Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Chinese Room |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 15:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Reading glasses ( talk) |
Mediator(s) | PhilKnight ( talk) |
Comment | Discussion on case page |
The Chinese Room, Talk:Chinese_room.
This was the Talk thread created during the original discussion, in May 2009.
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
In early 2009, Reading_glasses (that's me) added a Cultural References section to the article on the philosophy concept of the Chinese Room. This accommodated a feature film which was named after, inspired by and containing a discussion of that concept. In May 09, Dlabtot removed the section without discussion. Reading_glasses initiated a discussion in which Dlabtot explained several objections (described below) and rejected further attempts to satisfy his objections. The section remained absent. In April 2010, Reading_glasses felt that more of Dlabtot's requirements had been fulfilled, and added the section again. Dlabtot removed it.
Dlabtot's basic objections:
My responses:
I'd like to get past the tone of the discussion. Dlabtot gives no indication that he will be receptive to discussion, and repeatedly uses unnecessary pejorative and provocative language. It is also difficult to engage with some sets of contradictory statements he makes.
I would like to know how to move forward with this. As far as I can tell, all objections are satisfied, but it seems that the Cultural References section will be immediately removed if it is added again.
Regarding item 3, I suggest having a look at WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources - in my opinion, a request for a secondary source is entirely reasonable. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I checked those out. They pretty much concern sources of fact, which purport to represent reality, and need therefore to be evaluated as true/false or reliable/unreliable. I don't know what you might call a narrative film - a work of culture, a work of art, etc. - but it's a different animal. Something that isn't about anything but itself.
The closest I could find to anything relevant was the section on Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves which seems clear:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
None of the numbered concerns are really applicable (except maybe #1 in some loose sense), again because this is not a source about anything but itself. Reading glasses ( talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to point to just a few examples of the widespread inclusion of just this kind of cultural references:
Omega_Point#Omega_point_in_popular_culture
Hedgehog's_dilemma#Cultural_references
These are useful examples because they both show a concept being carried into broader culture through artistic works, which is what I'm hoping will be documented in the Chinese Room article.
These sections can be found in far too many articles for me to include here. Often the connection between the article's subject and the referencing material is as tenuous as a single line of dialogue or a song lyric, and the materials include video games and single episodes of TV shows.
Also, there are many examples of the content of a primary source being reported without an additional citation:
My point is that it seems to me the Chinese Room article is being held to a standard that either doesn't exist or isn't widely enforced (and a standard I can't find to be an official part of Wikipedia). To be consistent with the Chinese Room article, these other articles would all have to be severely edited down. Am I right? Reading glasses ( talk) 20:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The thought experiment is the central motif and plot device in the film, thus in principle appropriate to mention in the article. I don't think WP:V is a real issue here, considering the name of the film and this screenshot in particular. Should it be made an issue, I think that the director of the film, who was very friendly and accomodating, will glady make a public statement clarifying the connection.
WP:DUE does not apply, since the film was never intended to contribute to the scientific discourse, which was so far the article's sole center of attention.
Since the issue of WP:N was mistakenly raised, I'd like to note that this is one of the very first feature-length films ever released under a Creative Commons licence, and probably is notable in some category in its own right due to this.
It seems we've arrived at the question of whether a Cultural reception section is appropriate in an encyclopedic article. Paradoctor ( talk) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
We are talking about an encyclopedia article about a thought experiment. Apparently there exists an unknown film that was unable to garner any reviews in reliable sources, and that film has the same name as this thought experiment. I just don't see how mentioning this film will add to someone's understanding of the thought experiment. But, regardless, absent reliable sources for the film, the whole discussion is moot. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the characterizations of my viewpoints are neither accurate nor helpful. I suggest each editor should state their own viewpoint and allow others to do the same. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, I would again [1] encourage interested editors to create the Chinese Room (film) article. If such an article could withstand a nomination for deletion, there would be no dispute. Dlabtot ( talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Given we seem to agree there are primary sources, but not secondary sources, I don't think creating a separate article is a good idea. All that would happen is that it would be either deleted or merged. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Chinese Room |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 15:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Reading glasses ( talk) |
Mediator(s) | PhilKnight ( talk) |
Comment | Discussion on case page |
The Chinese Room, Talk:Chinese_room.
This was the Talk thread created during the original discussion, in May 2009.
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
In early 2009, Reading_glasses (that's me) added a Cultural References section to the article on the philosophy concept of the Chinese Room. This accommodated a feature film which was named after, inspired by and containing a discussion of that concept. In May 09, Dlabtot removed the section without discussion. Reading_glasses initiated a discussion in which Dlabtot explained several objections (described below) and rejected further attempts to satisfy his objections. The section remained absent. In April 2010, Reading_glasses felt that more of Dlabtot's requirements had been fulfilled, and added the section again. Dlabtot removed it.
Dlabtot's basic objections:
My responses:
I'd like to get past the tone of the discussion. Dlabtot gives no indication that he will be receptive to discussion, and repeatedly uses unnecessary pejorative and provocative language. It is also difficult to engage with some sets of contradictory statements he makes.
I would like to know how to move forward with this. As far as I can tell, all objections are satisfied, but it seems that the Cultural References section will be immediately removed if it is added again.
Regarding item 3, I suggest having a look at WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources - in my opinion, a request for a secondary source is entirely reasonable. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I checked those out. They pretty much concern sources of fact, which purport to represent reality, and need therefore to be evaluated as true/false or reliable/unreliable. I don't know what you might call a narrative film - a work of culture, a work of art, etc. - but it's a different animal. Something that isn't about anything but itself.
The closest I could find to anything relevant was the section on Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves which seems clear:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
None of the numbered concerns are really applicable (except maybe #1 in some loose sense), again because this is not a source about anything but itself. Reading glasses ( talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to point to just a few examples of the widespread inclusion of just this kind of cultural references:
Omega_Point#Omega_point_in_popular_culture
Hedgehog's_dilemma#Cultural_references
These are useful examples because they both show a concept being carried into broader culture through artistic works, which is what I'm hoping will be documented in the Chinese Room article.
These sections can be found in far too many articles for me to include here. Often the connection between the article's subject and the referencing material is as tenuous as a single line of dialogue or a song lyric, and the materials include video games and single episodes of TV shows.
Also, there are many examples of the content of a primary source being reported without an additional citation:
My point is that it seems to me the Chinese Room article is being held to a standard that either doesn't exist or isn't widely enforced (and a standard I can't find to be an official part of Wikipedia). To be consistent with the Chinese Room article, these other articles would all have to be severely edited down. Am I right? Reading glasses ( talk) 20:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The thought experiment is the central motif and plot device in the film, thus in principle appropriate to mention in the article. I don't think WP:V is a real issue here, considering the name of the film and this screenshot in particular. Should it be made an issue, I think that the director of the film, who was very friendly and accomodating, will glady make a public statement clarifying the connection.
WP:DUE does not apply, since the film was never intended to contribute to the scientific discourse, which was so far the article's sole center of attention.
Since the issue of WP:N was mistakenly raised, I'd like to note that this is one of the very first feature-length films ever released under a Creative Commons licence, and probably is notable in some category in its own right due to this.
It seems we've arrived at the question of whether a Cultural reception section is appropriate in an encyclopedic article. Paradoctor ( talk) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
We are talking about an encyclopedia article about a thought experiment. Apparently there exists an unknown film that was unable to garner any reviews in reliable sources, and that film has the same name as this thought experiment. I just don't see how mentioning this film will add to someone's understanding of the thought experiment. But, regardless, absent reliable sources for the film, the whole discussion is moot. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the characterizations of my viewpoints are neither accurate nor helpful. I suggest each editor should state their own viewpoint and allow others to do the same. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, I would again [1] encourage interested editors to create the Chinese Room (film) article. If such an article could withstand a nomination for deletion, there would be no dispute. Dlabtot ( talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Given we seem to agree there are primary sources, but not secondary sources, I don't think creating a separate article is a good idea. All that would happen is that it would be either deleted or merged. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)