Talk:Manhood (Law & Order)

"Manhood" = "Samaritan"

Please stop removing the factual and verifiable information about the relationship between these two episodes. The primary source, the credits for "Samaritan", state the relationship and per WP:PSTS the credits can be used to make the straightforward statement. It does not matter whether you or any other editor has viewed "Samaritan". I have not seen or read the vast majority of material cited as sources on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean I can go around removing everything just because I haven't happened to have read the book or watched the movie it's sourced to. If you find the factual, verifiable statement that the one episode served as the basis for the other problematic, I'm sure you can find some way to access the UK episode online to verify it for yourself. Whether you choose to do that or not, quit removing the material. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a read of WP:OR, and I quote: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And the credits for "Samaritan" serve as a reliable published source for its own contents per WP:PSTS, which is a section of WP:OR. I see on your talk page as I was requesting that you stop edit warring that at least one other editor has pointed this out to you and on 19 April 2011 you acknowledge that on-screen credits are suitable for sourcing this information so why you're continuing to dispute this is confounding. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Reguardless where you saw that, You ca't just say "Oh, I'm going to add this, because another editor said this..." Now barring that out, I asked for a consensu for this...Why can't I see one? -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Because a consensus is not required to add information that is projected on a screen that anyone with a television or Internet access can easily locate, any more than a consensus is required to type "Here's lookin' at you, kid" in an article about Casablanca or for "Call me Ishmael" to be typed into an article on Moby-Dick. PSTS, which is a part of OR, specifically allows for primary sources to be used in this fashion and whether you personally have happened to see the source in question or not is irrelevant. Just as the credits for an episode may be used as a source for the people who appeared in the episode or the person who wrote or directed it, so may the credits be used to include the uninterpreted fact that one TV episode is a remake or based on another. I am not saying "Oh, I'm going to add this, because another editor said this..." I am saying "I am going to retain this because the relevant Wikipedia policy says that it's valid." 76.201.156.158 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering the circumstances, that you have just provided...This just can work out without consensus. But before I leave...is there any way you can provide a source to back that up? Because I can assure you I won't be the only one to say "Hey, where's the source to back that up?" -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 15:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

MelbourneStar1 was right in removing the original research claim which isn't backed-up, we cite reliable sources (RS) for a very good reason, you (Anon editor) claiming that you seen it on the credits isn't reliable and in fact anyone can make such claim. If it is fact, then I'm sure there RS online. Bidgee (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is idiotic. It is stated on-screen in the credits. I can use the credits to cite it just as I can use the credits to cite the episode's name or its copyright date. I don't need to find some other source to prove that what appeared on the screen appeared on the screen. I can cite it to the credits just exactly as I can cite the contents of a book to the book without needing to find another source that says that the book says what it says and I can cite it to the book whether you've ever read the book or not. I could cite the episode's relationship to each other using a printed newspaper that you will never see; it's no more provable that I saw it in the paper than I saw it in the episode. See how stupid this is?

PSTS absolutely allows the sourcing to primary sources of uninterpreted facts that any educated person without specialist knowledge with access to the source can verify. Anyone with the ability to read can watch the episodes and read the credits. PSTS satisfied, OR adhered to, and the angels sing. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, unless it says "Bidgee" on your birth certificate, you're an "Anon editor" too. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, FYI IP editors are classed as Anon editors, while I may not be using my real name, I'm not an Anon. I disagree, I'm sure there would be something printed in a magazine, newspaper or even an entertainment news website which is far better then a "primary source". Bidgee (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm assuming all kinds of good faith, sweetie. I have no doubt that your actions are with the best of intentions, every bit as good as those paving the road to Hell. And it makes no difference whether one source or another is "better" as long as the cited source itself verifies the information cited to it in a manner that comports with policy. Which the credits of the episode do for purposes of establishing the relationship between the two episodes. 76.201.156.158 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not assuming good-faith. Talking to and editor as if they are child "I'm assuming all kinds of good faith, sweetie", and insulting them by saying innapropriate things such as, "I have no doubt that your actions are with the best of intentions, every bit as good as those paving the road to Hell", Is definately not acceptable, and will not be tolerated here. I asked for consensus, you have not provided it. Both Bidgee, and I have now asked for a reliable source, and that has not yet been achieved. Unless there is a reliable straight-forward source that everyone can see, to back the statement up, the statement is out. Not everyone watches the UK show, so they're not going to know that it is reliable. I live in Australia, L&O:UK, does not air here...prime example. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The last I heard, "it doesn't air on Australian TV" does not stand as an exception to WP:PSTS. A source doesn't become unreliable just because you haven't happened to look at it. It's not my responsibility to spoon feed you sources beyond the episode credits and the inability of one particular editor to view a particular source has no bearing on the reliability of the source. There is no requirement that every source be accessible to every editor for that source to be usable and reliable. The statement is out because you haven't seen the episode? What arrogance! 76.201.158.76 (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Look to make things a little more simple to understand, without a reliable internet source at the end of that sentence, It will be removed. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which part of "the credits serve as their own source per WP:PSTS" is confusing to you, but the credits serve as their own source per WP:PSTS. There is no requirement that a source be on the Internet or be available to any particular editor for it to be valid and reliable. 76.201.158.76 (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Still not a valid reason. But I would like to know your excuse to why no consensus has been provided, although I have asked for it numerous amount's of times. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

L&O: UK credits

On hir talk page MelbourneStar has an exchange of messages in which s/he accepts that the credits for episodes of L&O: UK serve as sufficient sources to establish the relationship between the original L&O episodes and their UK remakes. There is no rational reason why those same credits do not serve as sufficient sourcing for the same information in this article. MelbourneStar specifically and unequivocally states that no additional citation is needed when the credits of the UK episode state that the episode is based on a US episode. Demanding additional sourcing on this article when s/he has already acknowledged that it is not necessary is irrational. Please stop reverting the information in support of irrationality. 76.204.89.112 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

MelbourneStar has now stated on hir talk page that s/he is making this change in an attempt to prove a point about this article and similar articles. 76.204.89.112 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah no, I'm clearly just saying once this is past, I'll move back onto the bigger article, which is L&O UK. Just because I say 'I agree', does not mean 'I agree'. What I still find so hilarious, is that you'd rather violate 3RR and Personal Attack another User, then going ahead with Consensus or providing a reliable source. You've done neither, and to make things better, I'll promise you that I won't leave until either is reached.

• "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." - Wikipedia:Verifiability
• "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." - WP:OR
• "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."' - WP:OR
• "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources" - WP:OR (I may have accepted the credits on the L&O UK article, before I took a read of this.) -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 10:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:PSTS, which is part of WP:OR: "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." Any educated person with the ability to read English who has access to the episode "Samaritan" can read the credits that state the relationship between that episode and this one.
• The relationship between the two episodes is sourced to a reliable published source, the credits for the episode "Samaritan".
• The relationship between the two episodes is not "original thought" and this is established by the credits for the episode "Samaritan".
• This article is based on reliable, published secondary sources in the form of three books.
• This constant editing to attempt to enforce your will, in defiance of clearly established policy, is disruptive. Your vow to continue disrupting the project is disturbing. Your willingness to lie in furtherance of your petty agenda is reprehensible. Your claims of victimhood are laughable. 76.204.89.112 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You've said enough, I don't need to listen to your personal attacks. Right now it's time for me to go to sleep, but I promise you I'll be back, this time on the Administrators Notice Board. No one right or wrong deserves verbal abuse, I take offence to that. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Fully protected

This is a content dispute, and so semi-protection would be inappropriate. The page has been fully-protected for two-weeks. If you feel that the wrong version of the page has been protected, you can request {{Edit protected}}, but I would strongly recommend discussion on the talk page and WP:Dispute resolution such as content WP:RFC — and posting to WP:RSN. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

Because of the ongoing dispute notice has been left here to confirm the consensus that on-screen credits serve as reliable sources for the episode. 76.204.97.251 (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)