's a majority, but it's not backed by guidelines or policy, which makes it consensus by mob rule. Nobody expressed how this addition is detrimental, viewed through any policy or guideline. TheOldJacobite tried saying it's not a reference; that's wrong. You tried saying it's analysis or that plot points should only be cited if they are unclear to the average viewer; that's wrong. The main argument is "it's not required"; that's true, policies and guidelines do not require the improvement of articles, but they do require that if you assign priority between two versions, you need to have a policy- or guideline-backed reason. Here, we see you and other editors assign priority to a version without articulating in any way how it's better, other than "it's not required", which is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 18:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Neither side has a "policy" advantage hereUsing brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. There is a guideline here that says it's helpful to source key or complex plot points to brief quotation citations. There's no "must" in the vast majority of policies of guidelines, but reverting a helpful change because it's "not needed" is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. If your entire argument here is that "it's not required" or "the guideline doesn't use the word must" then it's article ownership and consensus by mob rule. Bright☀ 19:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't seen any other editor agree that the points you provided citations for are either "key or complex", which voids the entire sentence.Whether they agree or not is irrelevant as I have provided third-party reliable sources that name these plot points as key or complex.
quotes should be used if you believe they will be helpful...but not necessarily if others disagree.This is exactly WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. If a policy and a guideline support something, you have to have a reason to edit against them. "Not necessary" is not a valid reason, it's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 08:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
many other people have told you that they just do not interpret the policy the way that you do.That is not what they said. They argued against an interpretation of the policy and guideline that I never gave. See above, or I can repeat it for the nth time. Bright☀ 18:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
we neither feel the plot points in question are sufficiently key or complex
The first point has been raised and refuted with citations, and it's also ridiculous; it's not a key plot point that the past cannot be changed? Please. Either way there are third-party reliable sources that do name it as a key or complex plot point, so your opinion doesn't matter. nor do we feel that these citations are in fact helpful
Again, "I don't think it's helpful" without specifying why is
WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. As for
WP:IAR, see
this handy chart. There is a guideline on the matter, ignoring it without a reason is
WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.
Bright☀
13:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No one has denied that's not a key plot pointDonIago just did: "we neither feel the plot points in question are sufficiently key or complex, nor [...]" but as I said what anybody on Wikipedia feels about the plot points is no longer relevant because there are reliable secondary sources that name it as a key or complex plot point.
no one else feels that we have to cite theseAgain this is not a have to or must case. Article ownership is about taking two versions and reverting to one without a valid reason. Your reasons (and by "your" I mean everybody in this talk page thread) amount to "it's optional", "it's not needed", "it's not required", "it's not a must", "we don't have to do it" and so on, all of which is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. The versions aren't even equivalent; the version with the references is supported by the guideline, while removing the references is completely arbitrary and without any specified reason, i.e. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 17:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Technically, that's OWNership the other way, towards you, trying to conform the article to what you wantNo, this shows a deep misunderstanding of OWN. My edit is backed by policy and guideline. The revert is backed by "not needed". It doesn't matter how many people think it's not needed; if "not needed" is their sole reason (as reviewed above), that's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 17:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Consensus has decided not to include that.Consensus is not mob rule. If consensus is not backed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's exactly the same as article ownership. Bright☀ 17:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"It's not required" is a guideline-based argument- no. You are taking two versions, one that is encouraged by policy and one that is merely sufficient, and you are assigning priority based on "not required". That is ownership, literally following the example given on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I am concerned that a Wikipedia administrator thinks that "not needed" is a reason to revert an edit that a policy deems "encouraged", and doesn't understand that reverting because something is "not needed" is article ownership. Bright☀ 18:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@ BrightR: you've made your point repeatedly (ad nauseum, even), and it's been rejected. It's time to drop the stick and stop making personal attacks in the form of accusations of article ownership. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the discussion on RfC: Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections. Since the main argument here is that there is "no consensus" for adding sources despite the guideline clearly stating that this is encouraged, I have started an RfC about the guideline itself to gauge whether there is consensus for it. Bright☀ 13:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The RfC was concluded with the following summary:
The question asked was Is it encouraged to have references for key or complex plot points in plot sections? Due to potentially unclear intent of the RFC question, and due to muddled discussions, it is best to break down the result in pieces:
- The guidelines clearly encourage references to secondary sources where appropriate, with abundant support.
- The guidelines clearly encourage references to the primary source where appropriate, and there is little or no dispute on this.
- In regards to removal of references deemed inappropriate by formal or informal local consensus, and particularly removal of primary source references deemed inappropriate by formal or informal local consensus: The prevailing view is that such removals are compatible with the guidelines, and that it is endorsed.
Note: Not all participants appear to have been aware of discussion point #3. However I find that sufficient participants either explicitly addressed that issue or tangentially touched upon it. In any case, it is clear that this discussion has not generated any result to bar or overturn such removals.
Can anyone articulate why these references are "deemed inappropriate" with reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense? Reasons that are not based in policy, sources, or common sense should not be raised. I'll start you off:
All you have to do is refute any part of that argument. Or make your own! As long as you actually have a valid argument according to Wikipedia policies, sources, and common sense. My argument is, because adding the references is supported by the guideline, then the revert and subsequent consensus-by-mob is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bright☀ 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I see no requirement that editors stipulate why they feel the references are inappropriateThat's because you're ignorant of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Read up. Willingly ignorant, I might add, since I quoted the relevant section above. Bright☀ 09:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)