Codename Lisa (talk | contribs) |
AussieLegend (talk | contribs) →People who can control Sheldon: damn c key |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
::::Best regards, |
::::Best regards, |
||
::::[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 14:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
::::[[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 14:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::There is a citation in the article that ''is'' a reliable source and this supports the claim currently in the article. It's not my word and it's [[WP:V|verifiable]]. Bernadette's father is is an incredibly minor character in the series, while Sheldon is one of the main characters, so Bernadette's ability to boss her father around is trivial at best. Far more significant than "no excuse for FC engaging in edit warring" is "AL's questionable past conduct". As I indicated to you, it's hypocritical to accuse somebody of concentrating on the editor and not the edits and then do exactly that yourself. I did that on your talk page because this is not the place for it so can we please not continue this. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 15:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:44, 13 October 2014
Television List‑class | ||||||||||
|
Fictional characters List‑class | |||||||
|
Applying REDNOT
I was looking at this edit, and I'm not quite convinced that WP:REDNOT applies. REDNOT says "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created". The problem that I see is that the actors appearing on TBBT do not fit the category of "articles that are not likely to be created". I would say that no name actors appearing on TBBT are likely to get noticed and may certainly become notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. They are certainly more likely to have articles created than the example given at the top of the page like this one. Furthermore, the nutshell states "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." Something that is certainly not clear as to at what point in their career will the actors' notability cross the threshold for a Wikipedia article. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- You need to read beyond the first sentence. Paragraph 4 says "Red links to personal names should be avoided" and explains "Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name. Aside from the basic misidentification this causes, red-linking has led to people being incorrectly identified on Wikipedia as accused or convicted criminals, sex workers, or being involved in other forms of conduct that might be considered harmful to the subject's reputation. The risk of misidentification is especially concerning when dealing with living people." Because it's "especially concerning" we err on the side of caution and don't redlink personal names. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Minor Error
In the section on recurring character Lucy, there is a slight inconsistency, which I have been unable to find is an intentional mistake copied from the related episodes or a copy-error. ...and breaks up with Raj in a text message at the end of the episode and ...to apologize to Raj for breaking up with him via email contradict one another. I've seen both episodes but am unable to recall if this is from the episode or from translation onto the wiki. --KizC (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
People who can control Sheldon
Yesterday, FleetCommand removed a portion of content from the article with the edit summary, "Deleted factually inaccurate sentence. Feel free to prove me wrong if you can. But here is hint if you are actually looking into it: Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control Sheldon."[1] I cited the actual episode that appears to have prompted this addition,[2] but FleetCommand reverted, this time claiming "Reverted WP:SYNTH. The citation gives one instance. It does not show several instance nor excludes others".[3] FleetCommand sbsequently started a discussion on his talk page,[4] but since article content is involved, it should really be discussed on the article's talk page, so I'm moving the discussion here. For the record, I've restored the edit and changed the text to address FleetCommand's latest concerns.[5] The discussion copied from FleetCommand's talk page follows:
@AussieLegend and Codename Lisa: Alright. I'll start by discussing the contribution, okay? Article has this unreferenced sentence: "Most notably, she is one of the only characters in the series who can control Sheldon, mostly because of her knowledge in dealing with stubborn children." I believe this sentence is outright wrong and must be removed. AussieLegend contests this by adding a source that shows one instance in which "she" (Bernadette) ordered Sheldon and he obeyed. I contend that this type of source is WP:SYNTH because it does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same or the possibility that Bernadette have attempted doing so on other occasions and failed. Indeed, Sheldon's mother has trice directly interfered in Sheldon's life and has successfully ordered him to do something. (In addition, once in the show, the Department of Homeland Security called Sheldon's mother and Sheldon implies that this dissuaded him from buying enriched Uranium.) Penny has twice successfully made Sheldon do something. Leonard has once succeeded in season 7. What do you think? Fleet Command (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read WP:SYNTH because there is no synth involved. Episodes are reliable sources for content within episodes and the citation used directly referenced the episode in which Bernadette showed she was able to control Sheldon because of "her knowledge in dealing with stubborn children". I even included the relevant quotation. That the source "does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same or the possibility that Bernadette have attempted doing so on other occasions and failed" is not even close to WP:SYNTH. That it "does not show several instance nor excludes others" is also not SYNTH and it's not even relevant. The citation only needs to support the claim being made and it does show that she has been able to control Sheldon, which is what the claim said. We can't deal with what we haven't seen in other episodes. That itself is WP:OR. The claim doesn't say that others cannot control Sheldon, it says that she is one who can and that has been demonstrated. That Sheldon's mother can control Sheldon does not preclude the possibility that others an ontrol him. Your original reason for removing the claim included "here is hint if you are actually looking into it: Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control Sheldon" in the edit summary.[6] Clearly, that isn't correct. Your claim now that the citation "does not bar out the possibility that others may have done the same" is inconsistent with that. If others an control Sheldon then "Sheldon's mother is the only one who can control Sheldon" is wrong. We've seen very few instances where Sheldon can be controlled and this was one of them, so saying it's notable and that Bernadette is one of only a few people who can control him is, based on what we have seen and what we have sources for, is very correct. Even assuming that Sheldon's mother, Penny and Leonard have also been able to control him, although we've seen numerous times where Penny and Leonard have tried but been unable to control him (especially Leonard), that's still only a few people, so the claim that was made is still valid and the citation still supports the claim. However, a minor rewrite of the section you're having issues with should address your current conerns. Wholesale deletion is ompletely unnecessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- So much text... Anyway, your source gives backup for the one time Bernadette managed to control Sheldon. It does not give backup for Bernadette being able to do so "whenever necessary", nor does it backup that she is the only one being able to control Sheldon. Doing it once isn't the same as always able to do so. Being able to do a somersault flawlessly once doesn't mean you can always do it flawlessly and at command. -Rinellie (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a fair enough evaluation and your edit seems reasonable. I would point out that the claim never said she could do it every time, just that she could control Sheldon.[7] The recent edits were only made to address FleetCommand's concerns. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Looks good here but I have to ask if there are sources for anyone else being able to do what Bernadette did? --49.180.163.35 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi guys. I'd say that restoring this sentence in the first place was inappropriate, even with a source. "She is one of the only characters" is a weasel word fiasco. It does not bar out the meaning of everyone can do it, including the "characters", and "she" is one of them; yet, it gives the impression that she is the only one! FC, AL and Rinellie have all treated the "she is the only one" point of view, meaning that the weasel word trap was skillfully baited. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, "one of the only" is far from "is the only". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a fair enough evaluation and your edit seems reasonable. I would point out that the claim never said she could do it every time, just that she could control Sheldon.[7] The recent edits were only made to address FleetCommand's concerns. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- And "most notably" is a WP:PEACOCK. It is not notable at all that she once controlled Sheldon. Everyone can; and everyone has done, including Miss Riley's chicken. (An ordinary chicken that drove him up a tree in fear.) One of the comic premises of the show is that Sheldon is half-robot half-infant. There are two ways of controlling him: Bullying him or persuading him with the right words. Now, if people did any of this, the show would be a documentary about bullying or subversion. It is a comedy because people consistently try to treat him like an actual adult (despite having discovered times and again that the resemblance is just superficial).
- By the way, do you have any clue as to why AussieLegend is replying himself? (See his post below). Fleet Command (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- It should be obvious that I was replying to Codename Lisa and simply stuffed up the indenting. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, do you have any clue as to why AussieLegend is replying himself? (See his post below). Fleet Command (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I run a Whois on this IP address and guess what I found? It is exactly from the same region that AussieLegend's user page says he lives in. The service provider is located in New South Wales. Fleet Command (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The IP's address geolocates to Chippendale which is most definitely NOT my region, nor is Optus my ISP. It's about 170km from here by road. Are you suggesting I posted here, then somehow drove 170km, signed up with Optus (which is not my ISP!) and posted, all in only 16 minutes? If you're going to suggest sockpuppetry, there are other edits we can examine. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Back to the disussion, I've reverted FleetCommand's latest reversion. I disagree with FleetCommand's edit as does the IP. I won't speak for Rinellie but he/she has provided some constructive input and edited accordingly. There's also another editor actively editing all over the page and, while he hasn't seen fit to comment here, he hasn't seen the need to remove the content. We should continue to discuss this with the aim of improving the article. Perhaps, per WP:STATUSQUO we should restore the status quo if FleetCommand is not happy with the changes that have been made. That would be this version of the text, noting that Andrewbarker1995 has made numerous unrelated edits that should not be reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion FleetCommand's latest edit made it worse than it was. (Removing 1 of 2 sentences that were linked.) Anyway, if what FleetCommand writes is true, then it isn't too noteable she did it, but it might be worth it as a fun-fact kind of mention if the sentence gets reworded. Is she one of many, or one of a few? How many other people are shown as able to do it? I haven't watched any old episodes of the show in months so I can't remember who did what and when. Also, all the IP said was that the revision at the time looked ok and asked a question... Are you maybe assuming a bit much?
- Unrelated to this, I can understand people that won't touch long discussions with a 10-foot pole. Especially when they get bombarded with WP-policy links. -Rinellie (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Rinellie: I must commend you on your observations, though I feel I am obliged to say that the issue of due weigh (mislabeled as notability here) is an ever-present concern in every discussion that cannot be simply dismissed. These two editors (both highly distinguished old timers) are evidently past that point. Now, we can just remove the word "most notably" alone to service the peacock term issue (instead of the whole sentence). But please consider this: I perfectly understand if one said "Bernadette once climbed mount Everest alone" because it is a feat of supreme magnitude for any human-being. But what about controlling this Sheldon person? Was it very hard? (I assume it is not very hard to force a person as cowardly as FC describes into submission; just show him an ordinary chicken.) Or was it very significant insofar as it impacted the course of story? What else makes it stand out from that of other people controlling Sheldon?
- Maybe I must try to get my hands on that certain episode. TV.com seems to let me watch it for free. But again, since I don't watch TBBT, I might not understand at all. (Or is it a bad thing? After all, NPOV needs distinction between a fan POV.)
- @FleetCommand and AussieLegend: Both of you two are engaged in edit warring. I'd like to emphasize that AL's questionable past conduct as well generally stronger argument in favor of FC's position is no excuse for FC engaging in edit warring. Please take the issue to WP:DRN.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Getting Sheldon to do anything is virtually impossible so, when somebody actually does, it's a big deal. As for your other comments, I've addressed these on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- 1. Let's assume you are right. The burden of elucidating this and providing source for the elucidation is on you. The only thing we have here is your word and it is not a WP:RS. After so much heated debate, an in-prose elucidate is mandatory, unless you decide to delete the sentence.
- 2. Regardless of #1, it is still all relative: Have others succeeded in doing such a thing? FC contends that it has occurred more often and more successfully in case of others. In fact, I studied several sources on TV.com and MSN as well as the TBBT wiki on Wikia. It appears Sheldon, apart from being arrogant, misguided, immature and full of psychological disorders, is a pushover. I also watched that certain episode: Bernadette just sent him to sleep. He himself was half-willing. Not an extraordinary feat.
- 3. Regardless of #2, it is still all relative: Again, my reading of several sources show that Bernadette is in fact far more adept in bossing her father around. This is very significant because she is very tiny and her father is a frightening ill-tempered monstrosity who carries a gun and drinks. Basically, the ability to boss The Iron Giant has far more due weight than the ability to send a half-willing pushover to sleep.
- I think these hints should be enough for you guys to negotiate a compromise of some sort.
- Oh, and by the way, as for your communication in my talk page, you might want to re-read this portion of my message: "...no excuse for FC engaging in edit warring."
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is a citation in the article that is a reliable source and this supports the claim currently in the article. It's not my word and it's verifiable. Bernadette's father is is an incredibly minor character in the series, while Sheldon is one of the main characters, so Bernadette's ability to boss her father around is trivial at best. Far more significant than "no excuse for FC engaging in edit warring" is "AL's questionable past conduct". As I indicated to you, it's hypocritical to accuse somebody of concentrating on the editor and not the edits and then do exactly that yourself. I did that on your talk page because this is not the place for it so can we please not continue this. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)