Talk:List of Mad Men episodes

Future episodes source?

What is the source for all this information about future episodes? Is it reliable? --Jeremy Butler 11:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Description for the most recent episode seems completely wrong.

Don, Betty and the family escape for an enjoyable weekend getaway; Freddy and Ken wine and dine an attractive client who captures Roger's attention

When did Don, Betty and the family escape for a weekend getaway? And it was Ken and Pete who were wining and dining a male client for whom they had hired a hooker who captured Roger's attention. Is this actually the official plot summary? john k (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Link for Season 2 Episode "The Jet Set" to Slim Aarons?

In the director's comments they mention Slim Aarons' photography books of the 1960s inspired the episode "The Jet Set". Where would be the right place to include that link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceese (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios

It looks like we have at least one summary copied from another site.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

Are there any plans for a detailed episode-by-episode synopsis of each episode, in a separate article, as has happened for the episodes in The Wire? That would be a job for a specialist who knows how to write things up, keeping up the narrative and highlighting the sigificant extraneous details which are usually visual. For instance, in Series 2 Episode 12, the fade-out music is "Cup of Loneliness" by George Jones from 1959: George Jones is best known for "He Stopped Loving Her Today", so will that feature in a forthcoming episode? Guy (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. These descriptions are too vague to be of any real use, and sound like the work of marketing people trying to tease us into watching the show without giving anything away. I hope admins won't undo the work if people start contributing more substantive recaps. Jstohler (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A question about the 1960's dates for the episodes

I don't recall any dates being noted in the series. This is at best synthesis and at worst original research. If someone can cite the episode dates to a reliable source, that's great. If not, they cannot remain. I'll wait a week or so and, if no references appear, purge them myself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Weiner states on the pilot episode's DVD commentary that the first day is March 19, 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.92.187.204 (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture/historical references

Do we want to include pop culture and historical references in the episode synopses? I think it would be nice to have a list like this for things mentioned on the show that may not be obvious to some viewers. Or is something like that better served by other sites such as TV.com? I added a pop culture reference for the fourth season opener as an example. JLThorpe (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

I'm removing the little dates where each episode is supposed to take place. What little citation is there is such that the only thing being cited is the observer's (read: contributor's) observations, and we don't allow that sort of Sherlocking here in Wikipedia. If you find sources that note the date in question, we can include them. There is a reason the series doesn't list the address themselves; the date is superfluous to the episode. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This does not at all qualify as OR/Synthesis. Nothing under the policy of either Original Research or Synthesis applies to this instance. The entire description of all of the episodes is based on "contributor's observations." The dates are purely descriptive based on the primary source, as will all of the rest of the description of the episode. This purging of helpful material was entirely inappropriate.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I believe you are misapprehending our policy on Original Research, and might be unaware of our supporting policy prohibiting Synthesis.

The primary source of which you speak is the episode itself. At no point during any of these episodes is a specific date given (and I've checked at least three instances, having viewed some of the suspect episodes on DVD) and nowhere). In order to be able to add the dates in question, you yourself are Sherlocking the date based either upon background events occurring within the episode or by using your personal knowledge of history. I am sorry, but neither of these methods are allowable under our policies. We require that you find a Reliable Source (meaning secondary sources, unrelated to blogs, fansites, or the like) that list the date you wish to add.

Without it, we cannot utilize your knowledge of historical events - no matter how vast it might be - because you yourself are not a) a notable source, or b) a reliable one. This is a fairly difficult concept for many editors to accept when working at Wikipedia. On a side note, Until you find those sources - and it would seem a reasonable action to vett those sources here in Talk first - you should not re-add those dates. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, of course I am aware of those policies, having referenced both of them in my earlier comment. Neither is applicable to this situation. Synthesis, as the policy states, concerns juxtaposing two different sources to suggest a conclusion that neither original source draws. This is not the case here. The dates are common, uncontested knowledge and their inclusion is certainly allowable under our policies. You should not delete the dates again.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your re-addition again - I strongly urge you to continue this discussion until we reach a conclusion before adding them again; your re-adding them will not somehow magically work, as I will keep removing them, or simply escalate the matter to a noticeboard.

You are presuming that the dates are common; they are not. The very fact that I removed them means - in no uncertain terms - that the information is indeed contested. As you claim that you have read our polices on both Original Research and Synthesis, I must surmise that you simply do not agree with them, or are simply unable to glean their meaning. When you take one piece of information say, the episode, and then apply your knowledge of history to ascertain a date wherein the episode occurred, you are synthesizing your own knowledge of history to argue that the episode occurs on such and such a date. That, my friend is synthesis; you are taking two different sources - the contents of your noggin and the episode - and fusing them to present a new assertion that certain episodes occur on certain dates. Lastly, the dates are largely unimportant, as they are never referred to within the episodes themselves, nor coded by date.

We do not allow synthesis, original research or editorial Sherlocking here in Wikipedia. If you need to consult with an admin or two on this matter, please feel free. In any case, I would appreciate you having the courtesy to not keep reverting their exclusion until we have arrived at come editorial agreement on the matter. I am willing to continue discussion until you arrive at an understanding of my dissent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to propose what might be an elegant solution. If you can supply from a reliable source the dates for each episode in question, that might resolved the problems that arise when we apply your interpretation of when events occur for each episode. Understand that the aforementioned sources will have to be reliable (ie, no blogs or fan sites where fans - who fail to meet our notability criteria - Sherlock the dates for themselves). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The dates are only contested based on your inability to understand the policies in question. I already explained why they are not applicable in this case. I would have appreciated you having the courtesy not to take a patronizing, condescending tone, but unfortunately it is too late for that. I am talking this to the Mediation Cabal, for starters.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I came to this discussion via the Mediatior's noticeboard, and while I don't particularly have time to take up the question, it's immediately obvious to me that there are two separate categories of contested dating here that are being lumped together into one for the purposes of the dispute. Those two are:

• historical (and historically-verifiable) dates of events referenced during the course of the episode;
• "sleuthed" dates based on in-episode cues such as holidays, time of year, seasonal cues, etc

As a neutral party who has never even seen the show, it seems to me that it's possible to include historical information in such a way that doesn't violate WP:NOR or WP:SYN. The way the edits in question are phrased do trip WP:SYN in my mind, but a simple rephrase can cut out most of the problems in most cases, as providing dates for verifiable historical events that happen or are mentioned in the course of the episode wouldn't be problematic.

Examples of such historical fact, going down the list of the questionable diff:

"This episode takes place in mid May, 1960.<ref>Rachel Menken mentions that Adolf Eichmann was arrested in Argentina last week, and that was May 11, 1960.</ref>" -> "During the episode, Rachel Menken mentions that Adolf Eichmann was arrested in Argentina "last week"; that arrest took place May 11, 1960." with a reference to a reliable source that dates said arrest.

"On election night (November 8, 1960), the Sterling Cooper staff pulls a rowdy all-nighter while watching the returns." -> I see no problem with this edit as-is: according to the episode summary, the US presidential election was a major part of the episode, and the date of that election is well established and sourced in the linked article.

"Pete finds out his father was killed during the crash of American Airlines Flight 1. That sets the story around March 1, 1962." -> Pete finds out his father was killed during the crash of American Airlines Flight 1, which occurred on March 1, 1962."

"This episode is set in May, 1962.<ref>Bobby Barrett mentions that Marilyn Monroe will be at Kennedy's birthday that week, and that was May 19, 1962.</ref>" -> I'm of two minds about this one. Not having seen the episode, I don't know if Marilyn Monroe (and her presence at President Kennedy's birthday) is a major part of the episode. If she is, I would rephrase this by removing the reference and pulling it up into the episode summary itself: "Bobby Barrett mentions that Marilyn Monroe will be at Kennedy's birthday (May 19, 1962) "that week"." If Marilyn Monroe is not a major part of the episode, I would leave this information out entirely.

"The characters react to Marilyn Monroe's death, dating the action to the time on and around August 5, 1962." -> "The characters react to Marilyn Monroe's death, which happened on August 5, 1962." or "The characters react to Marilyn Monroe's death." (since the date is given in the linked article).

"While the Cuban Missile Crisis looms (October 1962), things at Sterling Cooper don't run as smoothly while Don is away" -> "While the Cuban Missile Crisis looms (October 1962), things at Sterling Cooper don't run as smoothly while Don is away" (the date is given in the article, so linking the article should suffice).

"A news report about the death of Thích Quảng Đức places the episode on or around June 11, 1963." -> Again, two minds. If Đức's death is a major part of the episode, I would rephrase it as something like "So-and-so reacts to the news report about the death of Thích Quảng Đức (June 11, 1963)" (or just leave the article linked so someone can find the date by clicking on it).

"This episode takes place sometime shortly after June 12, 1963, the day Medgar Evers was murdered; the birth of Eugene is on June 21." -> Again, if Evers' death is a major part of the episode, include the information and rephrase so it's clear why Evers' death is an important part of the episode. If not, leave out.

"This episode takes place in April 1965.&ref>Stan Rizzo is reading the April 1965 issue of Playboy in the hotel room.&/ref>" -> If the Playboy is a major part of the episode, pull the statement used as a reference into the main part of the episode summary. If it isn't, leave it out.

"The episode takes place on May 25, 1965 (the night of Ali-Liston II and Peggy's 26th birthday) and the morning after." -> If the fight is a major part of the episode, include the information and rephrase so it's clear why the fight is important. If not, leave it out.

"This episode takes place in August 1965 (Don gets tickets to see The Beatles' August 15th Shea Stadium concert)." -> If the concert is a major part of the episode, include the information and rephrase so that's the main focus of the statement. (ie, just include the parenthetical, not the rest).

However, many of the contentious dating is based on what is original research, analyzing the contents of the episode and synthesizing those statements with other information to provide a date. Those are less justifiable to me, and probably should be left out, or at most referenced in passing:

"Roger, stuck in the city for Labor Day weekend (which means the episode is set in the beginning of September, 1960)," -> this is unnecessary to me, as any (US) reader would be able to identify the date of Labor Day. At most I'd say "Labor Day" should be wiki-linked for those outside the US who aren't familiar with the holiday.

"This episode takes place in October, 1960.<ref>Don Draper asks Peggy for a glass of iced water because "someone hasn't told the sun it's October."</ref>" -> This is pretty obvious synthesis to me, and should probably be left out.

"This episode takes place in the first few days of July 1963, leading up to Independence Day." -> Similar to the Labor Day reference above, I would simply include reference to Independence Day in the summary and wiki-link the holiday for those unfamiliar with the date.

"On Valentine’s Day 1962, Don and Duck find themselves at odds over an account." -> With no source for the year except extrapolation, I would leave the year out entirely.

Then, dates for which there is no sourcing provided for the dates except extrapolation, and should be left out entirely:

"The episode takes place in late March 1963."

"This episode takes place on and around May 4, 1963."

"The episode ends on July 23, 1963."

"This episode takes place in early August 1963."

"This episode takes place during the end of August and the first three weeks of September 1963."

"This episode takes place during the last week of October and ends on October 31, 1963."

"The episode takes place from just before Friday, November 22, 1963, until Monday, November 25, 1963."

"The episode takes place from December 11 until December 16, 1963."

"This episode takes place the week of Thanksgiving, 1964."

"This episode takes place around New Years' Eve, 1964."

"This episode takes place in late February 1965."

"This episode takes place in mid-March 1965."

"This episode takes place between June 15–20, 1965."

As a side note, while I was reviewing this diff, I noticed there were some other edits included as part of it. I can't tell whether they should remain or not, but a caution to those who are working on this dispute that you not conflate the two (the contended dating + the other content edits).

Hope this helps the regular editors of this article achieve consensus. Rahaeli (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rahaeli, I appreciate your visiting and weighing in, and I'm glad Silvain1972 sought help from MedCab (I had opened a discussion over at the NOR Noticeboard, and am awaiting input from there). My problem with this is, as I mentioned before, essentially twofold. First, if the dates were critical to an understanding of the episode, the folk creating the series would have explicitly noted them, and they do not. In point of fact, no dates of historical significance are ever mentioned in the series. I used to think it odd that they didn't, but then realized that while the series is a period piece, it isn't a specific period piece. If the producers, directors, actors and marketing team for AMC do not see these dates as notable/important, then who are we to gainsay them? As they aren't critical to the episode, they are therefore extraneous. They are background to the events and stories - a framing device, if you will, in much the way that no one cares what picture frame the Mona Lisa or Et in Arcadia ego are in.

Secondly, the placement of almost all of these dates requires some knowledge of history on the part of the person adding them. One has to know that the Beatles played Shea on a particular date to be able to add them, and if you happen to live in Hungary, Poland, or the UK, then what passes for "common knowledge" isn't going to be the same thing it is here in the USA. As we are prevented from drawing these connections on our own in the absence of explicit citation from reliable sources, it constitutes original research to Sherlock it out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I've never seen an episode of the show (hadn't even heard of it until I saw the case go by at MedCab), but I'm not convinced by your argument that the writers of the series would have explicitly noted dates if they felt they were important. Period series in general rely on common knowledge to set their stage, and by putting in those historical references one can make the argument that they *were* establishing dates. I don't think it's original research at all, nor is it synthesis, to note the presence of historical events in an episode and provide links to the articles on those historical events, along with a mention of the date when they happened -- they don't require a knowledge of history on the part of the person doing the edits, just the ability to open another Wikipedia page and read it. Some of the dates provided in the contentious edits are clearly original research or synthesis, but some of them aren't, and I think they should stand. Likewise, taking the (hypothesized) creator's intent into account is just as much original research as the other way around!

Still, on the "how much I care about this" scale, I'd have to say this rates about a 1.5. ;) I just think that at the point an article content dispute has gotten to the point of edit warring and seeking mediation from outside sources, one needs to accept compromise. You feel that all dates should be excluded from the article, Silvain1972 feels they should be included. I'd really encourage you both to compromise -- neither of you is going to be 100% happy with anything that gets decided, so why not go for a partial solution that lets you both have something closer to what you want?

Good luck with getting to consensus, and happy encyclopedia-ing. Rahaeli (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the dates be readded but tags be added to each contested date. This way the dates remain part of the article for the time being until someone can find an appropriate source, and if not they can be removed at a later date. JLThorpe (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that path followed before, and it only works if one or the other party gets bored or forgets about the tagging. I am not convinced that the addition of the dates is not an exercise of undue weight that the chronology is more important than the stories. However, that would be a WikiProject Television discussion, as that is slightly less more policy-based than NOR and SYN - the problems that adding the dates without cite brings to the fore. The results of the NOR noticeboards are coming out with the conclusion that references from secondary sources are going to be needed for date inclusion. You've done some of the 'roll-up-the-sleeves' cite work, as have an anon or two. I am convinced that the series is talked about enough by notable reviewers and commentators that citable references for dates can be found. It should be pointed out that a lack of sources should serve as an indicator that the date isn't necessarily important. If we include a date with cn tag and only one or two end up wth cites, we end up removing all the tagged info yet again, and go through this dramahz again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Allow me to point out that this is the English-language wiki, not the United States wiki; I heartily doubt that some of the dates that might be common knowledge to an American or Brit might be completely unknown to someone from the Continent or another continent altogether. Anything that requires us to add our own personal knowledge to connect the dots is indeed original research. this is why our encyclopedia is driven by citations. I don't think its too much to ask for citations instead of relying upon an editor's personal knowledge. We wouldn't accept that anywhere else.

Indeed, my suggestion that the creator's specifically leave out the dates is indeed speculation. However, the difference here is that I am not seeking to add any such suggestion to the article itself, which distinguishes my speculative observation from the problem at hand. The fact is that thus far, no one has found reliable citations noting the dates in question. That would suggest that my argument about the dates not being vital to an understanding of either the series or the specific episodes has some merit (though again, i am not seeking to add in unreferenced work). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to weigh in on this. I used to regularly consult this wikipedia page to better understand the historical development of this show. The dates on which episodes take place are crucial. Jack Sebastian has now removed the dates, which were undoubtedly a lot of work by many different contributors to put together. I think this removal is a misguided application of the rules. We're dealing here with a TV series, in other words the episodes themselves as primary sources. In the absence of published scripts, the best source for those writing about a TV show is the TV show itself. The citations are straight from the aired episodes. Episodes are available on DVD or iTunes for those who want to check references. I see no compelling arguments in the above discussion that warrant the dates being removed. Aurelstein (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, you should probably read those arguments again, Aurelstein. I know that, for the fan, its nifty to pigeonhole each and every episode, but in almost every instance (that was removed), the application of a date required a contributor to Sherlock it from background events occurring within the episode, drawing on their own knowledge of American history. If reliable sources had been used that explicitly marked these episodes as being on these dates, we wouldn't be talking about this at all; they'd be in. It is original research because the contributor is adding one piece of uncited information (their knowledge/memory/whatnot) to the episode to connect the two. That's synthesis, and we don't allow that in Wikipedia.

It doesn't matter if we are dealing with an article about a tv series or one about astrophysics; both require citations, as we are an encyclopedia, In the absence of published scripts or referenced news stories or articles about the episodes, we cannot use the primary source of the episode itself, as it doesn't list dates. As the dates are, for the most part, secondary to the story, we are placing undue weight on their importance. This is doubly true, in that there aren't any references we can draw upon that that hawk the date of a particular episode.

I can understand why these policies might frustrate you; they frustrate me, too, sometimes. If yu wish to seek a change in them, you can voice your concerns over at The Village Pump. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Rahaeli is correct in his interpretation of the policy. The policy on synthesis states very clearly that it is improper to juxtapose two sources in such a way that a position is advanced which is not supported by either source. That is not happening here. There is no reason why common knowledge information such as historical dates cannot be referenced in a plot summary. Every editor to weigh in so far has asserted that your understanding of the policy is overly broad and erroneous.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are deeply misinterpreting the comments of others. I will repeat, what you yourself consider to be common knowledge - quite simply - isn't. You are not allowed to use your own knowledge to juxtapose dates to episodes: it's that simple. It's original research to do so. It's synthesis in that you are taking your personal knowledge and that of the episode to create a relationship that is not explicitly stated by either. And make absolutely no mistake - that is indeed what you are arguing in favor of, Silvain1972. I'd point out that my interpretation of policy on this matter is supported by commentary received at the OR Noticeboard. You should feel free to offer your personal assessment of this issue there. Even better, you could simply roll up your sleeves and seek out some reliable sources that support the episodic dates. As you will recall, I have asked you supply that from the beginning. One would thing that, instead of belaboring a losing argument, you could just go and do that. If you have been looking and haven't found anything, that should tell you about how citable the matter actually is. In conclusion, you do not get to insert your personal knowledge and expect it to circumvent our need for citable references. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are the one misinterpreting the policy, and you are the one on the losing side of the argument, as the building consensus suggests. You could stop being patronizing and stop telling me what to do. There is no point in prefacing your comments with "respectfully" when they are insulting and disrespectful.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sylvain1972. This is becoming a slightly absurd discussion. The problem that Jack Sebastian doesn't seem to realize is that we're talking about a primary source: an episode of a TV show is a primary source. There are no published scripts (to my knowledge) but a published script is less of a primary source, in this case, than the show itself. So, I suppose you could insist on having footnotes to every quote from the TV show to the name of the episode, and the exact time in the episode. But to call it "original research" is absurd. This applies only to conjecture. But in the episode that is about the Nixon/Kennedy election no conjecture or "personal knowledge" is required. Neither is that true for the date on which, e.g. Labor Day 1960 takes place. Jack is rigidly insisting on something that he thinks improves Wikipedia but his erroneous read of the rules has actually impoverished it. Aurelstein (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Aurelstein - point out precisely where in the episode in question wherein the date was mentioned. If you claim that the primary source (the actual episodes) contain the date, tell me where, and I'll cue up my DVD player to that point. I know for a fact that they aren't, but I need for you to come to this realization. If it isn't explicitly stated, you cannot use the episode as a source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

How can you possibly say you know for a fact no dates are stated? It's obviously not the case, cf. my example about the Presidential election. If your point is that, if the episode takes place on the date of the Presidential Election 1960, we cannot therefore conclude the episode takes place on November 8 1960, because that would be "synthesis" as I am using my "personal knowledge" of history that the Presidential election in fact took place on that date, then your position is simply silly. Aurelstein (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you are going to want to dial it back a bit, my friend; perhaps you could use a bit of a break and nice cup of tea. If the episode doesn't state the date, we cannot use it as a source that declares that it supplies the date. Now, if you were to find a reliable source that notes the date, great - that's all we are asking for. If you cannot provide it, we cannot use your - or any other contributor's - deductive reasoning to suss out a date. It's just that simple. It's not my rule, it's Wikipedia's. WP isn't a blog or a chat forum; it's an encyclopedia: unsupported (read: unsourced) information is not allowed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the episode "The Fog", Gene's birth date is noted on the birth certificate which is clearly shown in the episode. So that date (June 21, 1963) can be readded. JLThorpe (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a timecode for that, JL? I'll cue it up on the DVD player when I get home. If it isn't something in passing (e, something required the video to be stopped and/or enhanced), I think we might be able to include that, :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, as you like to say, it's not necessary to warn me to "dial it down" as I have been speaking to you with all required courtesy. I just disagree with you. In order to make progress, I think we should start with the most simple examples. So let's take the Season 1 episode 12, "Nixon vs Kennedy". This episode starts on the date of the 1960 Presidential election and ends the day after. Therefore, this episode took place on November 8 and 9, 1960. This is neither original research nor synthesis. it is not original research, because it is based on observation of the primary source and referenced in every reliable synopsis of this episode. It is not synthesis because it does not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources and there is therefore no justifiable reason to exclude this information. Agreed? Aurelstein (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: we're not supposed to mention that the episode "The Grown-Ups" takes place on and around November 22, 1963, even though it clearly takes place during the Kennedy assassination (and moreover, we know the exact date of Roger's daughter's wedding that takes place during that episode because an invitation with the date NOVEMBER 23, 1963 is shown in an earlier episode! This is taking your interpretation of a policy to a bizarre extreme. I'll bring this over to Request for Comment and see what editors think about your interpretation. Moncrief (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Moncrief. Jack Sebastian is taking a bizarre position and the way I see it not a single person seems to agree with him. Aurelstein (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I stated on the Noticeboard discussion, according to Jack's reading of the synthesis policy, it would unacceptable to note "Peggy's dress is blue," because that would combine observation of the primary source synthesized with outside knowledge of what colors are. By his reading, if no one on the show explicitly says, "Peggy's dress is blue," inclusion of that information is inadmissible. The text of the synthesis policy and the examples given don't support that reading at all. Synthesis involves juxtaposing two sources "to advance a position." It does not bar the use of uncontroversial, universally agreed upon knowledge in drawing the most elementary inferences, the veracity of which no one could reasonably contest.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, a discussion is currently ongoing at the No Original Research Noticeboard, so let's try not to forum shop this matter to more than one venue at a time. I appreciate the sentiment, but it might create more problems than it resolves; the more appropriate place for this is at the NOR:N anyway.

Secondly, allow me to ask you a question, Aurelstein: what was the year of the Gunpowder Plot? How about the year when the last Vichy collaborator was convicted? How about when the Khmer Rouge came to power, or when Pol Pot died? Something simple then: how about when Shackleton completed his task I'm willing to bet a stack of cash that - without googling or wick-y-ing the answer, you wouldn't have a clue. and that's okay; I do not expect you to have an understanding of events outside of your country. The Wiki-En is not the American Wikipedia, it is the English language Wikipedia. therefore, making assumptions that everyone automatically knows when events took place is arrogant. After all, providing citations for these events allow us to wikify things like Kennedy's election and subsequent murder in Dallas. these citations allow people not familiar with either English or America to explore more about both topics.

Montcrief, I don't really care if you shop this over to RfC, but they might give it a pass, seeing as its already listed elsewhere. In any case, could you provide a link to that RfC?

And I've addressed Sylvain's duplicated post back in its appropriate venue, the NOR Noticeboard. I'm not in the habit of duplicating my efforts. In short, everyone knows what blue is and what a dress is. Not everyone when knows when Ali took the belt. Common knowledge, in a word, ain't. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what your point is. Why does it matter if the (unquestionable and verifiable) date of the Kennedy assassination is common knowledge or not in any country you can name? How does that relate to whether or not the date should be included in the article? By your logic, we shouldn't include the date of, say, the Gunpowder Plot in the article on that topic because it may not already be common knoweldge outside of the UK. Isn't the entire point of Wikipedia to be a repository of knowledge for people to visit when they DON'T already know something? You're saying we can't include verifiable and unquestionable dates for events that occur as a backdrop to the show because some people outside of the US may not already know those dates before visiting Wikipedia? Are you afraid they'd be offended by encountering this new knowledge when they get here? Really?

I don't really care if you shop this over to RfC Great! Because I don't really care if you really care. Moncrief (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that came out wrong, Moncrief: what I meant to suggest is that the matter is already being discussed on one noticeboard. Taking it somewhere else before that discussion is concluded seems tangential. My ambivalence about it was meant to imply that the RfC could only distract and sideline the discussion over three different conversations. I apologize for the seeming slap upside your head - it was not intended at all.

As for what my point is, look closer at your own example: do you really think that the date of the Gunpowder Plot is uncited? In the current wiki article, there are over 170 citations and almost two dozen books on the subject. Come on, that wasn't a very good example to defend your point there. The point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate (and incited) collection of information. We actually a specific policy about this, WP:NOT.

You said: "You're saying we can't include verifiable and unquestionable dates for events that occur as a backdrop to the show because some people outside of the US may not already know those dates before visiting Wikipedia?" Actually, you haven't brought forth a single verifiable citation that states a date for an episode. I'm pretty sure I've asked someone to start adding some, which would make a lot of this discussion moot. Insisting that your private knowledge is "verifiable and unquestionable" is never going to trump a single citation. Not one. Find cites for the dates, and we're copacetic. If you cannot find them, then they aren't vital enough to an understanding of the episode to warrant inclusion (as per WP:UNDUE). in any case, your Sherlocking of background events cannot be used. Sorry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your idea of what constitutes an appropriate citation is as maddening as it is strange to me. Mad Men is a television program that is not meant to exist in some alternate reality. Its m.o. is to meticulously (albeit fictionally of course) replicate aspects of American life in the early 1960s. Therefore, if a major plot point is, for example, the John F. Kennedy assassination, we can know (beyond the secondary evidence we have, which I'll get to in a minute) that the episode indeed is meant to take place on and around the date the assassination actually occurred, which is November 22, 1963. If the primary source material of the episode itself is not good enough for you, and you require outside information to validate the content of the show or program, then any plot summary of any movie/TV show described on Wikipedia that doesn't include outside sourcing is suspect. Other than to provide YouTube links after every sentence describing a plot in Wikipedia so that viewers can see the scene for themselves, I'm not sure how we can source the primary material described and shown in the show, or why secondary sources are preferred over evidence in the primary source itself.

However, if you want outside sourcing, here you go: [2]. The New York Times confirms what any viewer of the series could see: that the wedding invitation for Roger's daughter said NOVEMBER 23, 1963. If you see the episode "The Grown-Ups", you see that it takes place just before, on the day of, and on the day after the JFK assassination. Unless you think all of Mad Men is meant to take place in an alternate reality, the primary source material of the program itself demonstrates that the episode "The Grown-Ups" is meant to take place in late November 1963, because it includes actual television coverage broadcast the day of and just after the assassination of John F. Kennedy (unquestionably -- yes, unquestionably -- and verifiably based on thousands of sources, an event that took place on November 22, 1963) as well as scenes of a (fictional) wedding that we know, from primary source material (an invitation shown clearly in the episode "Love Among the Ruins") as well as secondary source material (the above NYT article and here are some more: [3] [NYT again], [4] [Entertainment Weekly], [5] [TIME magazine]), that we know is meant, in the world of the show, to be taking place on November 23, 1963.

I've provided you with links to some respected secondary sources. I don't have a link to YouTube or AMC for the episode itself, but you say you have the DVDs. If you watch the episodes and read the sources, do you still want to tell us that we can't say that the episode "The Grown-Ups" is meant to take place in late November 1963? Moncrief (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Anytime you want to dial back the snippy, you'll end up in a far better place to discuss matters with me. Maybe you need to go somewhere and have a nice sit down and a cup of tea. As for the meat of your post, thanks ever so much for providing some asked for references. See? That wasn't so hard, now was it? While the second one is pretty vague, numbers three and four fulfill the criteria for inclusion. Would you like to add the information about the JFK assassination and date, or would you like me to? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring Jack Sebastian's condescending style, I think the debate has now sufficiently advanced to reach a conclusion. A number of people have disagreed with Jack and all seem to have more or less the same position which I summarize as follows: 1. The Mad Men universe, while of course fictional, is meant not to take place in some alternate reality but is self-consciously historical. It is therefore important, and not incidental,, when episodes take place. 2. The primary source is rich with specific and verifiable references to dates and actual historical events. 3. It would be useful for an encyclopedia article on the Mad Men episodes to include this information. We can end the debate here, I think, and turn to the task of restoring the dates to the article. Aurelstein (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't play that way, Aurelstein; we actually base our decisions not just on consensus, but ensuring that that consensus follows our policies. I am sorry that you do not agree with Wikipedia's Synthesis and Original Research policies but - as has been stated before - your personal view of the dates of Mad Men episodes are going to require vitation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation. Your personal Sherlocking of these dates from running off to the history books based on what happens in the background of an episode is the very definition of Synthesis.

As I have noted (several times) before, the simplest way to find a solution to this problem is to find reliable, explicit references as to these dates. I understand that this requires you to actually do some research, but you seem to capable sort of person who can do it. Without references, we cannot include the dates based on what you - or anyone else - think is common knowledge.
If you feel the need to contribute to the noticeboard discussion, please do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You have managed to insult everyone who disagrees with you, which is itself a violation of wikipedia policy. I have repeatedly tried to explain the policy to you - synthesis involves juxtaposing two sources "to advance a new position," as the policy literally states. It does not bar the use of uncontroversial, universally agreed upon knowledge in drawing the most elementary inferences, the veracity of which no one could reasonably contest. Just because you personally feel that the information in question is not interesting or worth of inclusion does not entitle you to unilaterally revise the synthesis policy to preclude what you don't favor. Consensus can and will move forward when every additional editor who weighs in (and there have now been a number at this point) agrees that your interpretation of the policy in question is erroneous.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if yu feel insulted at being told your interpretation is wrong, Silvain. It remains incorrect, despite having it corrected by myself and others on at least three occasions. You are indeed juxtaposing two sources: the episode (which contains inferences but nothing explicit) and your personal opinion (which cannot be used anyway) to arrive at dates for each episode that are - at the very best - on shaky ground. Allow me to be utterly clear with you: I am disputing your claims as to many of the dates - therefore, the additions are, by definition, controversial. Your personal observations of unspecific material are not citable. Period. You cannot utilize your personal knowledge as citation, sit yourself down, roll up your sleeves and find citations Even an anon has done some of your work for you. Stop arguing and simply do the work. Put up, or shut up, in colloquial terms.

And consensus doesn't override policy. I'd suggest you devote your efforts to convincing the folk over at the NOR Noticeboard of your opinion, which remains - in the editorship of several years - in the significant minority. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I am insulted (as many other editors here have been) by the condescension and nastiness that you bring to the discussion. You have continued to ignore that the salient point of the synthesis policy is that the alleged juxtaposition--and I do not concede there is one--must necessarily advance a position to constitute a synthesis. There is no point in talking about what is and isn't disputed in the abstract. After your initial wholesale deleting of a great mass of material, the matter is proceeding on a point by point basis and that is the proper approach.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have apologized if you had felt slighted by my abrupt nature. I tend to not like having to repeat the same information, and certainly not when I begin to feel that the person I am talking to doesn't want to hear what I am saying. If you need to have an apology here: I apologize.

Sylvain, I have not ignored your viewpoint - I have disagreed with it completely - a different thing altogether. The first infers a superiority to you that I do not feel towards you, and the second implies simple (vociferous) dissent, which I do have with your view. Furthermore, I feel that you have failed to grasp that the synthesis in question is suggesting a date that has not been explicitly given; I'd explain again, but I've already done so repeatedly. If anything, I feel you are ignoring the policy in place in favor of one that allows you to make leaps of faith that currently, Wikipedia doesn't allow.

I additionally am a little offended by your that I was participating in a "wholesale deleting of a great mass of material". I was deleting unreferenced dates being applied, and maybe correcting grammar. Nothing more. Calling it more than it was was sophistry, and I think you know this.

Lastly, proceeding point by point is going to be more difficult until you can accept the OR and SYN polices that are already here. You cannot Sherlock out dates from the episodes, claiming them to be excellent sources for dates. They aren't, and that isn't going to change. Our time is going to be better spent looking at and comparing secondary sources to determine which give us the more bang for the buck. Arguing over the ephemeral issues of what deductions can be made from each episode is going to degenerate into a morass of discussion which can all be dismissed by the placement of a single dissenting citation. Citations are the clear way to go here. No cites, no inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well, apology accepted. When I spoke of a wholesale mass deletion, what I meant was that you deleted every single date without consideration for the nuances involved. Some had no attribution whatsoever. Some involved what you claim (wrongly, in my view) is synthesis. Some were very explicitly attested to in the show. That why the incremental approach advocated by JLThorpe and other editors here is warranted.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted them because I felt there were no nuances involved. I felt that the dates were extraneous and they were clearly in need of citation. They had to be removed, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation. I don't necessarily mind the incremental approach, but if an episodic in-universe date doesn't have a secondary source, I don't see us being able to include it at all, as per the NOR noticeboard's recommendation. Uncited info leaves an article weaker. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1a

There was no consensus on the noticeboard, and hence no noticeboard recommendation. That matter is still open.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So you just decide to justify doing it despite there being sizable resistance? That isn't really collaborative, Silvain1972. I would remind you that an admin with years and tens of thousands of edits on all of us combines stated that everything has to be cited to secondary sources. That was the consensus of the noticeboard, and the matter was resolved there. If you wish to further champion the cause of using the primary sources coupled with your own personal knowledge of history, the noticeboard is where you should be making your case, not via edits in the article. I think we have resoundingly demonstrated that that is not an effective way to get things done where dissent exists.

As well, could you please add a more informative citation to your recent edits? we actually have citation templates built into the editing screen, to halp facilitate the proper form citations are to take. Providing urls allows the reader to follow the citation to the original reference (and allows editors to verify the accuracy of the citation and notability and reliability of the source). If the source in question is explicit and provides the dates, all is copacetic. If not, then we cannot use it to accomplish what you are seeking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the reference in question, I discover it doesn't actually explicitly reference the episode. I've had to cull it. It would, however, make an excellent source for production; it deeply discusses a lot of the minute detail that goes into each episode, the costs involved, etc. It's a great source - just not for what you are trying to use it for. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there is sizable resistance to what you are doing. There certainly was not consensus on the noticeboard. Number of edits and administrative status does not confer special privileges to settle disputes. Please see WP:What_adminship_is_not- Adminship is not meant to be anything special beyond access to extra editing tools which, pragmatically, cannot be given to every user. It does not give any extra status, weight in discussions, or special privileges beyond what is necessary to technically use those extra tools. But in any event my recent edits do not involve synthesis issues at all--not even by your standards of synthesis. You reverted them quite improperly. There is no prohibition anywhere about citing the primary source. When the primary source says "It's October" then it is fine to note in the description that it is October. How is that even arguable? Further, why would you delete the sentence saying "Her teacher reports her asking questions about the recent death of Medgar Evers." That is quite explicit in the show, and it is relevant to the plot. Likewise, why delete "compelling the office to work over Independence Day weekend."? Or "Miss Farrell helps the students make camera obscuras to view the total solar eclipse." What does any of that have to do with synthesis? The policy states very clearly A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. None of my recent edits involved any interpretation at all--they were purely descriptive.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they were a lot more interpretive than descriptive - esp. when you admit that you were only providing this information in an attempt to end-run the referencing requirements. I'm sorry you disagree with the majority opinion on the noticeboard; you are going to want to re-visit there and argue your case yet again; the number of people weighing in on the side of secondary references read like a who's who of experienced. I gather that you don't care how many edits any one editor has, but that number s usually a good indicator as to how well versed they are on not only policy but practice as well. Like I said, you made a bold change, it was reverted, ow you can discuss and find a solution within our policy and guidelines.

As for your suggestions that the date can be sussed out by the primary data, I fairly reject that assumption: October when? What time span covers "recent" when talking about the "recent death of Medgar Evers"? Which Independence Day? Which solar eclipse? See, for most of this, you have to use original research and synthesis to argue that all of these times are when you want them to be. You have to interpret that that these dates fall within a certain year, or that an event being discussed has just occurred (esp. when using to to date that conversation), It is not as if you are dscribing the color of one's dress, which is not an interpretation but a descriptive. I

If you had a reliable reference that spells this out explicitly, these hurdles are removed. True, I feel the info is dreadfully unnecessary, and borders on fancruft, but if you have citations, the problems shrink down to a slender few. As was noted before, GA and FA articles use citation and not "I know" personal Sherlocking to determine content. I will say this again - if you cannot find a source for the information you are seeking to add, consider that notable, reliable sources do not share your belief that the information is indeed that important. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there was no majority opinion in your favor. The noticeboard is not the only acceptable forum for discussion of this issue. If anything, your view is in the minority. In agreement with me: Aurelstein, Rahaeli, JLThorpe, Moncrief. In agreement with you, Jayjg, Fifelfoo. But in any event, I refer you to WP:What is consensus? Consensus is not a majority vote. Second, my most recent edits are not a rehash of the earlier edits, nor are they an "end-run" around policy. They are pretty clearly a good faith effort to accommodate your concerns with significant compromise. There is nothing interpretive about "It is October." That is all the character asserts - that it is October in the course of the episode -- and that is all that my addition asserts. I did not assert a year this time. I did not assert anything further than what the source asserts. Same thing with Independence Day. The characters assert that they have to work over Independence Day. That is all I'm repeating. I did not in these recent edits "argue that all of these times are when I want them to be." I did not argue that they were any time at all beyond what the characters themselves state. If you want to delete "recent" from the Medgar Evers statement, that seems extreme to me, but fine.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Silvain - perhaps I did exercise a little bit of bad faith; for that I apologize. It was unfair to characterize your edits in a way that they were not. We could go back and forth regarding the value of noticeboards and consensus, but the reason it went to the noticeboard in the first place was that we could not agree here (and note that Rahaeli straddled the fence for the most part, believing that some should be cited and some didn't necessarily need it); we needed a more neutral and experienced mediator to help us find the right path. I feel it did, characterized by Jayjg's summary. The user/admin is highly respected and has made the right calls in dozens of difficult situations regarding policy, etc. I find him/her to be highly competent.

I hope you can understand my view that the dates of these episodes - with the exceptions of those dates covered by citable references - are largely unnecessary. It is a set=period series, but it doesn't (for the most part) utilize history as a method of advancing the plot of either the episode, season or series. I feel that to force a date to each episode is an example of providing undue weight to the idea that the date that the eps occur is vital to the understanding of the same. The sole exception to this - the murder of JFK and the break-up of the Draper marriage - is the exception that proves the rule. No other ep uses history to advance the plot int he way that this does; it's all window dressing; highly exactlng (notable due to a recent reference regarding fashion added by Aurelstein) window dressing, but only as useful as a costume or a lighter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I could see how you would feel that the historical references are somewhat superfluous to the plot. But the show clearly takes them very seriously - there is a documentary on every episode DVD exploring the events to which the episodes allude, and the AMC website also has a "1960s Handbook" that does the same[6]. It is very much a part of the texture of the show, even when the main characters are not implicated in the events directly. I also think they are intentionally designed to enable the attentive viewer to have a sense of how much time has elapsed from one episode to the next and one season to the next. Certainly that understanding is not absolutely essential to one's comprehension of what transpires, I agree, but it does help. The show does not hit the viewer over the head with a timeline, but they do provide one subtly. And, I would argue, at times the timeline is quite significant. For instance, the developments between season 1 and season 2 make much more sense when one understands that more than a year has elapsed between seasons.Sylvain1972 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I understood where you were coming from, Silvain. For myself, this is the basic thing for me: claims require substantiation in an encyclopedia. Significant claims require significant verification. I follow your reasoning but we cannot utilize your impressions of that the creators were aiming for. I think that the should be enough citation out there to substantiate what you are saying though - I seem to recall seeing at least one cite that notes the lengthy time between seasons one and two. If the timeline is as valuable as you have argued that it is, then finding reliably-sourced dates should be a breeze. I am willing to compromise on the opinion of these dates as window-dressing in a period series, but we must have citation for any date we use. We cannot extrapolate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is why my latest edits addressed your synthesis concerns. There is the issue of whether or not the earlier edits constitute synthesis. It seems we'll have to agree to disagree about that one, but I'm willing to let the matter pass at this point. There are no synthesis concerns with the revised edits--in most cases I did include secondary sources. The second matter--about whether time reference points, provided they can be established in a manner everyone agrees is in accordance with policyare helpful, or as you say, "fancruft"--is a separate issue, and a subjective one that undue weight does not address. I hope that you will not press this second issue any further, given that we have been willing to accede to your concerns on the synthesis issue and there are a number of editors testifying to their opinions that it is not fancruft but rather a quite helpful edition to the article.Sylvain1972 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break II: let's reboot this topic

Regarding the episodic dating back and forth, it might be in everyone's best interest to detail (and save us from heading to eventual arbitration) just how we can cite these dates externally. Using the episode itself amd applying our own knowledge of history is simply not within our policy; it violates both the Synthesis and Reliable Sources policy. To whit, we are not allowed to take one source (the episode) and apply our own logic and deduction (a slippery source at best) to argue that a historical date applies to that episode (ie. the definition of synthesis). We need external sources, either from Man Men's own production and/or directorial blogs, or from interviews with the actors and staff, or from reviews of the episodes. Of course, these need to be reliable sources; with the exception of the aforementioned, we cannot use blogs and fan forums, as they are not reliable. In at least one instance - the ep detailing events surrounding JFK's murder in Dallas - ample citation has been found; the references are out there for at least some of the eps. We just need to find them.
Lastly, there remains a concern that the issue of dating the episodes is itself an example of providing undue weight to the date in question. It is my assessment (supported by the utter dearth of sources noting episodic period dating) that these are largely unimportant to an understanding of the article; ie. the episode.
Despite this trifecta of concerns, let's take the time to detail each episode of contention; maybe by discussing the historicity of each episode, we can focus our attentions on finding reliable citation that details the historical events occuring with in the episode in the context of the episode (for example, we are not looking for a citation that the Marilyn Monroe died; we are looking for a citation that talks about Monroe's passing within a review/story of the episode). I am willing to discuss each point and believe I have proven that I am willing to consider additions to the article based on solid reference material being provided. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack: For a discussion like this to actually proceed, instead of endlessly repeating itself, as it has been, people need to listen to each other, and they should respond to one another's points. Of course I agree with Wikipedia's policies, so there is no need for snide remarks that I don't. We've all heard you repeat many times over that in your view this violates policies, but I haven't seen you respond very well to our objections. We can't make progress if you keep repeating yourself. I will try one last time to actually have a debate to resolve this stand-off. But please don't repeat for the umpteenth time what you've kept repeating until now. If you do that, things will just needlessly escalate. Let me restate the problem. You think that giving dates for the episodes violates the Synthesis policy because you don't think the primary source is "explicit" on dates. As a result of that, you think that what we're doing is taking some information from the primary source and combine it with external knowledge, including our own "personal knowledge of history" to find the date, a process which you call "Sherlocking". Most of the people here who have disagreed with you, disagree with you, I think, for one or more of the following reasons: 1) People think that the episodes, the primary sources, actually do explicitly state the dates and no external knowledge is necessary but 2) to the extent "external" knowledge is required this involves the use of uncontroversial, universally agreed upon knowledge in drawing the most elementary inferences, the veracity of which no one could reasonably contest.

Now, let's move from the lofty heights of theory to the plane of simple examples. We have a number of very concrete, simple examples. It's my position that for the following 3 examples all we need is the primary source, the episode itself. We do not need "external sources, either from Man Men's own production and/or directorial blogs, or from interviews with the actors and staff, or from reviews of the episodes".

1. I mentioned episode 1.12, the Election Night episode. Here the episode, which you can verify if you wish from watching your DVD or reading any of the reliable summaries (e.g. the official episode recap on the AMC website: http://www.amctv.com/originals/madmen/episode12), takes place on two very specific dates, namely the day of the Presidential Election 1960 and the day immediately thereafter. Therefore this episode takes place November 8-9, 1960. We can say this even if there is no explicit moment where any character says: "Today is November 8th, 1960." It's not "Synthesis" to say that if an episode takes place on election night 1960 and the day thereafter it takes place on November 8 and 9, 1960 anymore than it is synthesis, to use Sylvain1972's example, to say Peggy's dress is blue if we see here in a blue dress although no character on the show says to her: "What a nice blue dress you're wearing today, Peggy". No "personal knowledge of history" of involved. The only thing that is involved is to say that if the 1960 Presidential Election was on 8 November 1960 (a fact anyone can establish without problem) and the episode takes place on the date of the 1960 Presidential Election, the episode takes place on 8 November 1960. This is the simplest of syllogisms. I see no reason why stating this would violate any Wikipedia policy. Do you agree? If not, please explain why.
2. JLThorpe stated, regarding the episode "The Fog", that baby Gene's birth date is noted on the birth certificate which is clearly shown in the episode. I believe that this date June 21, 1963 could therefore be readded. Do you agree? If not, please explain why.
3. Same for the episode "The Grown-Ups" which takes place on the day of the Kennedy assassination, and is also the day of Roger's daughter's wedding, the invitation for which we saw a few episode before as being November 23, 1963. Do you agree? If not, please explain why.

Once we have established these simple cases, we can perhaps move to a few possibly slightly more difficult examples. Aurelstein (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Before we address the examples you've mentioned, I'd like to point out the following post by User:Jayjg in the NOR: Noticeboard (where I initially consulted regarding the issues of OR and Synthesis I found recurring here):

These topics and lists are a horrid morass of WP:NOR, but certainly guessing "in-universe" dates of events would be more egregious examples. The primary events portrayed in these shows clearly did not happen in reality, but rather are a work of fiction; therefore, one cannot take for granted that any events in these shows correspond exactly with actual history. Perhaps it's all some alternate history, who knows? Stick to what reliable, secondary sources say. There's been plenty written about Mad Men, go and use that material¹

It would be an understatement to say that Jayjg knows their stuff when it comes to Wikipedia: he has (quite literally, this) more than eight times the edits than everyone involved in this discussion - combined. This would suggest to the reasonable user that his opinion is of weight, as it confers a substantial amount of experience. Set aside the fact that I can get snippy at having to repeat myself. Set aside as well the frustrating aspect of Wikipedia wherein one has to cite the most obvious thing in the world, just because the casual reader might not get it. Focus on what Jayjg says here. "Stick to what RS secondary sources say". Not to toot my own horn, but this is what I have been saying all along. Maybe what was needed was someone of vastly more experience than anyone here to say it loud and clear.

You can make any "obvious connections" in an article but - and this is important - all it would take to erase any or all of that is for someone to come along and add the simplest of citations that contradicts it. Nothing trumps citation (except for other citations). Ever. So, towards the effort of improving this article to FA quality, I would like to avoid the eventual problems that are going to come up over the synthesis issues I've pointed out before. Anything that doesn't improve the encyclopedia is a waste of my time. While not mentioned by Jayjg, I still think that - as no sources yet found (even within the Mad Men AMC blog) - the dates are simply not important to an understanding of the material. It constitutes undue weight.

That said, let's look at your presumptions; it crystallizes the issues with the examples you provided. You stated:

"Most of the people here who have disagreed with you, disagree with you, I think, for one or more of the following reasons: 1) People think that the episodes, the primary sources, actually do explicitly state the dates and no external knowledge is necessary but 2) to the extent "external" knowledge is required this involves the use of uncontroversial, universally agreed upon knowledge in drawing the most elementary inferences, the veracity of which no one could reasonably contest."

Number One is provably false, Aurelstein. I think that in only three episodes, a specific date has been mentioned, and one of them takes place before the series' "current" setting. Number two is likewise incorrect: I've pointed out where, in multiple instances where someone sussed out a date based on background material, the historical even in question could have happened a day or two earlier. If we cannot be precise, we have no business whatsoever even guessing. This is where those secondary sources come into play. With them, it isn't us making the determination as to what is "uncontroversial, universally agreed upon knowledge...drawing the most elementary inferences, the veracity of which no one could reasonably contest"; it is a source outside of the editorship. We are not citable. Notable sources are, and what they say improve the article, making it durable and more likely to make it to FA candidacy.

Example one doesn't mention the date of 1960. At all. The source you provided does, however address a date in 1950, when Draper was in Korea. You cannot make the connection, Aurelstein: You are taking the fact that the series takes place in the 60's and adding your knowledge of the historical events of the time to conclude that the date must be election night 1960. Find a source that comments on what you feel is clearly obvious, and all is copacetic.

Example two is easily explained. Though Thorpe failed to provide a timecode for the infant's birth certificate, it was seine in passing, and would have required someone with specialized equipment to look at the frame showing the document. It wasn't discussed by the characters, it wasn't plastered all over the screen for more than the briefest of moments. If it was as vital to the understanding of the episode as has been suggested by editors here, it would be in a secondary source. Has any reliable secondary source mentioned this date or the firth certificate? That's what we need.

Actually, an anon contributor did some citation work and found a number of citations that noted that the ep took place during and in the aftermath of Kennedy's murder in Dallas. It's been cited, which makes it durable.

And the rest of the instances where dates were removed are far more dodgy to pin down that explicit references are going to be needed. I hope this addresses all of your concerns. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't address my concerns. You're not interested in listening and whenever you actually talk about the primary sources it's clear that you don't know them very well. Aurelstein (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I just spent a half hour addressing your concerns, and am trying to let you back off gracefully. Believe me, I've watched the source material - actually, a lot more since this discussion began. I think I've stated my position quite clearly. I've addressed each of the examples you presented, and I've debunked your assumption s about the primary source material being explicit. There's little more to say. If you need to escalate this beyond the NOR noticeboard, make sure you provide a link. I'll be there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Aurelstein (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) For example you quote reverentially the thought of Jayjg who says maybe this show takes place in an alternate reality. And you keep saying that the show itself isn't interested in when the events take place. Well, I'm very sorry but this isn't true. The very first episode begins with placing the action in time, by having the words "Manhattan, 1960" appear on the screen. Do you need a source for that? Well, here is a script: http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Mad_Men/Mad_Men_1x01_-_Smoke_Gets_in_Your_Eyes.pdf. It's frustrating to have to belabor the obvious. Aurelstein (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

More examples. The "season recaps" on the official AMC site specifically mention dates. For example, "On Valentine's Day 1962" http://www.amctv.com/originals/madmen/season2); "It’s early 1963" (http://www.amctv.com/originals/madmen/season3), "By November 1963" (same); and of course there are many specific references to historical events such as "On Monday morning, Sterling Cooper staffers huddle around a radio in the office and listen to a report about the crash of an American Airlines jet (on the same day as a parade for astronaut John Glenn)" (http://www.amctv.com/originals/madmen/episode202). And on and on and on. Aurelstein (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that you think the series is about a real ad firm? Okay, I cannot really address that. That's something you are going to have to work through on your own. Sooo, I'm pretty much going to not belabor this with you anymore. I've pointed out where I think you are misapprehending our policy; others agree with my interpretation of this matter. I am glad you have started to look for references - that's what I have been asking for all along. So long as you provide explicit citations for the dates of the episodes, you won't have any argument from me. No cites, no inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack, you ask for cites. Now people have provided cites (the March 1960 reference from Slate, a reputable magazine) and you remove them. What's your problem? Aurelstein (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I realized that my revert was incorrect - I thought it was the same ambiguous AMC citation from before. Not that it wasn't reverted again? And btw, the link to the pdf is redundant and not really necessary; you might want to consider self-reverting before it is removed. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) I removed the link to the pdf because when the show was actually broadcast they did not display a "Manhattan - 1960" title card. Either a decision to drop it was made after the script was written or that is not a real script. It looks real enough, but it is not clear that it comes from a source that can be relied on to have the real thing. (2) The idea that a second source is "redundant and not really necessary" is wrong. When a source is a webpage we never can know when a link will go dead, so having multiple sources for a single fact protects against the future possibility (which happens all the time) of a link going dead. As WP:CITEKILL says, "A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient, two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter." So provided that no more than 3 citations are given for the same fact, our official policy is that it is not excessive. 142.177.29.122 (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you on redundant citations, but practicality and readability would also suggest that we can make those additional citations hidden, so they don't clutter up the page.

Good call on the script removal, btw. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just made the second citation a hidden one. 142.177.29.122 (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible source for dates and other info

There might be some useful references here: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Archives.showArchive&art_type=28 Barnabypage (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you might have noticed that the link is to a blog. We don't consider references from such to be reliable., unless they are from production staff within AMC or the show itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it may well fall within the "some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control" proviso of WP:RS. Media Post is certainly a reliable news organisation, whose remit includes covering television programming, and I presume (although I admit I haven't checked) that this particular bit is written by one or more of its staff journalists. Barnabypage (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnaby, are you stating that you can verify that MediaPost qualifies as a RS, and that the various reviewers are professional journalists? I've never heard of some of these names, and they don't have relevant Google results offering bios and background and whatnot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of their bios can be found on LinkedIn if you belong. The editor-in-chief, Joe Mandese, is described there as being a former media editor of Advertising Age and reporter at Adweek. The publication's masthead is here http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.masthead - and here is a history of it http://www.mediapost.com/mediakit/index.cfm?ip=mediapost_story. The only problem that I can see is that the purported author of the Mad Men blog, "Dorothy Parker", appears to be a pseudonym. However, the publication as a whole is reliable, so I think that for the kind of exercise in dating that is being proposed it should be fine: it's not as if we're dealing with a hugely controversial and sensitive topic here. Barnabypage (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've made a convincing argument that MediaPost isn't some schlock operation. I guess there should't be any problems with using that as a reliable source. However, anything from "Dorothy Parker" the pseudonym cannot be used, as we have no idea if the opinion/review/evaluation being offered is notable. I could write a series of letters to the editor of the NYT; it doesn't make me notable.

Btw, thank you for doing the only thing that I have been asking others; you went and found sources, which was really my only contention here. I want any article I work on to make it to FA status; speculative synthesis queers that up, and allowing it simply wastes the effort I put into the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the following site for dates: http://www.madmenshow.com/page/Mad+Men+Timeline . Since it's a fan site, I'm not sure if it counts as a valid source. JLThorpe (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) Fan sites in general are not considered reliable sources and (2) this one, in particular is pretty bad. They fail to note that the first episode is in March, 1960. They then fail to note that in episode 2 Peggy comments on having just finished working at Sterling Cooper for one week. They then use the cover date for a magazine to pin a precise date on an episode, when there is no reason to suppose that the episode happens on the exact same date as the date on the Life magazine. (Why not a few days or a week later?). That's 0 for 3 on the first three. 142.177.24.94 (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio discussion

The back and forth should attend here to this section to suss out a solution, as the back and forth is not productive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I did a search for various parts of the deleted text. It has certainly bounced around the internet but it all seems to be derived from wikipedia, as for as I can tell. I did not see any of the text in question on the AMC site. Perhaps the anon can point to it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sylvain, I don't know what you checked, but the text is clear on the AMC page. For episode 201, go here - http://www.amctv.com//originals/madmen/episode201 - and then click on the "Cast and Credits" tab right beside the "Episode Recap" tab.

I'm not going to go through ever case, but here is a flavour. The summary for episode 201 that I removed and Ativaneye tried to restore read: "On Valentine’s Day 1962, Don and Duck find themselves at odds over an account. Betty reconnects with an old roommate who has turned to prostitution, and once again finds herself struggling with car trouble." The AMC summary reads, in part: "It's Valentine's Day.... Don and Duck find themselves at odds over an account. Betty reconnects with an old friend and once again finds herself struggling with car trouble." The text that 128.138.64.59 added and I removed to summarize episode 205 read: "Joan finds Don the perfect secretary, and Don finds himself in the middle of issues between TV comedian Jimmy and his wife, Bobbie." The official AMC summary of the episode reads: "Don once again finds himself having to deal with issues between TV comedian Jimmy and his wife, Bobbie. Joan finally finds Don the perfect secretary."

Copyright violation is a serious issue. It's not just a disagreement between editors of what should or should not be in an article or how to present some material. It is a legal issue, and (as with the rules regarding BLP) it is crucial that Wikipedia articles not commit such violations. You also cannot just change the order of the sentences or substitute one adjective for a similar one to avoid it being plagiarism. That's the mistake that countless high school and college students make only to find out from their teacher/prof that, yes, that is still plagiarism. What these episodes need are summaries written by someone who has just seen the episode and is not trying to massage AMC's text so it just does not look like it is copied. I did this for most of season 1 over the last couple of weeks or so as I re-watched the episodes. Those summaries, before I replaced them, were just as much plagiarized from AMC's site, so it is not surprising that the Season 2 summaries have the same problem.

I should also mention that I believe that most of the Season 3 summaries are also taken from AMC copy that is no longer online. Phrases like "the two men embrace the anonymity of their new surroundings" sound more like AMC copy than what a viewer / Wikipedia editor would write. But the short summaries for season 3 are no longer online on the AMC page, so there is nothing to compare against. As such, I have reluctantly left them as is.142.177.31.4 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked under the "Episode Recap" tab, under the assumption that the episode recap would be there rather than under the "Cast & Credits" tab. Apparently my assumption was mistaken. I see what you are talking about. Clearly a copyright vio, yes.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Good catch, anon142. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sylvain1972's recent re-addition of summaries is still a copyright violation. Much of the text is just what was removed before and many individual (and somewhat idiosyncratic) phrases can be found in the AMC summaries. Also, the selection of what items to summarize are not based on what was most significant in the episode, but on what AMC chose to summarize. As I wrote before, you cannot simply try to massage the text a bit to turn plagiarism into non-plagiarism. What you need to do is watch the episodes and write a summary without looking at what AMC wrote (or some variant of it) and cribbing.99.192.61.47 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: JLThorpe's new additions to the summaries are clearly original. That's how others who want to add summaries need to do it. Good work, JL.99.192.61.47 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. There was one sentence that I missed, but otherwise I substantially revised every single sentence. The result is most certainly not a copyright vio, which is the issue at hand. Whether or not it is plagiarism is a different matter. At most the revised summaries warranted citations, which are helpful in any case. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that JL has provided non-copyrighted summaries, the issue is settled, but, Sylvain, I don't think you know what the word "plagiarized" means. If you copy text (either directly or indirectly) from a copyrighted source and present it as your own, that is both a copyright violation and plagiarism. If you copy text (either directly or indirectly) from a copyrighted source and attribute it to the source, but do not have permission to copy the text, then it is a copyright violation but not plagiarism. If you copy text (either directly or indirectly) from a non-copyrighted source and present it as your own, that is plagiarism but not a copyright violation. And finally, if you copy text (either directly or indirectly) from a non-copyrighted source and attribute it to the source, then it is neither a copyright violation nor plagiarism. The text that was under discussion here fit the first scenario. I used the term "plaigarism" just because it was simpler. No one is talking about term papers here, as you suggest, but we have been talking about plagiarism.99.192.61.47 (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course I know what the word plagiarized means, so there is no need for insulting suggestions to the contrary. I reviewed the wikipedia guidelines on plagiarism carefully, for that matter. With citations, which could easily have been added, paraphrased text is neither a copyright vio nor plagiarism, per the guidelines. There was no need to delete what I added, I would readily have provided citations as I indicated. My revised revisions, with the exception of one sentence which slipped through, most definitely were not a case of the first scenario. The language was changed considerably, obviating the copyright vio. Citations would have obviated the plagiarism issue.Sylvain1972 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)