Talk:The Sound of Drums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Doctor Who Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Sound of Drums article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

Contents 1 Anyone else hear that? 2 President-Elect 2.1 President-Elect: section-break 2.2 President-elect: section break II 2.3 President-elect: section break III 2.4 President-elect: new suggestion 3 Article has been protected 4 Let's try this. 4.1 Picking your battles, and getting an article written 5 President-elect: summary 5.1 Position #1: Timeframe evident from definition. 5.2 Position #2: Winters doesn't know who he is 5.3 Position #3: Nothing is the same as in the real-world unless sourced (application of WP policy) 5.4 Position #4: Info not relevant 5.5 Wikipedia policies & philosophies at play 5.6 Comments 6 My thoughts 7 Okay, this is just it 8 Quotes 9 I read the MOS 10 WP:SYNTH 11 My thoughts

[edit] Anyone else hear that?

The rhythm of the drums themselves, as performed by various characters through the episode (a homeless man, Margaret Jones, The Master) is the beat of the series' theme song. That's certainly not an accident. Worth a mention? Mael-Num (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What is your reliable source to make absolutely sure that it's certainly not an accident? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary, as it's common knowledge. Common enough, in fact, that another astute editor already placed it in the article. I simply overlooked it. Mael-Num (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it is necessary; as it is, a reliable source was found. Had there not been one, I would have had to remove the information. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and clearly the cited "reliable source" used the same method that I, and likely the original author of that portion of the article, did to determine that fact: we listened and recalled the theme song. It's...troubling that you would require someone to jump through hoops to find a citation for something as obvious as that. Mael-Num (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "original research" and "clearly perceivable". This is a case of the latter. TreasuryTag, I wonder if you would question a description of Tom Baker's Doctor as "curly-haired" in absence of a "reliable source?" --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you would have told me just yesterday that a reference to the Most Holy of Doctors would cause a partisan Doctor Who fan to see the light and concede an argument, I would have laughed. Actually, it's still pretty funny today. Mael-Num (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] President-Elect

[edit] President-elect: new suggestion

As I understand it, there is a numerical and, I believe, actual consensus that the article is to remain as it is (with the date information removed). Each side has painstakingly tried to convince the other of its point of view; each side has been resolutely denying this! This is perfectly normal.

I propose that we accept none of us are going to change our minds, and rule the discussion completed and a result reached by general consensus; if other editors turn up later with new input, and change the balance, we can revisit the issue. But for now, since nothing useful can come of us all chewing this issue over still, I suggest we mark the section closed with {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}}. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to this. Consensus isn't a straw poll. Mael-Num (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, I count two users in favour of the info, four users + two admins in favour of the info's deletion. Can you honestly, hand-on-heart say that there is a consensus for the info to be in the article? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion above would be the best solution, if it's acceptable to everybody involved. Otherwise, one thing which I find helpful is creating a separate section where everybody summarizes their arguments. No comments, chit-chat or other fluff, just two bulleted lists with arguments, followed by a third sub-section of comments. That allows everybody (including outsiders) to get a picture of what's actually being disputed. It might be worth a shot. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that. I'll type something up later today, real life calls for now. Mael-Num (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. This would allow others to get a reference as to the points presented, so they won't have to read all this back-and-forth, which is mostly the same arguments repeated over and over, and ease the frustration brought by wondering if new comments are from editors who haven't read and considered the previous discussion. Let's put together that reference (both sides of the argument), and then allow for some time for others to read and/or comment on it. For those that don't think this argument is important, keep in mind that this has larger issues at play, mainly the definition and application of "Original Research" as well as the effect of referencing real-world elements of a fictional universe as they are presented within that fiction. The way both of these issues are handled could have effects for all of us for editing a large number of articles in the future. Likewise, I don't have time to do this right now, but will get to it later. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article has been protected

FYI, the page has been protected for one week due to the edit war. Please resolve the issue and then let me (or any other admin) know so that we can remove the protection. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For a week? Are you serious? Mael-Num (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant in your edit summary on my talk page (" A kind of ultimatum note?"), but given the number of reverts and the fact this episode aired a year ago, a week is reasonable. If you can reach consensus efore that time, all you need to do is let an admin know. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you. Mael-Num (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's try this.

Okay, I've been asked to have a look at this, so I will. If you ask, I shall help :). Anyway, the issue I see it is, the inclusion/exclusion of a date for a certain piece of material in an article. If there's a source for it, then show it, and inclusion can be discussed. If there is no source, and if it appears to be OR, then it should probably not be included, as it's disputed content. I'll await replies, feel free to post a message on my talk page, but here is preferred. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also been told there has been incivility, rude edit summaries, and so on. These are counterproductive to collaborative editing, and should cease. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. See WP:RS. References to sources about real-world president elects cannot be used either, as they have nothing to do with the doctor who universe.--Phoenix-wiki 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically (and stop me when I make a mistake), the inclusion of that "information" depends on the assumption that US politics are the same in Who and in real life. There was nothing to indicate that they are; nothing to indicate that they aren't. If I were to type, "Martha wore an orange bra in this episode", that would likewise depend on a positive assumption; namely, that she was wearing an orange bra. It's obviously original research, since it's not direclty stated or shown in the episode. Equally, I can't say "Martha's bra was not orange", since I've also got no idea. This is a precise equivilancy. Furthermore, Mael has refused to answer the direct question I am about to put. He has done so numerous times. What you are saying is an argument advancing a position. Since it is unpublished by reliable sources, and unpublished arguments are explicitly prohibited, why should it be allowed in this case? Since all sources need to be directly about the subject of the article, also explicitly stated in policy, how can a US Department of State source be used in a sci-fi article? If you could answer them soon, that'd be nice. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the 180 degree reversal from:

"we're rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world: the UK refers to the same entity, and a mirror refers to the same entity. Equally, the President-elect undoubtedly has the same definition." - TreasuryTag

So, what you're in essence saying now is that mirrors in this fictional reality are completely unknowable, even though the writers use the word "mirror" to describe it? Mael-Num (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, in response to "Since it is unpublished by reliable sources, and unpublished arguments are explicitly prohibited, why should it be allowed in this case?", first how is this an argument? There's no argument, it's an account of the details. I'll give two examples to make this clear.

• President-elect Winters has white hair.
• President-elect Winters has white hair, and is therefore old and most likely a Republican.

The first is an account of details that anyone with eyes and a copy of the episode can verify for themselves. The second is a speculative argument. I'm giving the former, not the latter, despite the muddy waters.

The Doctor Who project has many descriptive summaries of plots, none of which are sourced (or maybe a few are, I haven't been exhaustive). In any case, many plot summaries aren't, both here and in other places in wikipedia. If a description of what is apparent to any user, simply by watching the episode, it doesn't need to be published by a third-party. This is the exact same thing as a plot summary.

For the record, this isn't the first time I've presented exactly that argument. Please don't accuse me of ducking questions. If anything, I've trampled them. Mael-Num (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I figure I should point out, just for shits and giggles, that the reference to "President elect" may in fact not refer to the future President, but to a President elected democratically. This could be something important to tell an alien species that humanity is peaceful and democratic, in some form. As has been pointed out, British viewers may not understand the terminology, and the same could be said of the writers. Although I freely admit this is guesswork and that it should not be on Wikipedia, I figure it is worth pointing out that even your guess is not the only option. The359 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not referencing, that's guesswork. Please privide a reference saying for definite that President elect winters is a republican and a reference for the time it takes place. Also, "Since it is unpublished by reliable sources, and unpublished arguments are explicitly prohibited, why should it be allowed in this case?" is not an argument, it's a simple question he wants you to answer, so please answer it--Phoenix-wiki 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And I am in agreement with Phoenix Wiki on this issue, as I have been from the start. There is no reliable reference source which gives a date, and the only date within the episode is "A few days after [the events of Smith and Jones]" Any other assumption, no matter how logical it may seem to you or others, is Original Research. The359 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Phoenix-wiki, let me handle this and give the suggestions :). Well, the situation I see, there is disputed content in the article, or wanting to be added to the article. When there is disputed content, it rests on the editor who wishes to add the content to add a source that proves the said content. That's what really would be the best way of resolving this. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve in your first post you asked for replies to be posted here and then, in the post just above, you seem to be saying that no replies are necessary. This is a bit confusing. I will just reiterate, as so many of us have, that the inclusion of real world facts in this fictional article is OR. The info that this episode might have taken place between Nov and Jan does not add anything useful to the article. It has also been pointed out that there are plenty of other places on the web where this speculation can be posted by the editors that it is important to. MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that handled when the only source available is the primary source of the television show itself?

My understanding is that you go with the primary source, per WP:NOR:

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia [it's considered reliable, as it is the show in question --Me ], but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who [watches] the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

Based on that, and the Golden Rule of Wikipedia, it seems pretty clear that it should be included. It's factual, verifiable, and correct. This call for "secondary sources" is absurd. We're talking about a television show that is readily accessible to the public, not some scholarly writings on an esoteric subject like, say...a guru who's been the subject of some controversy. There's no call for "secondary sources" when a plot summary is given. Clearly, WP:IGNORE is invoked to allow for plot summaries to be based solely on the show itself as a primary source. This isn't any different. Mael-Num (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Factual" - The show simply says President elect. There are no facts regarding dates presented, except for a "few days after etc etc".

"Verifiable" - Attempting to use real world parameters which falls under OR, not Verification.

"Correct" - Says who? The359 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're all well aware of your capacity to disagree with me. Care to let others have their turn? ;) Mael-Num (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was planning not to participate further, but since you asked for further input - I concur 100% (well, 137.20393%) with The359. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 22:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? No matter:

"There are no facts regarding dates presented, except for a "few days after etc etc"

I liked how you trailed off at the "except for" part. Care to elaborate on the exceptions to your primary rebuttal? ;)

As to the rest, TT already conceded that we must assume real world parameters apply, as is the case of calling a mirror a "mirror". So, in response to "Says who?" Well:

"we're rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world: the UK refers to the same entity, and a mirror refers to the same entity. Equally, the President-elect undoubtedly has the same definition." - TreasuryTag

Looks like slightly less than 100% agreement to me.

Mael-Num (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Never said it was, I said it was 4/6 agreement (66%). It's now 5/7, however, since Steve gave his WP:PROVEIT view; so the consensus is now 71.428571428571428571428571428571% according to my calculator, which is made up of 4 users and 3 admins. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already repeated the statement of "A few days after the events of Smith and Jones" several times. It is the only verfiable date from the primary source.

TreasureTag can change his mind as many times as he wants. Stating that he "conceeded" before has no bearing on whether you are correct or not. The359 (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, The359 - in respect to your second line, what? Oh, I get it now, sorry. And to be honest, I didn't really change my mind, just became more brutal in my explanation ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 22:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, no one has yet to make a sufficient argument that explains why the definition of "President-elect" should not be taken as it is in the real world, while we continue to accept the definitions of other things, dates, places at face value; such as the previously cited properties of milk, mirrors, and "airships" as they appear to be, and, for example, we accept events stated to be on "Christmas Day" as being on December 25 without being told that explicitly in the program. (Also, see my other example about New Year's Day in the archived section). We can't be inconsistent - we either accept things as they are defined, or we don't. It's inconsistent to single out this phrase as possibly having a different definition. Taking the "orange bra" analogy which TreasuryTag used above as another example - if Martha were to say "I'm wearing an orange bra" we would take that to be the truth, and not question whether "wearing," "orange" and "bra" have the same definitions in the Who universe, and expect that information to be sourced in order to be included. (begin sarcasm) After all, in the Who universe, that COULD mean "I'm standing on top of a purple cobra" since we don't have Who-niverse sources for those words (end sarcasm). Thanks. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The person is referred to as President and President-elect (although, quite honestly, the use of President elect could have other uses). You don't even know if he's the President-elect or not, therefore how can you even begin to attempt to use a "fact" you have yet to prove to further prove a date? The359 (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but when the character says "I am President-elect" I take that to mean that he's the President-elect. What possible other uses could there be for that title?--Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait... don't answer that. You'd be speculating. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

A President who was elected through democratic means. And even if President-elect was said, President was said as well, and more often. There are multiple explanations, multiple answers, all which make logical sense, but cannot be taken as fact. The359 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what it means. Anyway, the character himself refers to himself as "President-elect" so if there's a mistake made by other characters, then it's certainly their mistake, not his. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean you assume that's not what it is meant to mean. Unless you work for the writers, you cannot imply intent. It would make more sense to me that a man, who is called President multiple times, and uses presidential powers that a President-elect would not have, is a President, and not a President-elect. But this simply proves that there are multiple explanations, and you can therefore not use the term "President elect" to assume a date. The359 (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As reasonable as that sounds, any thought process that involves "it would make more sense to me that..." is simply speculation. You're speculating that he is somehow wrong in saying that he's "President-elect" and therefore he's possibly either lying or mistaken. But, absent any speculation, all we can do is take the information at face value. And that means that we take the information as presented, which states that he is, in fact "President-elect," which is defined ONLY as a position which follows the Presidential election but precedes Inauguration. Can we at least agree on that detail? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You yourself choose to believe that every other instance of calling him President is wrong, since the President-elect is not called the President. Nor does he fly on Air Force One. Nor does he have any power to make commands. But you choose to ignore these elements which point to him being President simply because he said President-elect. Do you not see how you are yourself speculating just as much as I (readily admit) to speculating? The359 (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picking your battles, and getting an article written

You folks know I'm sure that absolutist positions don't help to get articles written - when editors disagree implacably about something, all that happens is they work their way up the dispute resolution food chain until some people get banned. Why aim for that outcome in this case? It looks like you are arguing over whether to include a date or timeframe for an episode based on the reference to "president-elect." I made the observation that while this is debatably original research, its similar to saying "In the episode it was snowing, so it was probably winter." Ok - observably true by inference, sure, and perhaps not the picture perfect definition of "original research" as you see it elsewhere in Wikipedia. But it also doesn't seem to be an addition that adds much to the article. Its true some people may not be aware of when and how presidents are elected in the US - but the knowledge also isn't really relevant to an article about the episode, is it? I ask you folks to just let this drop and move on to editing more meaningful areas of the article. If there isn't much expansion left to be done, or serious copy-editing and referencing that needs doing, then perhaps its time to move on to other articles. Avruch^T * ^ER 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar you are with Doctor Who, but in case you're not at all, the show's about time travel. It might not seem really important, but I think it's notable because of that theme in the show. Other episodes have summaries that include dates, probably because of this. Mael-Num (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday (Doctor Who) (Featured Article) contains no dates, Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) (Featured Article) contains no dates, The Girl in the Fireplace (Good Article) only contains two dates mentioned in the episode, Army of Ghosts (Good Article) contains no dates, Dalek (Doctor Who episode) contains only the year specifically mentioned in the episode, and Planet of the Ood (Good Article) only contains the year specifically mentioned in the episode. Dates, let alone the specific year, are therefore not required. The359 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Or in other words, where dating is possible, the article includes them. I guess I'm not so unique in my beliefs. Good to know. =) Mael-Num (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Except in all the examples listed above, only a date specifically stated by a character is included. And even then, it is a year, not a month. The359 (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But a character does give information that places him within a specific time. He says the equivalent to "Hi, I was recently elected President but haven't yet been Inaugurated." This is just like a character saying "Ah, well Christmas is over now, and I'm really looking forward to our New Year's Eve party" and being able to place it within a small time period based upon that information. Except in this case, we can place him within an election year as well as a time of year. --—Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The character also gives information which does not place him within the supposed specific time. You continue to ignore this information for your convenience. The359 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What information are you referring to? Seriously, I'm not ignoring it, I have no idea what you mean.... —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, you said previously: "Dates, let alone the specific year, are therefore not required." I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's "required" that this info be included. But rather that it adds value to the article in the context of the series. That's different than "required." Also, there have been 30 seasons of Doctor Who, and I'm not sure that naming 7 episodes whose articles don't contain dates really proves anything. --—Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact that the character arrived on Air Force One (only the President flies on a plane designated Air Force One), that he had any command whatsoever (the President-elect has no powers over military or diplomacy with the UN), and that he was referred to as President multiple times by various staff people, and even Mr. Saxon (The title President is not used until you are actually President).

The date adds value only if it is being used to show that it is the future or past, or to specify something that is important in regard to a date. "November 2008" doesn't add anything to the plot of the story. The only thing that is important to the plot of the story is that it is set in the general "now" period, and that it is 4 days after the Doctor and Martha met. "November 2008" doesn't add anything. The359 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One could speculate about the reasons for these apparent inconsistencies (perhaps Winters was the current VP, etc) but all speculation aside, the only definitive information for whether or not Winters is "President-elect" is from the most direct and reputable source: when he says so himself. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Vice-President does not fly on Air Force One either, nor does he have the powers mentioned above. You do not have definitive information because the episode itself is not definitive in defining the character! All you are doing is saying that you choose to believe that Mr. Winters' statement is correct, and everyone else is wrong or mistaken. How can we not just as easily say that everyone else is correct, and the writers made a mistake in Winters calling himself President-elect? It's ALL assumption, and without a source, you have no room with which to speculate about dates about something you yourself cannot prove based on what is presented in the episode! The359 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I can say this before you will understand: Speculation here is meaningless. I don't KNOW why he was on Air Force One. The only definitive info we have is when the character clearly says "I am President-elect" —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that the numerous facts against his being President-elect, that is: his presence on AF1, his command and authority, the broadcasts of numerous news stations and Mr Saxon's personal address... are all wrong? Do you have a source for this? We don't know one way or another which of them is wrong. It is not definitive that he says he's P-e, since that is contradicted by enough other sources to cast doubt. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the date has never added anything to the article. I pointed out before, a previous Doctor Who episode which was promoted to Featured Article status (Doomsday (Doctor Who)), makes no reference at all to when the events happened, simply because they are unimportant and cannot be established by references. The359 (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Which, incidentally, kind of adds to the magic of the program; it was less fun when you looked out of the window on March 26th and thought - DAMN, I was looking forward to seeing that spacehip :-) Now we live in hope... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 22:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I'd crap myself if any of aliens of Doctor Who actually showed up. Nuclear holocaust, slavery, oppression, or good old fashioned EXTERMINATION would be sure to follow. =P Mael-Num (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much important to this individual episode, as it is to the continuity of the series itself. As I stated previously: "I'm honestly amazed that you're questioning the relevance of this. We're dealing with a world of time travel, which causes a great deal of confusion as the sequence of events in "real time." Being able to place the time of the story helps clear this up, and doing so adds value to the article.... "London, November to December 2008" is much more informative than "London, some time in the 21st Century". Anyway, if I didn't think this was relevant, I probably wouldn't be spending so much time on it. But this article has revealed some interestingly countering views on issues of applying Wikipedia policy, which can be applied in the big picture. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fan guide to Doctor Who. If you want a fan guide, there are Wikias specifically made for that. We're not here to give a complete time line of events in the Whoniverse. The359 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that shouldn't be a major purpose of THIS article (though I maintain that it could be useful to place its time in reference to the story and character arcs of the whole series), but if you think that such a thought process doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all, then perhaps you need to pick apart this article :) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That article could do with some goings over as well. I cannot help but point out that the speculative date given by that article also does not say Nov 2008-Jan 2009, instead giving various reasons for June 2008-Sept 2008. However the specific date still does not matter, as the only important information in relevance to the plot is that the events take place on a few days after the Doctor met Martha. The359 (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed you would point that out :) But that article does not take the "President-elect" information into account - a fact that I've tried to rectify by posting on that discussion page previously. As for your opinion that it does not matter, I still disagree. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you get into a more serious problem if you are using inferred dates for that purpose. Putting the series on an external timeline (i.e. other than the order in which they were released) is something that definitely needs a reliable reference. Avruch^T * ^ER 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] President-elect: summary

It has been suggested that because the character, Arthur Winters, within this story refers to himself as "President-elect" in the context of U.S. government, a term which carries with it an explicit reference to a time period of November-January in US election years, by definition, (though a few other characters also refer to him alternatively as "the President," Mr. President," and "President Winters") that information regarding the temporal setting of the story should be included in the article. Arguments concern the validity of this assertion, and whether or not it should be included in the article. Related arguments pertain to a general interpretation of real-world references within fiction, and to application of Wikipedia policy, and specifically how terms such as "Original Research" are defined in this context.

This section is a summary of the arguments related to this matter. Comments, replies or any other considerations which are not arguments proper go in the sub-section "Comments", and can and will be deleted by anyone from any other sub-section.

[edit] Position #1: Timeframe evident from definition.

The term "President-elect" carries with it a clear definition involving a specific timeframe, which should be included in the article.

Yes. Arguments in support of this position:

• "President-elect," in the context of U.S. government, is a temporary title attributed only to a person who has won the U.S. Presidential election but has not been inaugurated. The Presidential election takes place every 4 years. The two events that "bookmark" the existence of this title are both time-fixed: elections always take place on the first Tuesday in November, and Inauguration Day takes place on January 20 of the following year. The Winters character in this episode states that he is the "President-Elect" and so this places the events of that moment within this time frame. Further resources place the year of the story as 2008, and continuity dictates that the events precede those of Voyage of the Damned, which is set on Christmas Day. Thus, through simple logic, it can be determined that the episode takes place between 4 November 2008 and 24 December 2008. This is not original research, but rather logic (see notes below on Wikipedia policies at play). --Shubopshadangalang (talk)
• "I agree completely, but..." (quoted from Phoenix-Wiki, and added to position #3 concerning policy)

No. Arguments in opposition of this position:

• Other terms and practices are used which contradict the use of the term "President elect". The term can also imply that a President has been democratically elected, rather then gaining power through family or war. Note that the term is used when addressing an alien race. The359 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Position #2: Winters doesn't know who he is

The character is incorrect when referring to himself as "President-elect" and therefore this is not valid.

Yes. Arguments in support of this position:

• Not incorrect, but people's belief that "President elect" has only one meaning is incorrect. It could simply mean "an elected President". The359 (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's not true. In what context would it mean that? These resources define it exactly as stated, as falling between two clearly-defined, time-specific events: election (1st Tues in Nov) & inauguration/induction (Jan 20): [10], [11], [12], [13]. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 05:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Arguments in opposition of this position:

• There is no reason to suspect that such a character would be mistaken or dishonest about holding this title. To suggest that he might be is a huge leap of pure speculation. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• There is no reliable way of telling if he was indeed making a mistake. — Edokter • Talk • 13:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Position #3: Nothing is the same as in the real-world unless sourced (application of WP policy)

The title of "President-elect" might have a different meaning within the Doctor Who universe than it does in the real world, so this information should not be included unless a veriable source from within the program itself can be presented that defines the term. (Wikipedia policy?)

Yes. Arguments in support of this position:

• ...but I do not think it should be included in this article because there are no references that refer to this in the Doctor who universe, so it can't be included.--Phoenix-wiki 10:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Real world events cannot not be projected into a fictional universe where such electoral rules have not been established; asuming the same rules must apply, ammounts to original research and synthesis, and cannot be sourced. — Edokter • Talk • 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Arguments in opposition of this position:

• This idea is tied to a general philosophy of how we interpret references to real-world concepts that aren't otherwise defined. Please see note below on "Policies & Philosophies" and comment accordingly. We MUST be clear on how these policies apply here before we actually attempt to apply them. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Position #4: Info not relevant

It is not important to place the story in a timeline context, so it's irrelevant.

Yes. Arguments in support of this position:

• It is irrelevant as long as the date cannot be established in a verifiable way. No clear references have been given in this episode, so there is no need or reason to include the exact timeframe. It has been standard practice for a long time to only include a timeframe only when verifiable references are available. — Edokter • Talk • 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Unless the date has an affect on the telling of the story, or an affect on other events in the Doctor Who universe, then it is not necessary or relevant to be noted. A general era is enough to tell a viewer that they are either viewing the past, the present, or the future, which is all that is generally important for a time travel show. Being specifically 2007, 2008, or 2009 does not add anything to this story, or to the Doctor Who universe. The359 (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Arguments in opposition of this position:

• It's not so much important to this individual episode, as it is to the continuity of the series itself. As I stated previously: "I'm honestly amazed that you're questioning the relevance of this. We're dealing with a world of time travel, which causes a great deal of confusion as the sequence of events in "real time." Being able to place the time of the story helps clear this up, and doing so adds value to the article.... "London, November to December 2008" is much more informative than "London, some time in the 21st Century"... --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• It is relevant. This is a show about time-travel, after all. --Mark J (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policies & philosophies at play

• How do we reconcile references to real-world persons, places, things, and concepts when referred to from within a fictional universe which, except where noted otherwise, appears to be like our world? Do we assume that ideas mentioned without explanation are defined the same as they are in the real world? If not, should we require a verifiable source from within that fictional universe that defines the term in order to include it in article?

Examples:

• Milk: If a character states "i drank a glass of milk," are we to assume that "drank" and "milk" are defined the same way as we define them in the real world, or should we wonder if perhaps it is toxic to humans, and fear for the character's life? Should we question whether "drank" might mean something more like "stepped on"? Should we require a source that fully defines these terms?
• Mirrors: If a character speaks of "looking into a mirror" should we assume that a mirror is the same object, and has the same reflective qualities in the fictional universe as it does in the real world? Or should we avoid any references to reflections, or of whether the character saw themselves in it, because we don't know?Should we require a source that fully defines a mirror as different to those of our own world?
• New Year's Day: If fictional events were established in a story as taking place in December 1974, and in the course of events a party took place with people screaming "Happy New Year" at the stroke of midnight, with one character saying "Hey, now it's officially "New Year's Day," followed by another set of events. Should we question whether the definition of "New Year's Day" is different somehow, and wonder if perhaps, in the fictional universe, it falls on February 1, or in the month of Troon, instead of being January 1? Should we require a source that fully defines the date of the holiday in this fictional world?

• Does "Original Research" as defined in Wikipedia policy include information garnered from logic from within the information presented, without the need for gathering additional sources or arguments?

Examples:

• Milk: Following the above example, is it "original research" to state in an article that the character's milk consumption involved his/her mouth? Or is this simply logic?
• Mirrors: Following the above example, is it "original research" to mention a "reflection"? Or is this simply logic?
• New Year's Day: Following the above example, would it be "original research" to state that the second set of events took place in January 1975? Or is it simply logic?

--Shubopshadangalang (talk)

• Extrapolating details from dialogue when terms are clearly-defined, common within fiction

• It is a common fictional device to present story details in such a manner without explicitly stating them. For example, in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," early on, it is established that the character is divorced through his statement "and I'm paying alimony." Unless the character is lying or mistaken, it can be drawn through course of logic that he has been previously married, and is paying alimony to his ex-wife through a divorce settlement. Why? Because that's what "alimony" means by definition. Likewise, it is not "original research" to simply extract the meaning of a word to include details that are tied to that definition. In contrast, it would be "original research" to extract from this detail alone that his ex-wife married him only for his money - that is not evident in this information. I'm not sure this is the best example, but I think the difference here is crystal clear, and hopefully I've explained my perspective enough so others see what I'm getting at. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• I think this is a fascinating case study for how we make edits in relation an encyclopedic article about a series of fictional stories. I'm much less interested in the end result here than I am in the process itself, and the policies & philosophies surrounding it. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you're not interested in this instance then can you take your experiment elsewhere, please? This is really wearing. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest a more appropriate venue, if one exists. At the moment, the core of the arguments are still relevant to this article. Regardless, you are free to not read this discussion page at any time you wish :) —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another point, I can't be bothered to find the correct section in the form above... Winters refers to himself as "President-elect", but the world media refer to him as the President. Now, one of them must be wrong (unless, quite plausibly, Winters made the elected mistake). Either the US President doesn't understand his own job title, or the political correspondents to major news channels don't know who the US President is. Both scenarios are very impluasible, I'm sure you'll agree. If we assume that Winters didn't make the speech-slip, then one of those implausible scenarios must be true - they're both equally implausible, so choosing one of them is original research. How's that? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what you're saying falls under Position #2. But feel free to add a new position if you feel that is vastly different than #2. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

I've made my ideas abundantly clear, and the consensus is also clear. I'm having nothing to do with the silly form above; people will just have to read the archive and this page. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's very diplomatic of you. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As it's a summary, your participation is not necessary. Someone else could quote your previous arguments. It would be "nice" if you care about this discussion to aid in the process, but it's certainly not expected or required. I completely understand if you're exhausted by this discussion. --—Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So exhausted it's hard to describe. Though it was the 3 AN threads that really did it :o ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're not willing to participate in mediation, I think that also precludes you from any consensus. Mael-Num (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Think away; if you can find a policy stating that anybody exhausted by a long, boring discussion in which they have been mistreated and abused, who refuses to continue the discussion, can be assumed to have not made clear their point of view despite 109 edits to the talkpage giving it and making it clear - then please quote it. If you suggest that I agree with you simply because I'm too bored to continue, I shall request arbitration. Also - is this mediation? Where is the Mediation Committee's involvement? This is just a new type of discussion initiated by Shaldoijfod(whatever).

I clearly stated above that I'm simply not prepared to play games with you, and negotiate any silly bureaucratic form; I also pointed out that my opinion, identical to that of numerous others, is still held, and that my arguments can be found on this page and in the archive; any "mediator" will simply have to put in effort to read through them, I'm not spending hours retyping them in triplicate just to satisfy you. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just stupid - TreasuryTag has made his position abundantly clear, there is no way any administrator or mediator will ignore his opinions and views on the subject, so quit it with such inflammatory statements. You were warned you're approaching a topic ban, crap like your comment above is only making such things ever more inevitable. Nick (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So my words are stupid? That if someone decided to not participate, that they cannot participate in forming a consensus? That seems natural to me. I'd love to hear how it could be otherwise. Mael-Num (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Your words are stupid. TT has already participated in forming consensus (which is against you). You do not need to continually edit and repeat the same things to stay in the discussion and continue to contribute to the consensus that has already formed. Nick (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you should probably try to keep up with the debate. Consensus is actually with me on this one. Read below, please. Mael-Num (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Don't be so rude.
• No it isn't. You've quoted a new policy which you think brings consensus; two editors have rebuffed the idea. Consensus is still not with you. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the consensus I speak of. My consensus is that of the entire wikipedia project regarding fictional material, not the people debating here. Policy trumps the consensus of you and a handful of editors, I'm sorry. Mael-Num (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in keeping up with the debate, I'm interested in stopping your inflammatory and disruptive behaviour. Reading below, I see that consensus is in fact against you. If you cannot realise that, you should excuse yourself from any further interest in this article. Nick (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is bordering on an attack. You're violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I'm not being rude and inflammatory. You appear to be trying to gain consensus by having editors banned from this article. I think you may want to reconsider this approach, it makes for a worse encyclopedia.

And finally, if you're not interested in keeping up with the debate, please don't comment on it. That would be counter-productive. Mael-Num (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, this is just it

It's really very simple, but you people seem to have a knack for making things complicated. So I'll make this clear:

• Everything must be referenced with a reliable source
• Even if you interpret something or use logic, you still need to find a source that agrees with you.
• Wikipedia articles and certain types of sites are not considered reliable.

So please find a reliable source for these statements then you can include them. Lets not argue as to why this is so, just find a source or say you can't find one, please.--Phoenix-wiki 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're really saying that if a character says "i drank a glass of milk" that we need to have references that define "drank" and "milk" in the fictional universe before we know for sure that it involved the character's mouth? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he said. This is about using a degree of common sense, and being reasonable: if common words such as "milk" had different meanings in the Whoniverse, it would make the program unworkable, we'd not know what anything meant, it would be mayhem. But if the US political system were to be different in Who (and we've given enough evidence to suggest that it might be, thus making any assumption either way original research), it would make no odds to the plot or our understanding. Surely you can see that there's a difference there? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - it would be mayhem because we wouldn't know what anything meant. I'm using "milk" as an extreme example, but we have to be consistent with whether or not we choose to take words' meanings or we don't. It's inconsistent to choose to take "milk" for granted, and yet question that perhaps "President-elect" doesn't mean the same thing. I agree that we need to be reasonable and use common sense. We also need to be consistent. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 18:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that compiling the summary wasn't my idea, nor did I initiate it. But I think it's a fair and reasonable thing to do, for reasons previously described. I completely understand if we need to cease further discussion outside of that. But it's reasonable to complete the summary and let it stand for a few weeks so others can have a chance at participating. This argument has only really been present for two days - hardly time for all interested editors to catch up, let alone weigh in. I think some patience is warranted. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No we don't, supposing milk was only ever drunk in July, we'd need a reference that that was the same in the who universe. But I already said not to question why, you need a source, otherswise you can't put it in. Now stop wasting everybody's time here and find a source or leave it.--Phoenix-wiki 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What does "supposing milk was only ever drunk in July" have to do with anything? What I'm asking is very simple, and you've so far either avoided or misunderstood my question, which is essentially: Do we consistently apply real-world definitions or don't we? And if we don't, why is the definition of "President-elect" treated differently than that of other words and phrases? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I explained before. Accepting some real-world definitions, like "milk" and other commonly-used terms, is essential otherwise the episode makes no sense. If "milk" actually means "hatstand" then it's unworkable; we have no choice but to assume that. However, terms such as "President-elect" and the intricacies of a foreign political system are not essential. The episode is equally understandable regardless of what month it's set in, and what state the presidency is in.

You have ignored repeated questions above of why is he referred to as PRESIDENT by the media, and why does he have any power? Such things make your claims OR. Stop the argument now, please. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated previously, and repeatedly, it's not worth speculating as to the reasons for this inconsistency. As I recently posted: "the only definitive information for whether or not Winters is "President-elect" is from the most direct and reputable source: when he says so himself." One or the other is true. Is it really reasonable for you to assume that he got his own title wrong, and that foreign news reporters and an alien would somehow be more informed than he? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but neither word's definition throws the story out of whack, whether they are the same or different in the Who universe, so I still fail to see why you're treating them differently. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. If we're assuming "milk" could mean anything, then it could mean "poison", for instance. And what if the word "alien" meant something different? Or "dead"? They affect the story; the President doesn't. And are you suggesting that the media of the world don't know who the US president is?! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what they know. All I DO know is who he says he is. Straight from the source. The definition of "President-elect" DOES affect the story. He's in it. A glass of milk isn't in this story (the reason I chose something unrelated as an example). —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But you choose to ignore what others say he is. The359 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I've addressed that. Repeatedly. If you disagree with me, that's one thing, but don't claim that I'm "ignoring" information because you disagree with my conclusions. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring it by claiming on instance of "President-elect" should be taken at face value, but other, multiple instances of "President" should not, based solely on the fact that one character said one thing and another character said another. You cannot imply what the writers intended. The359 (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Still not "ignoring" it, but I suppose there's no point in arguing the semantics of that. We can't attempt to see inside the writers' minds without some kind of statement from them - all we have is the information presented. My view here is simply that the contradictions must be resolved somehow, and clearly the most reputable character to state Winters' title would be Winters himself. You obviously disagree with that, and that's where we stand. I see no reason to go in circles about that, with you continuing to tear apart every word of every sentence I write as some way of discrediting me. My view is that I'm right, and your view is that you are. Let's leave it at that for now and let others way in if they will, shall we? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 05:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions do NOT have to be resolved, because that is not Wikipedia's job. We can simply say that a possible contradiction exists, but it is not Wikipedia's job to attempt to decide which is correct.

You are in no position to declare that one character's use of a word is more reputable than another character's, because it's still ASSUMPTION! NEITHER of us can assume, because this is an Encyclopedia, we don't print ASSUMPTIONS. God, this is daft... The359 (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I figured I'd offer up some quotes from "The Sound of Drums" so that people can draw their own conclusions about the use of the term "President elect" The359 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

ANN News anchor: "The President is said to be furious that Great Britain has taken unilateral action." (Crawl at the bottom of the screen says "Both Houses of Congress meet in joint session calling on the President to take control of the..."

BBC News anchor: "Sources indicate that Air Force One has landed on British soil tonight." (Crawl at bottom says "Prime Minister reveals the President has been invited..." Picture of the seal of the President of the United States also shown.)

Saxon (to Winters): "Mr. President, sir."

Saxon (to his wife): "The last President of America..."

BBC News anchor: "It's been announced that Harald Saxon has invited President Winters to take the address." (Crawl on the bottom of the screen also says "President Winters".)

ANN News anchor: "It's 3AM on the Eastern Seaboard, and President Winters has been chosen to lead the world into a new age." (Crawl on the bottom of the screen also says "President Winters".)

Winters (addressing the Toclafane): "My name is Arthur Coleman Winters, President-Elect of the United States of America, and designated representative of the United Nations. I welcome you to the Planet Earth and its associated Moon."

Thanks for including this, the359. I'd like to point out that Winters being a "designated representative of the United Nations" is likely the reason he is present more so than his being "President-elect". This doesn't explain why other characters refer to him as "President" though, or why he is using Air Force One, but it does explain why he is representing earth. Being a designated representative of the UN may be related to being "President-elect" or it may be an entirely separate designation, as he may have served the UN in some capacity prior to being elected as the next President. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

More assumption though. The359 (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously none of that can be included in the article. Just making some talk-page-only speculation. I suppose it serves no purpose except to refute previous arguments that Winters presence in such a high-profile diplomatic role is evidence that he is President rather than President-elect. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 04:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelming evidence, "at face value", is that he is President. The simple fact that you, I, and others are even having this arguement is proof enough that your concept behind what position Winters has is NOT universal, is NOT accepted by all, and is NOT without debate and the inherent possibility that it is wrong. That alone is reason enough that any sort of speculation about dates taken from only one position which is no more correct than any one else's position should not be made simply because you're guessing based on extrapolation from a guess! It's not even remotely encyclopedic in its thought process. The359 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you're contradicting your own arguments, from the idea that you can't make assumptions, and that whether he is President-elect or President remains entirely uncertain, while here you say that the evidence is overwhelming that he is "President." As for the part about uncertainty of information, I agree that, if the consensus view is that it's so uncertain that the entire issue should be ignored in the article entirely (or pointed out in the article that this info is inconsistent), that this is how we should treat it in the article.

I'm not going to beat anyone over the head with this; I've tried to make my points as clearly as possible, and I really think that the key issue here has to do with the policy issues (Original Research, interpreting real-world definitions in a fictional universe) and if everyone addresses the issues raised within the realm of achieving consensus, I'll be perfectly satisfied to end the discussion, even if I'm outnumbered. But, once again, let's not rush to establish that consensus... we need to stop bickering and allow other editors to catch up on this incredibly lengthy discussion (I suggest at LEAST a week once the summary is considered complete by those now involved). Also, please be civil; there's no reason to refer to me or my arguments as "daft" - I certainly haven't resorted to demeaning your arguments, despite my frustration. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 06:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain again. Suggesting that the episode takes place in November is based on numerous assumptions, where we have absolutely no evidence either way:

• The news channels - all of them - and Mr Saxon - twice - are all wrong, and do not understand who the President of the US is.
• President Winters never meant to introduce himself as the elected POTUS and simply stumbled over his words; what he actually said was totally correct.
• President-elect has the same meaning in the WhoUS, namely him that is elected but not yet appointed.
• The elections in the WhoUS are timed in the same way as they are in real life.
• The WhoUS allows the Preisdent-elect use of AF1, and command of numerous officials.

Singly, we could debate whether those assumptions are allowable, but you are drawing all of them together in an argument. And as we've stated, and you've not accepted, unpublished arguments are original research - your agument is unpublished. Or is it published as an argument? Not each bit of the argument, but altogether? I quote from WP:SYN: Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

The Whitehouse source is not related to the subject of the article, and does not reach the conclusion that the episode is set in November. Do you understand now, that according to the policy (right or not) you have to have a source explicitly reaching that conclusion, and the episode itself is not acceptable since it doesn't do so EXPLICITLY, merely (you seem to think) IMPLICITLY. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I entirely reject your third and fourth bullet points above as "assumptions" (once again, this addresses issues of consistency when it comes to real-world definitions, as previously described), and I insist that your second bullet point is just simply incorrect (there's absolutely no resource that indicates "President-elect" EVER simply means "someone who has been elected President"), I'm willing to concede this IF the consensus view is that the information is not presented consistently enough to be reliable. Obviously, I'm NOT part of such as consensus, and I won't concede that I'm somehow "wrong," but (of course) I'll abide by the consensus on the issue.

Again, I really think it's reasonable to allow some time for that consensus to be established. (and to agree to stop bickering in the meantime). But if the current consensus is that we should establish that here and now, then clearly I'll abide by that too :)

If that's the consensus, and you folks are claiming that this must end now, then so be it. If so, I'll be referring to this as a reference point for how there are differing views as to how real-world definitions are treated in a fictional universe, and how "Original Research" has a slightly loose definition is such circumstances. If for no other reason than for establishing a point of reference for future edits, it has been worthwhile for me. As insistent as I've been (and continue to be) that I'm right, I certainly don't need to "win" for this to hold value. Thanks. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 07:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Would RTD really know what a president elect is, know exactly when the president-elect is the president elect, and the actually use that to hint at a date when the new series has been pretty quiet about actual dates so far? I doubt it 11:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk)

An interesting point in general, but I think he would know... I read somewhere (sorry, can't find reference) that he was a fan of The West Wing. But even if he didn't - even if it, hypothetically, was a complete mistake - it's still there, in the program, and thus "canon." Hypothetically, It could be a "mistake" that Colonel A. Mace in The Sontaran Strategem uses the rank of "Colonel" - perhaps he was supposed to say "General" - but it doesn't matter, because it's in the dialogue, and thus it's what's recorded as a truth of the fictional universe, even if the writers had originally "meant" to call him "General Mace." Hypothetically, again, if it were established by the character in dialogue ("Hi, I'm Colonel Mace") and another character who was outside the military context had referred to him in passing as "General Mace" would we assume that his title is not "Colonel" after all? As for the series being quiet about dates, there have been many efforts to reconstruct a timeline based around dates that have been mentioned. Davies knows this, just as he is aware of how the fanbase goes nuts over this stuff (see UNIT dating controversy and Chronology of Doctor Who) so I find it unlikely that he would make such a mistake anyway. :) —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I read the MOS

Check this out:

An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.

Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become.

That seems fairly cut and dry to me. We must apply the real-world context of President-elect to our fictional "President-elect". The manual of style requires it because of wikipedia's consensus on writing for fictional worlds. To do otherwise is to go against consensus and introduce original research; or as another editor put it we should be "rightly and reasonably assuming that terms have the same meaning in our world and the Doctor Who world".

As far as the validity of calling him "President-elect", it seems most "right and reasonable" to conclude that the man knows what his own job title is (as opposed to the aliens and the non-Americans). Moreover, consensus is that his is President-elect. There have been standing edits to this effect going back to September 2007[14][15]. If that term is incorrect, I find it hard to believe that the error had gone unnoticed. It seems obvious to me that the standing consensus of editors up until this point has been that he is, in fact, President-elect.

Finally, as to the year, I will address this point soon, but I'd like to leave it at this for now: Winters was President-elect. Evidence proves it, consensus agrees, and per the manual of style, the proper definition of President-elect applies. Mael-Num (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By your logic, if we must apply real world logic, then there is overwhelming evidence that he is the President, not the President-elect. You have no consensus. The359 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not the case. Please see [16][17]. There is long-standing consensus on this. Mael-Num (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Two edits are not consensus. I suggest you reread consensus. Your "evidence" is based solely on one line of a script, and claiming that other lines in a script are wrong or ignorant. The359 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the number of edits that go into writing a passage that makes consensus, but the number of edits between then and now that allowed the data to stand. Check the edit history; people looked at that passage and it passed muster many times. Why try to remove it now? Mael-Num (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Where exactly is this guideline about an edit remaining for X amount of time is thus made into consensus? Because guess what, it doesn't exist. The359 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, how splendid, a fourteenth section discussing the same sentence! Well, that perhaps counters some of my points, true. Others, however, it certainly doesn't. Particularly the quote from WP:SYN that I made above (Ctrl+F should find it); bringing together numerous sources without a source explicitly (not implicitly, as the episode) reaching your conclusion, is synthesis. Also, your interesting passage above doesn't cover the fact that numerous sources (listed above by The359) said that he was NOT the President-elect but the President. Since there is no evidence either way as to which group of people - him, or Mr Saxon and the world media - is mistaken, basing anything upon that is also wrong. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's been addressed, above.[18]Mael-Num (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

MOS also says, under Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include: Referring to the fictional events or dates which occur in the story, rather than the fictional works themselves. Sounds to me like adding in universe fictional dates is one of the problems they seek to avoid. The359 (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. Good thing that's not the issue here. Mael-Num (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another lovely section from MOS as well! Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research;

Therefore you can PRESENT the primary source (that Winters is either President or President-elect), but you cannot make interpretations based off of it. The359 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did you dig that up? It obviously doesn't apply here, we are avoiding OR. See above if confused. Mael-Num (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bo, you are creating OR. You can apply real world logic in saying "Oh, yes, he says President-elect, that must mean he's President elect". But attempting to bring other real world elements which are never even implied is OR. The359 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And finally, Avoid creating lists of trivia; instead, incorporate relevant information into the body of the article;, which means that, quite frankly, the entire "Cultural References" section needs to be eliminated. Please note the previous Featured Articles and Good Articles I have linked to repeatedly, none of which contain "Cultural Reference" sections. The359 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, okay. Again, what's this got to do with the price of eggs? Are you going to quote BLP to me next? Just a heads up: that also doesn't apply here. Mael-Num (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural Reference" is a trivia section, and the inclusion of assumption of date was listed there. If it were important, it'd be integrated elsewhere in the article. The359 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Very good points, Mael. As to the relevance, that's been established in terms of the entire series and the fact that it's a time-travel story. Trivia sections aside (I have no opinion on this... some articles do, some don't), this kind of info would belong more in a "Continuity" section, or within the notes desribing the setting of the story. But once again, if the consensus view is that Winters' "President-elect" title is inconsistently presented enough to be unreliable (which I disagree with) then all of this is pointless other than the principles it represents (which I find interesting, but tire of this argument). I'll repeat my plea to allow time for that consensus to be established, or for a precedent or policy to explicitly demonstrate how that should be resolved. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's worth pointing out (even though another Wikipedia article can't be used as a reference in the article) that the editors of this article (of which neither I nor Mael-Num have played a part) also chose to list Winters as "President Elect" rather than "President," with no mention of inconsistencies.—Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SYNTH

Okay, having painfully read through all the debate here, I have to throw my hat in as also having come to the conclusion that the dating information should not be contained. Being most charitable to it, it amounts to a synthesis of the claims that Winters is the President-elect and that there is only a President-elect on certain dates. Even if this follows logically, it's still against policy. Now, when I stop being so charitable, this is how it appears to me. Believing the logic that leads to the dating requires making the following assumptions:

• Winters actually is the President-elect, which necessitates the further assumptions that the media and the Master were wrong and that there's some exception to only the President traveling on AF1 and having Presidential authority.
• The electoral process of the US is the same in the Whoniverse, and takes place at the same time.

Original research is allowed only in the most trivial cases, such as performing simple mathematics. The fact that there's this much dispute in this case, along with the necessary assumptions to follow this line of logic, means that this case merits no exception to the rules. It's original research; it's out. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

• Some discussion has happened on IRC. I haven't ignored the discussion, I've more just not been commenting, I've been keeping an eye over it. The consensus, while not a vote, seems clear to not include the information, as it can't be verified by a reliable source. Now, as a fictional writer myself, I would normally argue that plot information can be verified by using primary sources, such as {{cite episode}}, but from what I see, there's an attempt to blend real world information sources for fictional information, where the real source appears to not be 100% relevant, and given that there are discrepancies, such as the difference in time zones in Dr Who (?), I'm not familiar with the series, but that needs to be taken into account. So, from what I can judge from the discussions, the consensus is to not include the information, CCC, however, but at this time, it appears clear. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)