Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-14/Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)/Archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of informal mediation proceedings. Please do not edit it. Comments should be directed to the main mediation page.

Party stances.

Status: Closed; all party input received.

In order for me to build a basic sketch of which stance on the issues in dispute each party takes, I ask all parties to present a brief description of their desired outcomes.

Thanks, AGK 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens' position

Primary sources are allowed in limited cases. The relevant paragraph from WP:PSTS is:

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source" (emphasis mine)

• Anders' line from part 1 is sourced to the first primary source: The episode itself.
• The original High Flight poem by Magee is sourced to a de facto primary source: The U.S. Air Force's website. It's really a secondary copy not directly related to Magee, but it reproduces a copy of the poem without relevant comment, so it might as well be a primary source.
• WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN, envision far more egregious synthesis of unrelated items than "A(ref to primary source) appears similar to B(ref to primary source)"

I believe that such comparisons between primary sources serve the encyclopedia better than not making them. If this sort of comparison was prohibited, what level of proof would be required for homages, spoofs, parodies, and other sorts of informal connections between works of fiction, literature, and/or performance art? If this level of "descriptive claim", "verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" is inappropriate synthesis, I would prefer to see WP:PSTS modified to make this unambiguous and to prevent future confusion in this matter. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On visual similarities

The issues of visual similarities between robot and/or space ship models seem to follow the same line of reasoning, but I am not advocating for them directly. I don't mind their presence in the article and do not believe their inclusion constitutes synthesis either, but I acknowledge that their case, using the arguments I've made above, is weaker than the poem's.

Edokter's position

An Actroid at the Expo 2005 in Aichi, Japan. Footage from the Expo was featured in the episode's epilogue.

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".

The above passage (and image) is disputed by Arcayne on the basis of synthesis, which is part of the original research policy. I Dispute his interpretation of this policy, which states: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." By identifying the robot models, I am neither reaching a conclusiuon, or forming a "position"; I am confirming an already established and verifiable fact. Naming the robots is no less synthesis then naming a Ford Mustang. The fact that the primary source (the episode) does not explicitly name the robots (they are shown) is not subject to WP:OR, which expects a level of common sense, and Wikipedia encourages editors to "share your knowledge". In short: visual identification of a real-world object does not constitute synthesis. — Edokter • Talk • 17:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne's' position

I feel that the connection to the Anders' dialogue with the poem by Magee (and referential material connecting it to Ronald Reagan) is Synthesis. Likewise, the inclusion of the robot model names is also synthesis, but additionally seeks to place undue importance on them by defining them in a way that the episodes' creators did not intend. Additionally, as there are other robots-like models that call into question the accuracy of the identification, secondary citation is required.

The poem comparison

PSTS doesn't allows for description, not interpretation. The first two sentences of the policy noted in defense of the comparison:

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent,

on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must

be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by

Wikipedia editors.¹

clearly indicate that interpreting or analyzing two different pieces of information - in this case comparing them for similarities - requires a secondary source, which we regrettably do not have at this time. JClemens argument in favor of inclusion emphasizes (via italics) that the comparison is a descriptive claim. It is not. Describing a Ford Mustang as being an automobile with rubber wheels, a steel body, and describe the color as being red is what is intended by PSTS. Describing the Ford Mustang as being similar to a Mercury Comet requires interpretation, analysis in that it evaluates the similarities between the two vehicles.

Furthermore, not a single shred of reliable reference exists that makes this comparison. Were it truly that important, one would think that someone writing reviews would catch it. Maybe they will in time, and then we will have the secondary reference that we need. Articles aren't like bananas; the article isn't going to go all moldy and feculent. Because they have passed the litmus test of notability, there is no hurry to wait for the appropriate citation to eventually turn up so statements from them can be used. This push to include uncited information is detrimental to the encyclopedia.

As evidence of this, I point to a recent incident wherein an Irish student tested how media was upholding accuracy and accountability by adding fake quotes to the bio of the late Maurice Jarre. Wikipedia editors, noting the uncited nature of the info, removed it as uncited. Most of the word media just accepted it as and reprinted the info from Wikipedia. That is the problem here. Drawing connections that citable people have chosen not to make, and making important those things which citable sources have not made important elevates us to the level of citable sources. That way madness lies.

The robot models

There are three reasons why this information should not be added (or rather, removed from the article, as it has been edit-warred in to the point where further back and forth would have resulted in at least one editor being blocked), and the reasons are closely linked. The first problem is, as before, one of synthesis. Secondly, the identification of the robots is being challenged. Lastly, there is an undue weight being placed upon the importance of the robots' model names to the story and the article in general.

As before, this is an interpretive connection being made by one editor, using his special knowledge to put model names to the robots used in the denouement of the episode, disturbingly claiming that this connection "confims" a fact. In actuality, most of our readers do not know what these robot models are (I didn't know the model names, and actually thought one of them was a RealDoll or CandyGirl). Therefore, the knowledge isn't common. Edokter is taking the demonstration of the models and then taking the unprovided model names from a source discussing robotics and assembling them into a new statement like the following:

I have seen an unidentified species of pig that walks past the screen in the last few moments of a tv show.

I know something about pigs, and that one is an Oliver's (or Mindoro) Warty Pig.

Therefore, I can identify the tv show pig as a Mindoro Warty Pig.

The knowledge of pigs is above that of the average reader, and thus elevates the identification of the pig into something more specialized than the average reader (Note that I used pigs in this instance instead of cars, as specific knowledge of robot models is somewhat more esoteric than car models. Yep, pig species are somewhat esoteric - who knew?) Again, from PSTS:

"Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience...

should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and

Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for

that material."²

While in the production blog, one of the robots is described as "disturbing" "and Six in the making", they didn't identify that robot as the Actroid. In fact, in no reliable literature, production blog, or related review whatsoever are these robots identified. Ever.

And here's the part that makes the inclusion synthesis: though the rigamarole of getting clearances to use footage of the various robots is obliquely and fleetingly noted in the production blog, none of them are identified by name. One would think that something so critical to the understanding of the episode should be mentioned. And yet, it wasn't, and this was the blog by the fellow responsible for the finished product that we saw.

The real synthesis is the insistence that the model names are of vital importance to an understanding of the subject - to whit, the episode. That no one on either side of the camera has ever felt it important enough to mention should make this fact thunderingly clear: they are not important to an understanding of the episode. As per articles are not an exposition of all possible details, nor are they a collection of primary (original) research. The robots were there to serve as thematic component; perhaps as a cautionary tale of sorts, or the recreation of the theme that 'this has happened before, and will all happen again'. Either way, there is no value in naming the robots, and indeed distracts the article by drawing attention to them. We see the little girl in the red coat in Schindler's List for less time, and yet she is also a thematic component; we do not identify the brand or laundry tag of the garment, as it distracts from the significance of the component. There are a plethora of other examples, but NOTDIR pretty much sums it up.

Lastly, the idea of "sharing your knowledge" that Edokter has alluded to does not mean that we add our personal information in lieu of citation. If the field that I happen to work in means that I am aware of a plethora of sources that others outside that field may not be aware of, the sharing of knowledge comes from opening the encyclopedia to more references to use for citation. It comes from improved sourcing capabilities. Two people can argue about what chocolate tastes like, but no one can really argue with a couple of citations that describe what it tastes like. Citations are the great equalizer in one way, that no one editor's personal knowledge or education gets to automatically trump another's. It is that personal knoweldge and education, however, that offers them a better array of reference material on a subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Note from mediator

There's a possibility I might be unavailable tomorrow (well, technically today—I'm editing late), Thursday 14 May. If so, note that I'll be back around on Thursday evening or on Friday afternoon. Thanks, AGK 23:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input thus far; we're just waiting on Arcayne's summary. (Arcayne noted yesterday that he would be offline for a day or so, so I'm not stressing about his absence.) AGK 22:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, we've received everybody's summaries. I'm going to take a day to digest what's been said and to plan the specifics of our next step, but in the interim, thanks all (both for your input and your patience going forward ;-)). AGK 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I've had to deal in the past few days with some urgent administrator matters on other articles—NPOV disputes, etc.—which have been somewhat time-consuming, but they seem to be largely settled now. My apologies for the delay; I've moved things along in the section below. Regards, AGK 11:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Observations from AGK.

Status: Closed; all party input received.

I'd like to share my initial thoughts on the case with the parties. I make no attempt to adjudicate this dispute, but rather am simply attempting to clarify the path we intend to take in exploring it.

From the summary of the dispute, the dispute presently centres around a single statement (from later updates to the summary of the dispute, one of the three disputed statements were resolved independent of the proceedings of this mediation) that one group of parties thinks to be synthesis and that another thinks to be synthesis—the combination of information to form an original argument, as prohibited at Wikipedia:No original research:

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

I would go on to observe that, ideally, the application of site policy should be a process free of ambiguities. As with any site that argues the interpretation of the spirit of its guidelines over the application of its content, the nuances in the NOR policy can often make applying policy to practical editing situations difficult. However, there is little ambivalence in Wikipedia's policies on the synthesis of sources: either the statement which is argued to be synthesis of two sources has a reliable source to verify it, and can be included in the article, or has not been reliably sourced, is thus synthesis, and cannot be included.

Before I proceed with this mediation, I would like for the parties to reconsider their stances against that central question. For brevity, I will repeat it: does the statement considered by some to be the synthesis of sources have a reliable source verifying its accuracy? If so, it is not synthesis, and may be included in the article; if not, then it is, and may not. (Before considering this question, fully re-reading WP:SYNTHESIS may be beneficial.)

Yours,

AGK 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens' response

We are all agreed that synthesis is bad. We're not agreed that this quotation is synthesis. Consider this example:

In a television episode, a characters enters a speech contest and the camera shows her beginning a speech "Four score and seven years ago...". If neither the lines of the other actors nor RS'ed commentary on the episode mentions The Gettysburg Address, and leaving aside questions of the notability of that content, could we include that bit of information in the article about the episode? Would it be synthesis to include such a statement?

Granted that the Gettysburg Address is far more well known than High Flight, but both are available as primary source texts against which a non-specialist could comare the character's line.

The examples used in WP:SYNTHESIS describe entirely different situations of editor interpretation, none of which come close to the allowable use of primary sources for descriptive purposes. Recognizing and describing a previous quotation in no way advances a new position, which is another key element of synthesis.

Synthesis is indeed bad, but this isn't it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter's response

Putting two sources together, and making an abservation that is both facual and verifiable by checking either source is not synthesis. Comparison is not the same as deducting and theorizing to form an unverifiable position, and visual recognition is, just as reading, a valid method of aquiring and aggragating information; it is not necessary to spell out in words that which, when observed by all, is a no-brainer. To answer the question: No, I do not have a citation in words to connect the two sources, but both sources unmistakely match on sight. Synthesis is prohibited because the resulting information is often unverifiable. In this case, the informaion is verifiable, which negates original research.

The spirit of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR have it's roots in WP:VERIFY; as long as information can be verified using reliable sources, there can be no synthesis. That is why WP:SYNTH specifically states "...to form a new position", not "to form a new fact". The fact already existed, and is de-facto verifiable. The robots are shown and mentioned by the producer, and visual comparison of both sources establishes verifiability. No policy states that the sources must be in text only. — Edokter • Talk • 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne's response

I reiterate - and each of the other editors concur with the unshakeable fact that no reliable citation exists for either of these points - at this time. If it is indeed as important as the others two feel it is, someone that we can cite will eventually write about it. We aren't in a hurry, and should avoid the mindless internet culture of 'get it before anyone else can'. This is doubly harmful to an encyclopedia, as we are supposed to wait so we can be afforded the opportunity to have usable citations provided for us.

Also indisputable is the fact that we editors are not citable. There seems to be the confusion that the usage of primary sources affords us the opportunity to make connections ourselves. They do not. We can say the car is red. We cannot say that the red car resembles the pink car. The differences are descriptions versus evaluations/interpretations. In doing so we are synthesizing the argument; we are taking two different facts - that one car is red and another pink - and connecting them as being similar. That is the evaluation, or interpretation. That is the synthesis. The defense of primary sourcing is off-target because there is a comparison of descriptions occurring.

The same goes for taking one's own personal knowledge to make these connections. As I noted earlier, each wiki editor brings to the table their wealth of sources; that is what we can use, not their opinions. This is the major difference between editing and writing. At Wikipedia, we cannot do the latter, quite simply because no two people see the same situation. Point to the sky and one person will describe the sky, and another will describe the sun (or Moon and stars), and still another will describe something else. This is why we use citations; they anchor the perceptions made in a verifiable format for use in the encyclopedia. Our synthesis policies prevents the erosion of this idea.

It should be emphasized - again - that the producer (or anyone on the production side of the camera, for that matter) has never noted the robot models; therefore, the statement "the robots are shown and mentioned by the producer" is significantly misleading, in that it implies that the robot models are given. They are not. Additionally, the argument is made that "visual comparison" is all that is necessary for verifiability. This is, of course, wrong, as per the aforementioned example of defining the sky. There is the possibility that one of the models are not the Actroid being defined solely by an editor, as per their "visual inspection" and personal knowledge. They could be a RealDoll or Candy Girl, or any of a number of other gizmos. Sans reliable citation, we cannot elevate the observations (read: personal interpretations) to that of a reliable reference. As there is reasonable concern that the robot depicted is not the robot identified, the burden of proof rests with the person, and they must provide an explicit citation stating such.

As noted before, the further synthesis exists that the naming of these robot models used in the episode actually improves that understanding of the episode article. As no one responsible for the content (or review of that content) has intimated such, we cannot either. The appearance of the robots appearing in the plot summary being added to the robot model names results in a double whammy of synthesis: one, the actual connection without sources and, two: that such are in fact important. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, I am going to have to ask you to trim down your response and only answer the question AGK has asked. You are falling back into "debate mode". You were asked to review the content against WP:SYNTH, not to respond to other's arguments. Putting up a wall of text rebutting ohter's statements is not helpfull; this is not a debate. — Edokter • Talk • 12:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, Edokter. However, I am simply not as succinct as you, and need to explain my viewpoint better as to how it specifically contrasts the opposing views of what is and is not synthesis - rather the source of the problem here. While you have undoubtedly been through countless mediations, this is only my second. Please make more of an effort to be patient, and I will seek to be more succinct. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To Arcayne: Does the disputed statement have a reliable source verifying its accuracy? (If it doesn't, we can explore possible reasons it could be retained in the article at a later juncture, but it is imperative that this question is answered concisely.) Respectfully, AGK 12:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate, the disputed statements do not have reliable sources verifying their accuracy; the other parties recognize this as well. I have said on previous occasions that if citation does emerge for the poem connection, we might be able to include it. In its current state, the only citation currently in place is a link to the poem. The robot names are dead weight to the article, both listy and the product of OR. We do not need them - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Key question: Is the disputed statement verifiable?

Status: Closed; discussion moved on to next section.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a guideline intended to supplement Wikipedia:Verifiability; it is the latter that is the kernel of our articles.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

— WP:V, introduction

Is the disputed statement verifiable? Yes or no?

AGK 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne's response

No. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Playing Devil's Advocate here, in an attempt to stimulate debate. Edokter argues that,

The robots are shown and mentioned by the producer, and visual comparison of both sources establishes verifiability

—#Edokter's response

What do you say to that? AGK 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I say that he is mis-stating the matter. The producer referred to robots in general (and not at all by model name) during his final blog for a total of 25 seconds, to whit, how much effort was required in obtaining clearances. Additionally, visual comparison does not establish verifiability. He says that one of the robots shown is "clearly" an Actroid. As I have never heard of an Actroid (but am aware of some lifelike robots making the rounds at the Tech shows, like NextFest, etc), I don't think that Edokter's visual observation equals citable proof. It could just as easily be a RealDoll or CandyGirl (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In the absence of citation, verification is be left to the interpretation of the observer which makes the identification of the robot a fait accompli, which inadvertently removes the need to add citation. It creates supposition in place of citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter? Any rebuttal to that? AGK 17:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter's response

(←) First to answer the question: yes, visual information is a valid source.

To rebutt Arcayne; I think his position on the reader requiring fait accompli in order to verify the statement is an insult to common sense, and the reader's intellect. I trust Arcayne actually saw the episode, and the featured footage of the robots. The model need not be spelled out by name in text. Visual information is equally valid. The image I used was taken from the same event that was featured in the episode, and is reliably sourced to be an Actroid. Saying that the robot "might" be a different model would be countered by anyone looking at the image and the episode. Next to the general appearance, the uniform and background of the event are a dead give-away. If you look at the full image, you can even see the name "ACTROID" printed on the skirt. The fact that Arcayne has never seen an Actroid before is not a consideration for challenging that information; he has but to look at the image (and the article's sources) to confirm that it is indeed an Actroid. The challenge has no merit. — Edokter • Talk • 19:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When I refer to a fait accompli or accomplished act; I refer instead to a decision made by an editor to identify something based upon their own personal experience, removing the appearance for the need for references. I was not referring to the reader at all; we don't get to invent connections for them - we allow them to make up their own mind.

I'm confused: is Edokter explicitly stating that the image links to the Actroid he is using was taken as a screencap from the episode? The upload of the Commons image of the Actroid predates the broadcast of the episode. Therefore, the image cannot have been taken from the episode.

Respectfully, we do need a reference identifying the model; Edokter's personal opinions comparing two different things are not citable. It's OR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When I read "observer", I thought you meant the reader. I stated that the footage from the presentation event has been used in the episode. Nowhere have I stated that the Commons image was taken from the episode. I have provided a reliable reference... in visual form. Comparing images is no less OR then comparing words; something we editors do each day when seeking out citations. — Edokter • Talk • 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I only replied to counter/correct what I felt were incorrect implications of Edokter's response, tying the image to a screencap of the 2 second appearance within the episode. I won't use his section to address the value of the remaining reason; that's part of the mediation, I think, and AGK will determine if it needs more discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• To Arcayne: How do you respond to Edokter's suggestion that one has to simply watch the episode to confirm that it is the model in question? Would you reject it as false? AGK 17:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I reject it as false. To allow visual confirmation of information by a wiki editor essentially elevates that editor's OR to that of a reliable secondary source making the same observation. If we had the latter, there wouldn't be a problem. As we do not have that, we cannot make that evaluation. As per our rules, wiki editors can compare that one car is red and another is pink. they cannot compare the two as being similar, as that requires interpretation/evaluation and is a form of synthesis OR. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is he really suggesting that "I saw it, therefore I'm citable as a reliable source" or instead "I saw it, any other non-specialist can see it, and thus the primary sources (episode and picture/footage) can be compared by any non-specialist"? I'm seeing a good bit more emphasis on the personal verification by the editor from you, than from Edokter or myself: our point (if I may speak for him) isn't that "I saw it and I'm reliable" but that anyone (well, except for the visually impaired) can see the same thing and compare the primary sources. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that any non-specialist might not know what an Actroid is, or could very easily confuse the robot seen with a RealDoll or CandyGirl (I've provided links to images). Visual confirmation relies upon the interpretation of the person doing the comparison. In the absence of solid, reliable citation calling the image used an Actroid (or identifying any other robot used). My point is that Edokter is using his personal awareness of the Actroid to evaluate that what he saw in BSG was an Actroid. Insisting that it be called such in the article - in the absence of reliable and explicit citation - is equivalent to being asked to be seen as a reliable source. And, as I have watched the episode at least 5 different times, I can state with confidence that the word Actroid doesn't appear on the outfit of the robot in question; this nixes the consideration that the name appears along the skirt or background in the 7 seconds the image remains on the screen (1:35:13-1:35:20).

I've also noted my concerns over the robot model name usage as far as being of trivial importance to the understanding of the subject (the episode). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Would inserting in the reference or citation for the statement a direction to the reader to review the episode—with explanations as to which robots are which—be a suitable compromise on this note? Doing so would allow visual confirmation on the part of the reader—thus making the statement verifiable—by overcoming the problem of not all readers having first-hand knowledge of which robot is which (as, say, Edokter has). Thoughts? AGK 11:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Arcayne will accept such a compromise; he will only accept confirmation by a third source (even if that source is non-specialist). As I noted in the image caption, the robot appears in the epilogue, though I could note the Actroid appears as last robot in the sequence. — Edokter • Talk • 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that is a compromise we can accept. Beyond the lack of citation is the simple fact that this information is extraneous and is non-important to an understanding of the subject; indeed, it is a distraction. If the series creators, parent network and reviewers do not think it important to note the robot models, we exceed our mandate by pushing it as important to know (and let's not forget that there are at least four different robots depicted in the last twenty seconds of the episode - none of them have been mentioned either) . If the average reviewer sees the episode, they might or might not see the robot as the Actroid - they might see it as a RealDoll or CandyGirl. They might simply not care, instead focusing on the actual, larger elements of the episode and series.

To sum up, not only is the information synthesis in that it evaluates and connects two unconnected bits of info, it elevates them to an importance that no one citable seems to feel is warranted. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, the WP:TRIVIA guidelines suggest that interesting bits of trivia be integrated into prose... much like this is. Of course, it scrupulously avoids illustrating examples about what is acceptable trivia and what is not, but WP:BUILD tends to suggest to me that if we have an article on it--like a particular real-world robot model--it would be an appropriate thing to link. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The presumption of that argument is that we are in fact talking about the same robot. As we don't know that the robot depicted is the Actroid, any articles about the Actroid are useless here. Indeed, I think the only reason there is this hyper-focus on this one 7-second view of a "skinned" robot and ignoring of the rest (which took up a far greater portion of the montage) is that it looked human. Well, so do a RealDolls and CandyGirls. So do a lot of other robots. Why not compare them to Terminators? To Trek's Data and Lore? To Doctor Who's K-9 or cavalcade of humanoid robots? The trail of robots goes on and on, and the reason we aren't connecting them either is that they aren't cited as being connected, either. Seriously, WP:NOT pretty much covers the inclusion of info that isn't relevant to the article, counterbalancing the usage of useful trivia. Most good trivia is cited. This isn't; in fact, there isn't a single shred of usable reference that points out how these robot brand names are vital to an understanding of the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Allow me to inject some common sense into this discussion. First, wether the information should even be included is purely a matter of editorial discretion; My stance is that the robots are notable alone for being obscure, and unlike comparison with other virtual or fictional robots, presents a real-world connection to the episode that provides a chilling context to the narrative. Further, you keep talkng about the possibility that it might not be an Actroid. You are being selectively blind; any other observer will see the immediate and total resemblance in looks, setting and clothing. The suggestion that she "might" be a RealDoll or CandyGirl borders on the rediculous; they are not even robots; they are sex toys. So that argument completely negates itself. I said it before; a measure of common sense is expected; even by WP:OR. — Edokter • Talk • 19:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying scope / Possible compromises

Status: Closed; please see next section.

• I was under the impression that the statement in dispute is being treated as synthesis because it cannot be verified by a reliable source. I was then told that it could be verified, by the video episode linked to. Subsequently, it was argued that the video episode is not verification of the statement because the average reader would not be able to ascertain which robot is which. By way of offsetting that counter-argument, I suggested providing guidance to the reader as to which robot was which—thereby making the citation usable, and therefore verifying the disputed statement (and, by extension, showing it to be not synthesis). Now, however, my suggestion is being rejected because the disputed sentence 'doesn't belong' in the article. I feel we may have to take a step back and agree on precisely what the scope here is. I would appreciate the parties' thoughts on my confusion here—particularly Arcayne's. AGK 18:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Administrative note: I've trimmed all our previous discussions into an archive. I'd appreciate our focussing on the above comment, at least for now. AGK 21:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• My perspective is that if the sourcing is agreed to be adequate, WP:NNC allows for a good bit more discretion on whether to include content or leave it out--WP:BURDEN wouldn't apply, for example. I view the sourcing dispute, and the use of primary sources, as the primary, if not sole, reason for mediation. Disagreements over what is sourced but "too trivial to include" don't strike me as necessitating a MedCab case. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Precisely; the case was filed with 'whether the statement in question amounts to synthesis' as the source.
  [Not in response to Jclemens, but speaking to all:] I would be grateful if we could focus solely on that.
  AGK 23:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Arcayne disputes the verifiability and notability of the information. The alleged trivial nature is easily refuted, as I explained in my last comment that the robots place the episode in a real-world context using real objects that earned notability on their own, judging from their articles. Inclusion based on notability is an editorial decision bound by consensus and not the primary concern here. That leaves the sourcing/verifiability as the main dispute. — Edokter • Talk • 22:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being away as long as I have; my forecast for this weekend calls for periods of light involvement, with sunny dispositions and occasional downpours of activity. Bring an umbrella.

In our initial explanations of our positions, i pointed out that the inclusion of the robot models presented not only a problem of synthesis but one of triviality as well. It was a point I had made several times before, so I am curious as to why its presence is a surprise at this point. As no movement or compromise had emerged because of the relative intransigence of each position, mediation was recommended.

To be more succinct, the problem with the robot additions is not one of verifiability and notability (as Edokter has incorrectly summarized); but rather of the synthesis of personal knowledge and viewed information, coupled with zero citation. Additionally, this problem is complemented by the fact that the information doesn't contribute to an intrinsic understanding of the episode - indeed, it distracts from it by focusing on that which not even the people creating the episode felt it of consequence to include. This is why there is no citation. This rather absolutely removes any confusion as to notability (which applies to articles, and not content therein); it should be pointed out that there was no consensus that the info was worth including. It seems to be an addition solely to give undue weight to the interests of tech wonks (and not referring to anyone here) and not the substance of the subject.

However, if we want to focus solely upon the synthesis issue, that's fine with me. I think I've addressed quite clearly that I feel the sourcing to be inadequate. An editor's interpretation of a video is not allowed, as per WP:SYN. An editor's comparison (analysis) of the similarity between two different models is likewise not allowed as per WP:SYN.

Lastly, I would again point out that giving special consideration to the robot models - ie, offering guidance as to what the robots are - is simply unnecessary and requires a visual analyses which we as editors are not allowed to offer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and that is what we're trying to resolve. I am not offering an 'analisys', but a comparison, which is allowed. And as an encyclopedia, articles are expected to offer a wide coverage to the subject, and the robots are a major part to the narrative. Stating the model name is not undue; it is just one word. — Edokter • Talk • 10:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And that, Edokter is your opinion as well. You have not been able to produce a single, usable citation to indicate that the robots - these robots - are "major part to the narrative". Until then, you are evaluating/analyzing two different things. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To Edokter: Unless you can effectively rebut Arcayne's suggestion that no citation (excluding editorial analysis, as prohibited by WP:SYN) is available to verify the claim that the robots are a "major part of the narrative," I'm afraid that we may have to remove the statement in order to achieve compliance with Wikipedia policy. If I understand your argument correctly, you claim that one needs to merely observe the episode and note that the robots make up a substantial proportion of that episode—and that that is simply a fair observation, and claiming it to be synthesis is WikiLawyering, yes? That is your rebuttal, Edokter?

To Jclemens: We haven't heard much from you on this note of late. If you have any input to offer, it would be most welcome.

To all parties: Did any other editors contributing to this article weigh in, or indeed have any involvement in, this dispute? If so, it might be worthwhile asking them to offer input on this aspect of the debate. AGK 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Any party being involved can be found in the talk page's archive, starting from this discussion: Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)/Archive 1#Outside references section removed. — Edokter • Talk • 13:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Hold on... My 'claim' that the robots are a major part of the narrative suddenly require citation? I did not put that in the article; I am using it is an argument in this discussion. so it does not need a citation. I'm sorry, but I suddenly feel very uncomfotable if any of my arguments suddenly needs a third party citation. If we are going to continue this, read very carefully what Arcayne is writing; he has a nack of confusing the involved parties by twisting words just enough to sidetrack discussions in exactly this manner; this is the first time that he requires a citation concerning the robots being a major part in the narrative. As it stands, and Arcayne has admitted, many reviewers have noted the robots (just not by name), so their notability within the article is established. Can we go back to the root of the issue: wether the robot names are a result of synthesis, or reliable sourcing? — Edokter • Talk • 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, Nellie - when on Earth did I ever say that these robots were widely sourced by reviewers??Indeed, I've pointed out repeatedly that they haven't been mentioned by reliable sources, and certainly not by model. Edokter - his assertions about my mad, evil machinations aside - stressed that these robots were a major part of the narrative; I only asked him to source that assessment, because if it were citable, it would be an argument in favor of noting them. As I have noted umpteen times before, not one reliable source has come to the fore trumpeting to the heavens about how these robots are the glue that hold the narrative together...and by the way, here are the models of those robots!

On a side note, I have held back from assigning descriptives of my fellow participants' motives and behaviors; I would appreciate the same consideration, especially from Edokter. If he cannot play nice, and discuss like a grown-up without the n ot-so-veiled insults, he can always leave. I don't want to have to address this failure in civility again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not need citation for my arguments. I feel that the robots play a big part in the episode's epilogue, and they are noted by virtually every reviewer that has seen the episode. Scrutinizing my viewpoint by requiring citations is indeed sidetracking this discussion. We came here to discuss sourcing of the names. Instead, you keep adding more and more excuses why the robots shouldn't be in the article at all... something whcih is not under debate, as their notability has already been astablished. — Edokter • Talk • 15:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Therein lies the basic problem, Edokter. What you feel isn't important in this particular discussion. I've already noted on many occasions as to why the robot names shouldn't be included; not sure why you think this is the very first time you are hearing it. Perhaps re-read the arguments that I've clearly (yet not succinctly - as you've pointed out) made. Either way, maybe focus on the editor, and not the edits - I am sure you agree that going personal isn't the way to go here. You might lose the argument, but you need to Stay Classy, okay? Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Robots aspect of the dispute seemt o have been taking center stage here. I tend to agree with Edokter, but my primary concern is the aspect of the dispute concerning the "High Flight" poem, which doesn't seem to have been addressed directly by anyone recently, hence my not saying a whole lot lately. I am still watching this page, however. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should split the issues and focus on one thing at a time. — Edokter • Talk • 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems apparent that it has already done so, Edokter. I had previously assumed that the dialogue stuff had already been discussed before the robot naming sortie had begun. I don't mind returning to it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would remind all parties of the need to comment on content and not on one's fellow contributors. Thank you, AGK 16:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed compromises

Status: Closed; please see next section.

I ask all parties to suggest possible compromises pertaining to the agreed scope of the dispute (detailed here). Try and take into account the relative merits of the arguments of the other parties, and to be as fair as possible in proposing your compromise. For now, I will refrain from proposing compromises between the differing positions held in this dispute, but may do so in future. AGK 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To name or not to name... I am having trouble seeing a possible compromise, or what form such compromise should take. I am also having trouble keeping track of the entire discussion, so I just want to ask Arcayne to confirm that the naming is indeed the only dispute, or that he thinks the robots should not be mentioned at all? — Edokter • Talk • 17:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to think this is a pretty boolean discussion, which doesn't bode too well for negotiated compromise. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a not unreasonable observation, Jclemens. I would encourage all parties to this dispute to quite seriously pause to consider their position in this dispute—and whether a movement to the "other side," or at least towards the middle ground between the two stances, on their part is possible. We need to tackle the binary nature of this dispute, or I fear compromise will be, as J. notes, quite difficult. AGK 17:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For my part, and in a sort-of response to Edokter, I am not saying that we shouldn't mention what occurs in the plot of the episode. Clearly, the robots were included to show how mankind was starting to walk down the same path again. As a thematic component/visual element, I have no problems with the robots being mentioned. What I specifically have issue with is the identification of these robots by model name, and the stressing of them as being vital to an understanding of the episode. Clearly, they do not.

We do not have citation to include them and, barring references, our personal observations are not good enough for inclusion. This is especially accurate when there is a hyper-focus on robot type where there are possible alternative identifications. If we find reliable citation that meets our standards for inclusion, I wouldn't have a problem - just as my other talk page concerns regarding other points of uncited references were lain to rest once reliable references were found. If citations pop up for the robot models pop up as being intrinsic to understanding the episode, all is copacetic. Until then, we are outta luck.

I hope that clears up any confusion as to my stance on the topic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I still find your concern regarding the robots to the episode (plot?) misplaced. You seem to focus too much on the plot, while good episode articles focus on every aspect of that episode: narrative, production and reception. No, the robot models are not vital the the plot, and they are not mentioned in the plot section, but they are notable with regards to production, and how the producers have linked the narrative to the real world. That kind of information is vital to becoming a good/featured article (example). Not every aspect of the article has to be related to the plot. And to clear up my stance in a nutshell; everyone can verify the robot models by visual comparison, which is equally acceptable as textual information, hence it is not synthesis. — Edokter • Talk • 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We could go back and forth, but again - as I have pointed out many times before - you haven't the whisper of a reliable citation to support your contention that it is "notable with regards to production, and how the producers have linked the narrative to the real world". Until then, you are asking Wikipedia to accept your opinion that it is. Clearly, as there is no citation from anyone citable, is simply is not. It doesn't matter where the robots are discussed, No citation, no inclusion. And certainly, no synthesis or original research.

Additionally, Edokter's unswerving contention that the robots are clear to anyone seeing the robots that they must be the Actroid (again, I am more than a little curious as to the unhealthy interest on this particular robot; at least four different robots were seen) is patently synthesis; he is taking his own personal knowledge and using it in place of citable verification. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that no compromise is possible. Arcayne and me have totally opposing interpretation of policy, notably WP:OR. The big question being if visual information constitutes suitable sourcing to verify a fact? When mediation started, I hoped for a broad-spectrum analysis of WP:OR to determine what can or cannot be used. Policy has only one purpose: to improve Wikipedia. We have to consider the implications of each viewpoint; which stance is most likely to improve Wikipedia as a whole. More party input is needed. It is appearent that Arcayne and I will never see eye to eye in this matter.

I would like to suggest inviting all parties from the original discussion, and people invloved in drafting WP:OR by advertising this discussion on WT:OR. I feel only that a wider consensus will solve this dispute at this time. — Edokter • Talk • 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of how mediation works is that, by submitting to this process, you agree to abide by the findings. We disagree, that's true, but we came here to have a solution created based out of policies. Are you now saying that you are unwilling to abide by the results of the mediation, and wish to seek a wider audience for your grievances? I would advise that if you wish to seek an avenue of Wikipedia's policies, there is an avenue for that; we call it the Village Pump. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have said no such thing. But since this is basically a one-against-one dispute, we need wider input. Rather the forcing AGK into an arbitrary verdict, I think he would wecome more input. — Edokter • Talk • 16:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a "one-against-one" dispute, Edokter; it is instead a discussion as to what our rules are and what they are not. Currently, the policy interpretation you advocate isn't currently our policy. Your observations aren't citable. As before, I urge you to seek policy change elsewhere. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is your opinion. Do not purport that your interpretation is the only one, and do not speak for Wikipedia as a whole with words like "our policy". — Edokter • Talk • 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Really, Arcayne, it is impolite to portray another party's interpretation of policy as an attempt to change policy--especially in the middle of an arbitration. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Again, I would ask that all parties phrase their comments professionally, and comment on the content of an argument (rather than criticise the party who introduced it). AGK 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Next steps

The consensus seems to be for taking this dispute to a wider audience. I would therefore solicit a brief straw poll, indicating whether each party definitely does support either: taking this mediation to another, more widely-watched, forum; or inviting outside opinions on this mediation.

Straw poll

1. I {support/oppose} widening the audience on this matter. AGK 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I am undecided. I'd support a process where editors well-versed in the nuances of WP:PSTS and other non-"reliable secondary source" means to meet WP:V. I think we're unlikely to get that from RS/N, for example, where folks are inclined to see things as boolean "has an RS or doesn't". So I'd cautiously support the idea in general, but with a caveat that just asking random folks to comment is unlikely to shed any more light on the nuanced dispute that remains. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I am inclined to have more outside views invited to this dispute, starting with parties that took part in the original discussion. I'd also love to have some admins/editors weight in that deal with the finer point of OR/RS; I just have no idea where to solicit them. — Edokter • Talk • 18:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
4. I am leery of doing so, because the others (and myself) want to avoid inexperienced folk weighing in; how do you say 'you must be this tall to ride this ride' without sounding elitist? If we must set aside the mediation process, I think we should stick to those experienced folk as can be found in the OR, V and RS noticeboards, and seek folk there. There is no sense in eliciting fanboi responses from the various wikiprojects connected to the series, as we are going to get gut reactions, and not policy guidance. On a side note, are we of the opinion that the intransigence exists not only with the robot naming issue, but with the dialogue/poem issue as well? I thought we had reached a conclusion on that matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

Status: Party input needed.

• I'm in agreement with Jclemens: it's going to be difficult to select an appropriate forum to which this mediation can be forwarded. AGK 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• The consensus expressed above is quite absolute, so I'm willing to go ahead and solicit outside input. My thoughts are to file a request for comments, directing folks to here (rather than a centralised RfC on a Wikipedia:Requests for comments/ subpage. Doing so would require a preface to be written, detailing the input we require, so the parties may wish to outline what they'd like those who come to offer outside opinion will read before weighing in. Thoughts? AGK 12:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Draft

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?

Please ammend and edit as each party sees fit. — Edokter • Talk • 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that "(and thereby interpreting both dis/similarities and/or importance)" (added by Arcayne) is really POV and outside the scope of this dispute; Text is "interpreted" as well, and "interpretation" in itself is a subjective term not covered by policy. — Edokter • Talk • 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As that is part of our disagreement, I think its important to let them know the scope of our quandry. Since you specifically said to "ammend and edit as each party sees fit", that is what I am doing. If you did not intend that, perhaps we need to structure our draft separately. i had hoped that wouldn't be necessary, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I separated out the visual/verbal bit into its own sentence--it was just too much differentiation to put into one "thought", IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed "importance", as "interpreting importance" doesn't mean anything. — Edokter • Talk • 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I added it back in; that's part of the reason we are at loggerheads. Not only do I have a problem with the info's lack of citation and subsequent synthesis, but the fact that it simply isn't important enough to add, ie the idea that it is of importance in the first place. We are at odds on all three issues concerning the robots(and I still am not sure where we are with the dialogue/poem). I think its important that, if we are going to seek outside assistance, that they know what the contentious points are. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What you feel is not important to include falls outside the scope of this dispute, which we agreed should purely focus on synthesis. So please stop adding it. We have already established that WP:NOTE does not apply to article content, and the sources to not get to decide what we include; the editors do. Non-withstanding synthesis, inclusion an sich should be left to consensus of all editors involved, and not by interpretation "of importance" of the source. — Edokter • Talk • 10:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This dispute concerns the question of whether the combination of the statements in question constitutes synthesis or not; that therefore should be the sole point on which we solicit external input. I would be grateful if no text is added to the draft that is superfluous to the kernel of the dispute. Thank you, AGK 12:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Not only are the robot models borne out of synthesis and relies on an expert familiarity, but the additional concern - voiced since well before we arrived at mediation - is whether these identifications are even worth mentioning. This mediation was initiated to address these multiple concerns - not just of synthesis but of a synthetic value placed on the importance of these robot models. It seems stupid to avoid bringing the main points of this disagreement to the larger audience, and would seem prudent to address the problem and nip it in the bud before it itself becomes a mediation issue itself. Additionally, inquiring as to the importance addresses the multiple issues of the model inclusion.

If we are submitting the points of the mediation to outside folk to weigh, we cannot leave them unaddressed; it leaves additional pints to be addressed later. Therefore, I am adding it back in, and I would appreciate it being left in. The point of the mediation - as well as the opening of the dispute to a wider audience - is to resolve the problems. this is one of them. While synthesis is the main issue here, there are subsidiary issues that are also clearly insoluble outside the venue of mediation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) Arcayne, I would advise you to read AGK's comment above and not go against his directions, if you intend to go through with this mediation. We need to take this one step at a time, and we do not need to complicate matters further. Consensus is to focus solely on the synthesis, and that is what we are doing. — Edokter • Talk • 18:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter, [comment redacted --AGK 15:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)] If I feel that this mediation deserves to resolve the outstanding issues, to prevent a second mediation from starting up right after this one is complete. I think that the info you are oddly championing isn't worth including, and it is in everyone's best interest that this mediation resolve the issues we are in disagreement over and currently discussing. You should want that as well. There is the problem of synthesis, and that is indeed the largest concern here, but it isn't the only one. If it turns out that the larger audience feels that the matter is synthesis, then there isn't a need to discuss whether its important or not. Conversely, if the info isn't even seen as important, then the question of synthesis is equally moot. If - for some reason - its found not to be synthesis, then the next question becomes 'is it of value'? As there is no citation noting it at all, then it easily follows that the only ones pushing the its worth, its importance, is us editors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne: I've partially redacted your comment. Please address your fellow editors professionally. If you can't do so, then I will ask you to leave the proceedings. AGK 15:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If we didn't think it was inclusion-worthy, the issue of ORness wouldn't even be under discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed your post above, but I will reiterate that there are two layers of the problems surrounding the robot models. The first is, obviously, the question of synthesis. There is also the question of whether its is of value to even bother mentioning; this question an observation of the fact that no one has even spent any time talking about it. The only ones obsessing about it are editors here in Wikipedia. As we aren't citable, we don't have the sufficient weight to make it worth mentioning. These wold appear to be pretty good questions to put to a larger audience. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the question of whether or not the mentions are synthesis is the only question of policy. The question of whether the issues under dispute are significant enough to be included at all is not a policy-based decision, and should really not be part of the mediation. A straw poll would not likely support your position on that matter, especially if there's an agreement on a particular way to phrase the inclusions that is agreed to be NOT synthesis. Thus, focusing on the use of primary sources for comparison and how it does or does not differ from synthesis, is the "root cause" as far as I'm concerned--the single issue that, if resolved, unlocks the entire problem. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would echo Jclemens' comment. AGK 15:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine. Remove important for now. Two reasons not to include it, but we'll deal with the first one first. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Status update: outside input starting Monday

Status update: I'll be soliciting outside input (probably using the agreed draft statement) on or after this coming Monday 8 June 2009. AGK 13:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of informal mediation proceedings. Please do not edit it.