Jump to content

Talk:The Real World: London

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

NPOV and original research


This article has been tagged for both non-NPOV and OR. The sections on each cast member, in particular, are heavy on descriptive terms that are unsourced, and show a definite POV. I will try and work on it, but it will need a massive rewrite. Ckessler 04:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous. You've completely wrecked the article. All the wikipedia article for the RW seasons contain POV by their very nature. What was achieved by hacking the article to pieces and replacing it with what you personally find acceptable? You haven't even bothered to explain what you find objectionable in your discussion entry above. And the formatting is totally screwed up as well.
All articles for any artistic necessarily contain some POV (look up any article on a film, for instance). It is impossible to describe characters without some kind of POV. The version you have created here represents a totaly bland, pointless article that is of no use to anyone. Nobody has complained in the several months that the article has been in its current form.
Please revert the article back to its original form - and, if you wish, list your grievances here first. I will be happy to challenge you on a point-by-point basis on just anything you claim is POV.
I'm leaving the articles in its current condition for the moment, but please do this in the next 24hrs or I will revert the article myself.
And please, avoid treating Wikipedia as your own personal arena where articles that you don't like the look of can be taken apart at your own whim. Try to remember that a lot of work often goes in to them, and that you should treat this with some respect by properly engaging with the original authors on these discussion pages if you have a problem. --Labcoat 12:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Labcoat, I suggest you read WP:NPOV and WP:No original research. Articles around here need to adhere to certain guidelines, and NPOV and original research are two of the big ones. All information must have a source, and cannot be information that you've come up with yourself.
I will fix the formatting, because that was done in error, but I will not revert the article to it's previous state. The article does not belong to me (or anyone), and you are free to add to it, as long as what you add follows the rules. Ckessler 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 'advice'. In terms of POV, may I suggest that you read the main RW article and any one of the RW series articles.
You make the condescending remark that the articles do not belong to any individual, but actually totally contradict this yourself by behaving as though you have taken some kind of guardianship of it. As I said originally, you have not bothered to detail what aspects of the article you have a problem with, but simply hacked away at large sections of it according to what you personally interpret as appropriate or otherwise. This therefore amounts to vanadalism and is completely unacceptable. I note from your personal discussion pages that you have a long history of similar problems with other Wikipedia articles / contributors, and I'm afraid that this is not something I will be adding to by engaging in a battle with you.
I will leave the article in its current condition for the moment, and I invite others to contribute to this discussion. If nothing substantial is forthcoming, I do feel that it will be reasonable for me to revert the article to its original form in the near future. --Labcoat 09:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, not vandalism: WP:Be bold. As for my talk page, yes, there are two pages in particular that I have had conficts over, but those conflicts were resolved amicably. Also, just because the other Real World articles contain POV and original research, doesn't mean they should stay that way. Eventually, someone will work on them.
I see from the edit summary that you have put a great deal of work into this page. I appreciate that you might not want to see major changes made to it. Unfortunately, all "facts" must meet the standards of NPOV, and be sourced. Ckessler 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. We appear to be going round in circles with this.
Please, don't try to imply a higher position of authority for yourself through repeated patronising references to Wikipedia standards and the nature of my contributions to this article.
Yes, I absolutely have helped to shape the current version of the article. However, at no point have I suggested 'ownership' of it and it is frankly absurd for you to imply otherwise. I am very well acquainted with the London series, which is why I took the time to contribute to the article in the first place. I would be absolutely delighted for others to 'be bold' in their edits / contributions. However, as I've already explained to you, 'being bold' simply isn't what you've done here.
The RW series provide one narrative (out of potentially millions of alternatives) for a given series of events. Therefore, they have very little in common with 'reality' and far more in common with fictional depictions. My contribtions to this article have never attempted to pass anything off as fact. They are merely a representation of what the series was about - and, as few others have contributed to this article over the course of it's history, I feel that is as valid as any other. There was very little that could be interpreted as controversial in the original version. Indeed if your idea of being bold is to remove anything you feel is not provable fact, why haven't you deleted 95% of this article, and so many others? Your edits are simply based on your own prejudices and are therefore completely arbritary.Labcoat 13:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not going to continue to argue this with you, but yes, I have prejudices. I have prejudices against NPOV and original research. Please call in someone else to look at this. Ckessler 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly encouraged you to justify or at least explain why you found those aspects of the article you deleted as inappropriate. And, by contrast, you've made a point of refusing to cite even a single example. Rather, you've decided to frustrate things by just blindly and repeatedly referencing the titles of Wikipedia standards. This is a totally ineffective, unhelpful and quite provocative way to work through differences. I really do hope that you will carry forward some lesson from this when editing other articles. Labcoat 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it will make you happy:
  • "She tearfully admits during this vacation that she has problems when it comes to love and letting men in to her life, which stems from childhood problems - an admission that humbles and shames many of her housemates"
  • "(particularly about trivial matters), sensitivity and generally 'air-headed' and rather unassuming personality. "
  • "Although both Mike and Lars also enjoy ridiculing Sharon, this tends to be light-hearted and they also defend her wherever possible."
  • "Sharon cites Jacinda's poor treatment of the magazine as a metaphor for the wider lack of regard she appears to experience from particular housemates."
  • "Internet-based discussions which focus around analysing the different 'types' of Real World cast members have suggested that the production company's apparent desire or intention to cast Neil as the new Puck character (see San Francisco season), i.e as an obnoxious trouble-maker, appears to have failed quite spectacularly in this instance."
  • "Rather, Neil showed himself to be a thoughtful, quietly-spoken and surprisingly considerate person who got on equally well with the other cast members, despite his continued frustrations with their general inarticulacy and reluctance to engage in any worthwhile, intelligent conversation and debate - as he saw it."
  • "The season also focuses on Mike's numerous casual (and, at times, unintentionally comical) relationships with girls and his considerable boredom and frustration at not having much to do for most of his time in London."
  • "Lars and Jacinda also clashed when she adopted a very casual and indifferent manner towards repaying a loan for the phone bill."
  • "In the time since the show, Lars has said that he felt that "(Jacinda) was acting the whole time". "
  • "Additionally, despite claiming to be outraged by the thought of revealing her body during a photo shoot, this is not something that appears to have been of concern to her in the films that she has been involved in since the show."
  • "Kat is seen to be by far the quietest and least interesting of the characters in the season."
  • "Mike's other contact with girls, including Mia (an old friend from Germany) and Hannah (a friend of Sharon's) also end up with them being embarrassed in front of the cameras by his open indifference."
  • "Josh, whom she meets at college (with whom she also briefly contemplates romantic interest) is shown making a series of very self-absorbed and embarrassing remarks."
  • "He is consistently shown to be immature and possessive towards Jacinda, who later confesses to The Confessional that she does not love him as much as he does her." Ckessler 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would make me happy if, as I keep on asking you, you would actually take the trouble to justify why you personally find particular aspects of the article inappropriate. I'm sorry, but simply copy/pasting and randomly emboldening the list of things you deleted as part of your personal edit is unhelpful to the point of being meaningless.
The majority of things you deleted actually happened during the course of the programme and formed the key themes of particular episodes or of individual characters. Yes - Jacinda's boyfriend is repeatedly depicted as immature. Yes - the depiction of Mike's relationships with girls is absolutely characterised by his indifference. And yes, Kat is seen to be by far the quietest housemate. The supporting evidence for these descriptions exists in the series itself. How else can you prove or support their accuracy? This is not my own original research or scientific theory - indeed the main focus of the 'no original research' rule is, for the very reasons I've been trying to articulate, on science-related articles rather than those for the arts.
Therefore, as things stand, with the possible exceptions of the sentences re Lars' post series comment about Jacinda and the reference to internet discussions re Puck/Neil similarities, I am simply none the clearer about why you took issue with those particular areas of the article (and not others).
I have found this series of exchanges between us to be profoundly frustrating. From my perspective, your contributions suggest that your motivation, rather than being to improve the quality of this article, is to stubbornly stick by your original point come what may. My suspicion is that you have stumbled across this article fairly randomly - and that your limited knowledge of the subject matter explains both your reticence towards properly explaining your choice of edits, and also your failure to add anything new.
Whilst I would sincerely not wish to discourage you from engaging with other Wikipedia articles, I do find myself worrying about how many others you have had similar clashes with. Best wishes. Labcoat 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find your argument incredibly frustrating. You are absolutely refusing to look at this article from any kind of neutral position. I don't need to clarify each piece that I've copied from the article, they speak for themselves.
You have no sources for your characterizations. Who says that Kat is the quietest housemate? Where is your source for this, and is it a reputable source? Who says Jacinda's boyfriend is immature? You? Neil Forrester? The New York Times? Reputable sources must be used; your opinion, or the opinion of your hairdresser, or your sister's daughter's best friend don't count. Can you quote someone in the show themselves saying what you've added to the article? Or is this your interpretation of events? I understand that the standard of original research is somewhat different in non-scientific articles, but it still exists.
When I suggested that you look at WP:No original research, WP:NPOV (and WP:Reliable Sources) I did so because they state what I am getting at more clearly than I could have. I watched the show, and I frankly have no opinion either way about Jacinda's boyfriend, or Mike's dating approach. I am trying my best to make my point clear to you, but you seem to be missing it.
It is entirely possible that there is some neutral point in the middle, and I am willing to work towards that. A third opinion might be helpful. Ckessler 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read back over this you'll see quite clearly that I've been falling over myself to try and elicit your 'position' - and it's something you've resolutely refused to do.

You make a point of implying that the characterisations are formed out of my own opinion. They're not. I, like you, have absoltely no opinion about Mike's dating approach or Jacinda's boyfriend. The source is the series itself and I included these characterisations since in my "opinion" they formed such a prominent theme during the series. If you or anyone else disagrees with any of them, then my only request is that you take the time to offer a little explanation why - and that way we could have avoided all this by working towards a series of compromises. I'm sorry, but your claim that your wholesale edits of this article "speak for themselves" is, at best, completely unhelpful and, at worst, ridiculously arrogant.

The idea that all 'descriptions' for this type of article need to be somehow directly sourced is absurd. It would prohibit the description of characters from any film, novel or stage production. Surely you can understand that? Labcoat 06:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wandered over here from the WP:3O page. The first thing you two need to do is calm down. You both appear to be working hard and making good faith attempts at trying to improve the article (and being bold is part of that), so you should acknowledge that. The main difference here seems to be a dispute over what constitutes original research and the WP:NPOV policy. These disputes appear to be linked. The main issue (to my understanding) is when and how to include interpretations of basic events or characters on the show. As editors here, we can never include our own opinions/interpretations of the subject, per the policies against original research and also because such interpretation can frequently violate WP:NPOV.
However, this does not mean that the articles cannot contain interpretation or opinions. Conveniently, WP reports what people say. The opinions of other people make the articles much more interesting. Turning to the article at hand, it would appear from the list of deleted material above that much of the material is acceptable, but that much needs to be changed to attribute the interpretation to other people. For example,

"Sharon cites Jacinda's poor treatment of the magazine as a metaphor for the wider lack of regard she appears to experience from particular housemates."

is acceptable because we are merely reporting Sharon's interpretation of Jacinda, not asserting it ourselves. However,

"The season also focuses on Mike's numerous casual (and, at times, unintentionally comical) relationships with girls and his considerable boredom and frustration at not having much to do for most of his time in London."

needs to have the interpretation of Mike's relationships attributed. Who finds them casual and unintentionally comical?
I hope this has been helpful and I will stick around if you would like me to. JChap T/E 19:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there.

Thanks for the intervention. I hope it's been apparent that my only wish is for a good article. As part of that, I feel it is essential that we identify and scrutinise seemingly arbritary edits. Your exemplification is a helpful reminder, and I will try to follow it. I also hope that the above exchanges serve as an example of how totally unhelpful and provocative unsupported editing can be. Labcoat 10:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for showing up a bit late to this discussion. I've gone over the article, and removed non-NPOV, unsourced passages. As someone who did a great deal of overhaul to the main Real World article and most of the individual seasons' articles, including creating large portions of the format used as the template for them, I disagree with the notion that such articles contain POV "by their nature". The only POV they contain those that are stated by the subjects of the article. Ditto for articles on films, which merely cite the opinions of critics, not the authors of the article. Any article that that contains opinions of the author violate WP policy, and should be removed. It is also untrue to say that it is "impossible" to describe the actors without some sort of POV. Kat can described as what she was (an American, a fencer, a female), and by what she said or did (he reaction to Mike talking about her alleged flirtation with Neil). But describing an castmate's emotions, as when some were described as "humbled" or "shamed", is only acceptable if the cast member stated that feeling. Paul was not "depicted" as immature. Rather, you, Labcoat, perceived him as such. Other viewers might not have. I for example, did not see him as immature. These things might be evident to you, but they are not evident as a question of empirical fact. Kat being the quietest is not a fact, nor is Mike being indifferent or casual. Thus, these things did not "actual happen".
I also don't buy the argument that no one said anything within the past several months, since inappropriate material in articles is naturally not necessarily found immediately after it's inserted. An editor can only make a correction when he or she finds it. None of this makes the article "bland" or "pointless". It simply brings it into line with WP policy. Nightscream 04:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for saying it in a clearer manner than I could manage. Ckessler 04:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (to both of you).
Nightscream, thanks for your contribution to this. I have read, and then re-read, your comments above and taken on board your perspective on things. Whilst I agree with much of what you say, I'm afraid I do feel that the essence of my point remains unchallenged. Sorry. At the time of the original exchanges between myself and ckessler, I eventually gave up (with the result that a large chunk of the orginal article was lost, as per ckessler's wishes) since, as you can see, we were simply going around in circles. The fact is that the London series article (even in its current version), and indeed all the other series' articles, remains absolutely littered with what could be considered adjectives and POV. Whilst I do accept that it may be questionable to, for example, describe Kat as the least interesting cast member (even though I'm very confident that over 90% of those who followed the series would concur with the designation), I do feel that in the overall context of the article content, ckessler's edits amounted to an arbritary series of edits which were in themselves based on his/her own personal POV. Entire sentences and aspects of the article were simply deleted outright, with no attempt to re-word or replace them with a more 'acceptable' version - or even the slightest attempt to justify why such changes were made on this page (which frustrated me above all else). I found the arrogance of this very provocative and, as it turned out, it was an arrogance and stubborness which was closely mirrored in the responses I received from ckessler as part of our discussion above. I really couldn't care less about whether Paul was, or wasn't, immature. I just felt that it was a point that the producers made abundantly clear in the episodes which included him. I'm sorry, but if your argument is that anything which could be interpreted as subjective interpretation, and which is not justifiable emperical fact, should be struck out, without any discussion or debate - my simple response is that that would (or should) mean that the bulk of all the RW articles should also be deleted. Labcoat 07:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered the character descriptions. As they stood- they were half bio on the actual person and half character description. I think the two should be separate. These are characters based on biographical information provided by the people involved. In the context of the Real World London, we can discuss them, but we have no way to verify that the information presented by MTV is biographically true to the actual individuals. BlindmansBluff 18:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It does not matter if you "just feel" that a point is made clear by the producers or if over 909% of other viewers would agree with you (something you have not substantiated anyway). The only things that go into Wikipedia articles are that which can be supported by sources, and that includes reliably-sourced opinions. Citing Roger Ebert or Armond White's opinion of a movie is fine. A WP editor citing their own opinion, or the opinion of an uncredentialed non-notable person on their blog, or what such people "feel" is not. Analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source require a secondary source per by WP:PSTS. That Kat is American is a fact. That Paul is immature is not. If there are any such claims without secondary sources "littering" any article, then it needs to be removed.

As far as Ckessler is concerned, he was entirely correct in the material he removed material that violated WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Diving in and fixing an article as he did is part of WP:BEBOLD, and does not amount to "ownership" of articles, or "guardianship", much less "vandalism", as you claim. You complained repeatedly about his not detailing what aspects of the article he objected to, but aren't those aspects visible in the diffs that show his edits? Didn't he detail them further above on this talk page after you complained? Granted, he could've listed the passages in question after you complained the first time, and perhaps he should have, but ultimately, he did so. When he finally did list the passages in question, you complained that these descriptions "actually happened". As opposed to what? As opposed to things that did not happen? Is that what you think WP:NPOV and WP:NOR refer to? It isn't. That Paul is depicted is immature, Kat the quietest, Neil thoughtful or Mike's relationships unintentionally comical are unattributed opinions. They do not belong in the article, regardless of how much "evidence" you think you have for them, because the claim itself is still a personal viewpoint, and not a fact. Thus, it cannot be presented as such.

In addition to this, you falsely accused Ckessler of vandalism (which is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, which is clearly not what he did), made ad hominem allusions to other editorial conflicts in which he was involved that have no bearing on this (as many editors who edit a lot are involved in frequent conflicts, myself included), and mischaracterized his completely correct citation of Wikipedia policies as "imply[ing] a higher position of authority" and "patronising references to Wikipedia standards", thus violating WP:CIV and WP:AGF. It's unfortunate to see that you have such a low regard for this site's policies that you see the proper adherence to them and citation of them to be "patronizing". But whether you like it or not, we are required to follow them. I'll assume that since you wrote the above, you've come to see this. Nightscream (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]