Jump to content

Talk:The Sound of Drums

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anyone else hear that?

[edit]

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

What is your reliable source to make absolutely sure that it's certainly not an accident? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary, as it's common knowledge. Common enough, in fact, that another astute editor already placed it in the article. I simply overlooked it. Mael-Num (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is necessary; as it is, a reliable source was found. Had there not been one, I would have had to remove the information. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and clearly the cited "reliable source" used the same method that I, and likely the original author of that portion of the article, did to determine that fact: we listened and recalled the theme song. It's...troubling that you would require someone to jump through hoops to find a citation for something as obvious as that. Mael-Num (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between "original research" and "clearly perceivable". This is a case of the latter. TreasuryTag, I wonder if you would question a description of Tom Baker's Doctor as "curly-haired" in absence of a "reliable source?" --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you would have told me just yesterday that a reference to the Most Holy of Doctors would cause a partisan Doctor Who fan to see the light and concede an argument, I would have laughed. Actually, it's still pretty funny today. Mael-Num (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russell T. Davis has actually denied that there was any intention to have the sound of drums echo the theme tune - it *is* an accident. It was inspired by the sound of his alarm clock, according to an interview in DWM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.148.152 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is intriguing to note that the drum signature, " · · · − "ⓘ , Morse code V was "V for victory" call-sign for BBC Europe during WWII, from 1941. I wonder if, in that DWM interview ("inspired by the sound of his alarm clock"), Russell T. Davis was making a little joke about a wake-up call? Although that could well be stretching a point, since Davies was not born until '63. In any case, when asked, he probably wouldn't have mentioned the War. One is one and one is one (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President-elect: summary

[edit]

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

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

Position #1: Timeframe evident from definition.

[edit]

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

Yes. Arguments in support of this position:

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

No. Arguments in opposition of this position:

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

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

[edit]

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

Yes. Arguments in support of this position:

A US president would never refer to himself as "President Elect" after being sworn in. That term may have other meaning elsewhere, but in the US it would mean "Someone else is still president and I have no political power yet." He could have said "Elected president" to convey the intended meaning. If he was actually president elect, he would never be in that position, the actual president would be. Algr (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tendency in many articles concerned with works of fiction to assume that the fictional world makes sense. In reality, a work of fiction may contain clues designed to impart information to the reader without spelling everything out, but it may equally well contain a series of errors, inconsistencies, sloppy plotting or mistakes caused by a lack of research by the writer. Serial television is prone to all these things, even serials that are wonderfully entertaining. We can't do any more than guess whether the use of the phrase "President Elect" tells us something about the date in which the story is set or was simply a mistake. Plenty of things in even the best fiction don't quite make sense when you analyse them closely, and although trying to fit the pieces together can be a lot of fun on fan blogs and message boards, it's probably a bad idea to try to do it here. Hobson (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Arguments in opposition of this position:

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

[edit]

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

Yes. Arguments in support of this position:

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

No. Arguments in opposition of this position:

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

Position #4: Info not relevant

[edit]

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

Yes. Arguments in support of this position:

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

No. Arguments in opposition of this position:

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

Wikipedia policies & philosophies at play

[edit]
  • How do we reconcile references to real-world persons, places, things, and concepts when referred to from within a fictional universe which, except where noted otherwise, appears to be like our world? Do we assume that ideas mentioned without explanation are defined the same as they are in the real world? If not, should we require a verifiable source from within that fictional universe that defines the term in order to include it in article?
Examples:
  • Milk: If a character states "i drank a glass of milk," are we to assume that "drank" and "milk" are defined the same way as we define them in the real world, or should we wonder if perhaps it is toxic to humans, and fear for the character's life? Should we question whether "drank" might mean something more like "stepped on"? Should we require a source that fully defines these terms?
  • Mirrors: If a character speaks of "looking into a mirror" should we assume that a mirror is the same object, and has the same reflective qualities in the fictional universe as it does in the real world? Or should we avoid any references to reflections, or of whether the character saw themselves in it, because we don't know?Should we require a source that fully defines a mirror as different to those of our own world?
  • New Year's Day: If fictional events were established in a story as taking place in December 1974, and in the course of events a party took place with people screaming "Happy New Year" at the stroke of midnight, with one character saying "Hey, now it's officially "New Year's Day," followed by another set of events. Should we question whether the definition of "New Year's Day" is different somehow, and wonder if perhaps, in the fictional universe, it falls on February 1, or in the month of Troon, instead of being January 1? Should we require a source that fully defines the date of the holiday in this fictional world?
  • Does "Original Research" as defined in Wikipedia policy include information garnered from logic from within the information presented, without the need for gathering additional sources or arguments?
Examples:
  • Milk: Following the above example, is it "original research" to state in an article that the character's milk consumption involved his/her mouth? Or is this simply logic?
  • Mirrors: Following the above example, is it "original research" to mention a "reflection"? Or is this simply logic?
  • New Year's Day: Following the above example, would it be "original research" to state that the second set of events took place in January 1975? Or is it simply logic?
--Shubopshadangalang (talk)
  • Extrapolating details from dialogue when terms are clearly-defined, common within fiction
  • It is a common fictional device to present story details in such a manner without explicitly stating them. For example, in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War," early on, it is established that the character is divorced through his statement "and I'm paying alimony." Unless the character is lying or mistaken, it can be drawn through course of logic that he has been previously married, and is paying alimony to his ex-wife through a divorce settlement. Why? Because that's what "alimony" means by definition. Likewise, it is not "original research" to simply extract the meaning of a word to include details that are tied to that definition. In contrast, it would be "original research" to extract from this detail alone that his ex-wife married him only for his money - that is not evident in this information. I'm not sure this is the best example, but I think the difference here is crystal clear, and hopefully I've explained my perspective enough so others see what I'm getting at. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I think this is a fascinating case study for how we make edits in relation an encyclopedic article about a series of fictional stories. I'm much less interested in the end result here than I am in the process itself, and the policies & philosophies surrounding it. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest a more appropriate venue, if one exists. At the moment, the core of the arguments are still relevant to this article. Regardless, you are free to not read this discussion page at any time you wish :) —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point, I can't be bothered to find the correct section in the form above... Winters refers to himself as "President-elect", but the world media refer to him as the President. Now, one of them must be wrong (unless, quite plausibly, Winters made the elected mistake). Either the US President doesn't understand his own job title, or the political correspondents to major news channels don't know who the US President is. Both scenarios are very impluasible, I'm sure you'll agree. If we assume that Winters didn't make the speech-slip, then one of those implausible scenarios must be true - they're both equally implausible, so choosing one of them is original research. How's that? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you're saying falls under Position #2. But feel free to add a new position if you feel that is vastly different than #2. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the writer of this episode was a Brit who didn't know what "President-elect" means. 99.226.239.5 (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. There are other points throughout RTD's episodes where he either gets the terms muddled or seems to assume a rather American approach to politics. Everything from the use of "Great Britain" instead of "the United Kingdom" for the state, to Cardiff seemingly having an executive Mayor who has only had a few months at most to go into local politics and get that to that post (in most British cities the Mayor is a presiding officer who doubles as the ceremonial "first citizen" of a city/borough and usually such a Mayor is a long serving councillor; Cardiff is not one of the few that has instead introduced a directly elected council leader with the title "Mayor") to even having news presenters using "THE CITY OF LONDON" as though it means the whole capital when the term has a very specific limited meaning.
Or if you want a simple fictional explanation, the President is a satire on George W. Bush and has muddled his words when he's meant to say "elected President". At big moments nervous people get the wording muddled all the time - everything from wedding vows to Presidential oathes of office. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also the issue with Saxon being "elected" Prime Minster. You can't get elected Prime Minister. You need to get at least 350 of your supporters elected, who then chose you to be Prime Minister. "Vote Saxon" election posters would only appear in one single constituency where Saxon himself was standing for election for one of the 650 seats in Parliament.

My thoughts

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

Cruciform vs Crucible

[edit]

This article mentions that the 'Cruciform' is a ship that is later seen at the end of series 4. However during those series 4 episodes (and in the related articles) the Ship was referred to as the 'Crucible.' Did I miss some conection between these 2 C's, or is this information wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.11 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This information is probably wrong. Coincidentally, I made the same mistake when I first saw those episodes till I came here to read this article. Darn, those things sound alike. DonQuixote (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point at which "Dalek Emperor took control of the Cruciform" was apparently a turning point in the battle, so much so that it cause the Master to lose all hope and flee. It would be speculation to include this in the article, but to me, this clearly tells us that "The Cruciform" is something valuable or powerful either on Gallifrey or of Time Lord origin, and the Daleks' control of it either caused a severe balance of power in the war, or signaled an end point to the war in which "the Cruciform" was the last front. The Crucible as seen in the series 4 finale is clearly a Dalek ship, and doesn't seem to be cross-shaped, but actually resembles a "crucible" with its energy core, which is powerful enough to destroy the Tardis once its inside. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 02:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Sound of Drums. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Sound_of_Drums&oldid=1209916849"