Talk:The White Queen (TV series)

Summaries

The summaries are copypaste. There was a big argument over at Merlin TV series, series 4 which were mostly copypaste.REVUpminster (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As well as far too large! I will see what I can do later this week. However if anyone else wants to have a stab before then go for it. I will leave them there for the meantime - so there is a nice base on where to start. I have removed future episode summaries in line with Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the summaries for the first two episodes as well. They were also copied. Citing a reference doesn't excuse it. Ryan8374 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start individual articles if it's really that important. Also, there are individual descriptions of each character if needed. -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content

An editor seems to feel that all positive material on this drama series should be removed completely. At least this editor is no longer blatantly falsifying sources, as in the case of the review whih praised the show for not indulging in a "feminist fantasy" of female power contrary to the realities of medieval life, which was misrepresented as criticism for somehow denigrating women by showing them as powerless. Instead the tactic now seems to be to simply cut out as much as possible, removing information that is useful for the reader, just in order to fulfil some strange personal vendetta against... a TV show. Can some explanation or justification be made of these edits? Paul B (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Episode Title Data from BBC Progammes web site

Titles for past episodes are available on the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018sxqp/episodes/guide

They appear as captions to the "Gallery" on the page for each individual episode.

Titles are currently available for episodes 1-7

• Episode 1/10 "In Love with the King"
• Episode 2/10 "The Price of Power"
• Episode 3/10 "The Storm"
• Episode 4/10 "The Bad Queen"
• Episode 5/10 "The War at First Hand"
• Episode 6/10 "Love and Marriage"
• Episode 7/10 "Poison and Malmsey Wine"

Hicksw, grammarian
(I try to correct minor spelling and grammar problems, with little success.)
Last Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicksw (talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but I have removed "pilot" from episode one, since it clearly is not a pilot episode in the usual meaning of that term. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The complete list (seen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018sxqp/galleries ) is

• Episode One: In Love with the King
• Episode Two: The Price of Power
• Episode Three: The Storm
• Episode Four: The Bad Queen
• Episode Five: War at First Hand
• Episode Six: Love and Marriage
• Episode Seven: Poison and Malmsey Wine
• Episode Eight: The King is Dead
• Episode Nine: The Princes in the Tower
• Episode Ten: The Final Battle

Some of these were listed differently in the article, 6 & 8 were "Love and Death" and "Long Live the King" respectively. Maybe they were from Starz's version. Anyway, BBC was the premiere so should be definitive. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke

Rupert Young who plays William Herbert is in fact William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke who was created Earl of Pembroke in favour of Jasper Tudor and given control of Pembroke Castle and custody of the young Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond by King Edward IV. He was later executed by the Lancastrians by order of Lord Warwick "the Kingmaker" not his son William Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, I have tried to charge this but someone always undoes it. LordWiltshire1529 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The series is so overflowing with obscure characters and barely audible dialogue that it might as well have been scripted in middle English. Leave well alone, it's complex enough for a British audience, let alone an American one.1812ahill (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies

The "Historical Inaccuracies" section of the article is entirely WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. I'd remove it but I'm sure this would be reverted. But as the referenced polices above state, "inaccuracies" cannot be noted by WP editors, they can only be cited if they have been pointed out by reliable sources. Proving errors by your own argument is synthesis. And in any case, listing "errors" of fact in a work of fiction is pretty silly. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that's silly is your last sentence. It's not just fiction. It's historical fiction. One of the most interesting aspects of historical fiction is departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons. It's also an issue in which many readers asre interested. As it happens I have long disagreed with the interpretation of OR that you present here. If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original reasearch, because no new idea is being "sythesised". It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year. Now, I accept that there are ambiguous cases. In this instance you might say that there are chains of reasoning that go beyond mere "fact", such as the deduction that it is supposed to be winter when the Battle of Bosworth takes place. Maybe, but it would certainly have been a very odd August. Of course the snow is obviously emblematic, like the eclipse (though that really happened), suggesting an ending and beginning. No doubt that's one reason why they changed the details. Another was probably because they could create the impression of a battle with about ten extras in a dense forest, but in a field it would just look silly. Now adding that would be OR. But undisputed historicval facts are not. Paul B (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Paul B as he so aptly put it. Some things are just plain historical facts and pointing that out is not OR in my opinion either. Of course, there will always be grey areas, but a fact is a fact. -- fdewaele

Yes it is silly to complain that fiction is not factual. Is there an "Historical inaccuracies" section in Richard III (play)? Obviously neither of you has bothered to read the policy that I cited so I will excerpt it below. Pointing out errors of fact is EXACTLY what WP:SYN warns against. You are comparing what you see on TV, with a historical reference and DEDUCING that the TV show is "inaccurate". See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." " ... in other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Anyway, obviously this isn't a receptive audience. So I will make a note at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and leave you to it. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP is correct. Without a reliably published source pointing out inaccuracies Wikipedia editors cannot do so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP is not "correct", as this is not a matter of unambiguous interpretation of the policy at all. In fact it is, IMO, a silly, self-destructive pedantry of the worst kind that just makes articles worse not better. Historical facts are historical fact. It makes no difference whatever if sources are commenting on the show or not. It comparable to to the issue of making straight forward calculations. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity in the policies at all. You cannot take a reliable source that has published about topic X and apply it to topic Y. This is the article about the TV Show and so all sources used need to be about the TV show. As Wikipedian editors, we are not historians nor cultural commentators. We are aggregators of content that historians and cultural commentators have published about the specific subject of the article. If you find reliably published reviews of the TV show that comment upon the "historical inaccuracies", we can and probably should include that under a "critical reception". But we CANNOT be making synthesis and commentary based on taking historical "facts" from one source and comparing them to the second source of the TV show and saying "the TV show has these historical inaccuracies." That type of action is straightforwardly prohibited by the basic content policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dogmatic assertions do not make you "right". I have read the policy. There is nothing whatever that says "you cannot take a reliable source that has published about topic X and apply it to topic Y." In part, that's because there is never any clear distinction between what one "topic" and another "topic" is. You will find innumerable articles which cover a complex set of interconnected materials. Take the article on Dianthus caryophyllus (aka Carnmations). That has a variety of information ranging from the botanical to the cultural, cited to books on many topics. I would argue that one of the topics of this article is the War of the Roses. I have already explained why I do not think that WP:SYN is an issue because synthesis depends on there being a new idea that is created. Citing information does not create a new idea. It would only constitute that if it were accompabnied by interpretation that gave meaning to the issue. Paul B (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

i suggest you re read WP:OR. there is indeed a "new idea" being created - the idea that there is a historical error in the TV show - that idea could not POSSIBLY be present in a source published before the TV series had begun production.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I suugest you read it yoursewlf. I've read it many times. Just pointing to a link when a complex issue is being discussed is frankly, silly. There is always room to debate interpretation . You say there is a new idea, I say there isn't. I've given my reasons. I don't think what you describe is a new idea because one is just justaposing sourced fact. But even if it were a new idea, I think anti-OR "fundamentalism" is just as bad for the project as people adding their own pet theories. We should not be rigidly following rules but applying them or even adapting them to benefit the project. Indeed they are evolving all the time. Paul B (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you think OR needs to be changed, feel free to begin a discussion there. Until it has changed, the fundamentalist version still applies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your interpretation of the "fundamentalist version" is not mainstream and you are now editing against consensus. I'll continue adding material. Deb (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Any local consensus that may exist (and despite your claim, i am not even seeing any local consensus) to ignore the policy WP:SYN is irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Any statement you may make to the effect that your view of what constitutes synthesis is the only correct interpretation is irrelevant in the face of a majority of contributors disagreeing with you. Deb (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That is quite clearly what is going on here. Someone is taking content from a history book. they are comparing it to content from the TV show. They are then reaching or implying a "Historicity" issue in the TV show - a claim that is explicitly not explicit in either the TV show or the history book which doesn't mention the TV show. ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. " which is exactly the situation in the cases I have been removing and you have been re-adding.

it is quite possible that a reliable source(s) has indeed noted specific historical errors in the TV show, and if those were provided instead of the Original Research of Wikipedia editors, we would not be having this discussion.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

DVD

An editor deletes the DVD section because the source is unreliable so in his eyes there is no dvd.REVUpminster (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

yep. if it aint in Wikerpeedia, it aint true. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The first source was not a commercial site and is reliable as any other, been going for a number of years. Who says it is not? As for Amazon many featured article use it for dates. REVUpminster (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies section was blatant violation of WP:OR

I have again removed the Original Research violations from the "Historical inaccuracies" section. Content published before the series was made cannot possibly be pointing out historical inaccuracies of the series, that analysis would be purely created by Wikipedia editors WP:SYNthesizing content from multiple sources and is not allowed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No matter what name you use for the section, each item brought up for comparison must have a single source that refers to the TV show and its variation from history. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help in improving and expanding this section. It's becoming more detailed and more interesting - and of course better referenced - by the day. Deb (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

and still 90% WP:OR and unacceptable. Unless you quickly provide a third party source that makes the comments about specific inaccuracies within the show the ones that are noted purely by Wikipedia editors are going to be removed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

References have been provided for all content. I can understand that may rankle with you, but making up rules that don't exist will not help you get your way. Deb (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

its not me making up any rules. WP:SYN has been around for a very long time. (it looks like it became formalized as part of the policy around April 2006 when it was stated "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to make point C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. ... That is, the precise argument must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about.) placing "sourced" material in a manner to make or infer claims that the source doesnt explicitly make is not allowed and has not been and its not "my interpretation".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not joining two points together to make another point. I am listing uncontroversial facts and providing references for these. The historical inaccuracies in this series are one of the most widely-discussed and documented aspects of it. More people talk about the errors than about the actors. I look forward to seeing your contributions to The Tudors#Departures from history. Deb (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

you most absolutely are. you are taking two sources, neither of which makes any commentary at all about the "historicity issues" of the TV series and placing them so they make claims about the "historicity issues" of the television series, and worse in a BLP violation you are taking someones comments about a persons work and coatracking them into an article about a work that did not exist at the time the comments were made. Unless you can show that Mr. Strakey was able to travel forward in time and watch the series that didnt exist, his commentary CANNOT be included in this article.

You keep claiming that more people talk about the errors, but you only keep providing proof that that YOU have found errors. Unfortunately for you, until your error checking of the TV series gets published by a reliable source, it cannot be included in the article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Almost every article referenced shows evidence of this. The historical references are necessary to demonstrate that the claims of historical inaccuracy are well-founded. Deb (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the documentary in which Starkey and Gregory appeared was preceded by a trailer for The White Queen, which had been advertised to saturation levels for several weeks prior to its first broadcast. Deb (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

again, that is blatantly WP:OR to take someones statement and claim that because of a commercial that proceeded the TV show that he made it in, his comment somehow was talking about something that did not exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and I think TRPoD is right on this one. Starkey made comments about Gregory being a "Mills and Boon" type novelist, but so far as I can see hasn't made any comments on the books or TV series specifically. So, it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I would argue that it isn't mentioned in the article as being evidence one way or the other; however, it was clearly said in the context of a discussion of current historical TV dramatisations. Deb (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, the context of Starkey's comments CANNOT possibly include content that had not yet aired unless he is a time traveler and there is no evidence to support that claim either.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at at this "Historicity" section. The only "inaccuracy" that was supported by a reliable source was the Telegraph review which said "Bosworth was more forest than field for the final battle". Well, big deal. It's a TV show, they can't stage armies on an open plain. Anyway, do a few trees being out of place make it "inaccurate"? It was a passing reference in a review, yet it's highlighted here as if it was a big deal. Undue weight I think. I deleted remarks about the way various characters were depicted. NO ONE CAN KNOW HOW ACCURATE that was; it's just one preconception versus another, not "historicity". And a bunch of other things from the original "inaccuracies" section was pasted in, still 100% WP:SYN. Anyway, of course my edit will be reverted momentarily. The question is, if historians don't think any of these details are important enough to comment on at all, and they didn't, or we'd have a real WP:RS instead of all this waffle, should Wikipedia make it seem important? This is at best trivia. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very intrigued by the anonymous I.P.s who keep appearing on this talk page and appear to have an in-depth knowledge of wikipedia policy and procedure one would not have expected from editors with so few contributions. Deb (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, duh. Never heard of dynamic IPs? I'm not a WP virgin. I choose to edit without logging in, as is my right. But I'm glad you recognise my knowledge of WP policy, earned by butting my head against it. More importantly, I see you reverted my edits without bothering to take note of the blatant violations of policy I and others have noted. Since you make an issue out of my status, I'm shocked to see that you are an admin, yet have repeatedly contravened the clear policies that apply. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Look above, and you'll see that your interpretation of those "clear policies" is a minority view. Deb (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

again, local consensus to ignore basic policy is irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You are inserting your own personal criticisms of the show into the article. The only criticisms WP should note of a work of fiction is that of reliable sources, not that of WP editors who want to nitpick at the plot. You yourself say "The historical references are necessary to demonstrate that the claims of historical inaccuracy are well-founded." This is EXACTLY what WP:SYN says you cannot do. Especially since the "claims of historical inaccuracy" are being made by you. You're making the claim, then lining up facts to prove it. That is WP:OR. That is valid in an essay. Not in WP. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now we are coming to it. You are interpreting my statements of fact as a criticism of the TV series. Where, in any of my statements, is negative criticism implied? I watched the series, and enjoyed it, just as I read the books and enjoyed them. The fact that they depart from historical fact is only to be expected; it is nevertheless worth mentioning in the article, especially as it's the single most publicly-discussed aspect of the series. Deb (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i am taking your "historicity" research as critique of the show. and why would I be doing that? because you keep inserting it in the article about the show. If it is not a critique about the show then it has no business being in this article ABOUT THE SHOW. And I dont give a fuck about whether the critique of the show is "criticisam" or or positive critique. What i care about is that the critique about the show is being made by a reliably published source and not by Wikipedia editors comparing "actual history" to what appears in the show. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I talking to the monkey or the organ-grinder now? Deb (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Oh, hang on, my mistake, the other one can spell. Deb (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have never said anything about you being a monkey nor an organgrinder. I have said you are the person who keeps inserting WP:SYN into the article. but your personal attacks need to stop, they are not going to overcome the fact that you have no policy basis for your position.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This entire discussion ignores WP:BURO. Let's concentrate on providing better content and stop playing lawyer. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"better content" is content that follows basic content policies such as thought and analysis that has been previously published by a reliable source and is not the effort of Wikipedia editors opining that A and B therefore C. If these "historicity issues" are in fact so widely important and discussed, then sources specifically identifying should be easily presented and we have nothing more to argue about.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, dude, did you even read my link? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, it says wikipedia does not have bureaucratic processes that are followed for purly for process sake (except where it does).

but there are no bureaucratic processes being followed followed for process sake here. what is under discussion here is simple application of content policy. is the repeatedly inserted content being created to state or imply facts or analysis that are not present in the sources? and the answer is: yes. the sources are stating nothing about the "historicity" of the television show, in fact they dont mention the show at all (and many of them couldnt possibly have mentioned the show as they were paper published many years before the show was even greenlighted).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURO is not a "licence to kill". It says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." In this case, it's not the "letter of the policy" you reject, but the entire principle. Your desire to list every single error in a TV drama is not a reason to overturn a fundamental policy. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

David Starkey

Although Starkey's comments were, as I've said above, made in the context of a discussion of current historical TV dramatisations, I've moved them to the main Philippa Gregory article (where some were already present in any case). There's no real need for them to be repeated here. What editors must recognise is that a listing of facts about the differences between any adaptation or dramatisation and the original do not represent any kind of slur on that adaptation unless you choose to interpret them in that way. It has gradually become clear that the anonymous IP is under the impression that the section on historicity (and I deliberately changed the title from "Historical inaccuracies" to make this clear) is some kind of anti-Gregory campaign. In fact, it is no different from many such sections in similar articles: for example, this, and it is not in any way judgmental. As for Mr Red Pen, I would suggest that he follow the guidelines on Wikipedia:Civility, which "applies to all editors and all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians". I don't expect an apology for his use of obscenities, but I do object to his claiming to be squeaky-clean in following the rules when he patently ignores those that don't suit him. Deb (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

using four letter words when removing for the umpteenth time improper WP:BLP content is not anywhere near the same level of incivility as the repeated insinuations that someone is a SOCK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't ascribe fatuous motives to me. I am not a Gregory fanboy. I don't care about any slurs you cast on her, though as you finally realised, they have no place in this article. My reasoning was expressed clearly with references to the WP:OR policies. They would apply equally if you made a list of comparisons between the show and history designed to extol the series. (Concentrating so much on "inaccuracies" or whatever you want to call them now does raise the question of WP:UNDUE though. Has no reviewer at all said a positive thing about the "historicity" of the series? How remarkable.) I suggest you stop trying to find ways to dismiss these problems and address them. But it appears you've chosen instead to attack the messenger(s). And even if you have provoked an intemperate response, that lapse does not empower you to ignore all the policy arguments I and others made. As for your The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(1978_film)#Differences from the book citation, I'm sure you are aware of WP:OTHERCRAP (sorry for any offence that policy name causes). Though that article starts off by citing the film's director, it degenerates into a list of trivia compiled by editors. ("Legolas wears silver and grey clothes whereas in the book he is 'clad in green and brown'.") We all know there are many other articles full of similar dross. You would do better to look at them critically rather than try to emulate them. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you take your personal prejudices elsewhere.Deb (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You've made several personal remarks about me. Expressing suspicion about my motives and just now reading my mind: "the anonymous IP is under the impression... blah blah". How about you try keeping to the topic of the article and not trying to run me down &/or off. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So, when you said "You are inserting your own personal criticisms of the show into the article", you actually meant something completely different? Deb (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No. I meant that exactly. I'm not pretending to read your mind, I'm just describing your edits. These are criticising the show; not citing a source who criticises the show. The criticisms are thus WP:SYN.202.81.243.116 (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please point out exactly where you see that - because I can't see it at all in any of the edits I've made. Deb (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

we can start with one of the most blatant ones

“

• In episode 6, "Love and Marriage", Jane Shore, Edward IV’s mistress, is portrayed as a youthful courtier. In fact, she was the wife of a London tradesman, probably in her thirties by the time she began her liaison with the king.

”

References

Kindly point out from the sources you provided where someone other than you is making any "historicity" comments about the subject of this article The White Queen television series. It certainly wasn't Kendall when he published the book in 1956, and that is the only source you are citing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked the anon contributor to tell me in what way he thinks I have adversely criticised the series. I didn't ask you to reiterate your frequently-stated opinion as to whether this is or isn't synthesis. Deb (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have to sleep. RedPen is quite correct here and below, of course. Unfortunately, as he's not an IP editor, you can't blow him off so easily. But get your back down. Your criticisms are probably quite well founded. The show is undoubtedly full of errors of fact when compared to real history. The issue is that WP editors are not empowered to make these comparisons. That rule is formalised in WP:SYN. An example of an article that does this correctly is Ip Man (film)#Historical accuracy where the criticisms, not just the facts, are all cited from reputable sources. However, if one is a bit more subtle and not determined to create a section of the article excoriating the show, you can work true historical references into the plot descriptions, leaving the conclusion that the show lacks "historicity" up to the reader who follows the references himself. This also reduces the temptation to nitpicking editors to add every tiny discrepancy they notice to the list of "inaccuracies", as in the LOTR section you cited as a model, rambling on about colours of characters' costumes as if it was worth mentioning at all. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Red Pen is talking about something completely different from you. He is complaining about "synthesis", and, since I've already answered all his complaints on that score and explained my position, I'm not going to bother to repeat myself. You, on the ohter hand, accuse me of adverse criticism of the series, which is completely unfounded. I do not think you are dumb, so you must be able to see that the suggestion that I cited the Lord of the Rings section as a "model" rather than an example is also quite unfounded. Anyone reading this exchange is likely to draw conclusions about your motives, which may or may not be justified. Deb (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

you have not answered all of my complaints. you have answered none of them. I have and will keep asking for you to show which source notates a "historicity" about the television show with regards to the individual events that you have cited. And you keep not provide a source so we are left only with what you have put into the article: Source A making a claim about the TV show, source B making a claim about history and then Source A + Source B= claim C about the "historicity" of the TV show, something which neither of the sources you provide is actually making. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"talking about something completely different"??? I've linked and quoted and cited WP:SYN a dozen times in my talk posts and edits to the article page; from the very first sentence I wrote on this talk page. The problem is not that these edits are critical (though they are, obviously) but that they are synthesis. Have I "accused" you of "adverse criticism of the series"? Really? Where? But regardless, the problem is unsourced criticism, not "adverse" criticism.

You keep making dark suggestions about my "motives" while ignoring all the policy based comments I've made, picking on a few words to take offence at. What conclusion can anyone draw about that? Since you are the one who proposed the LOTR section as a justification for your edits, don't blame me for actually looking at it and pointing out how terrible a model it is. If you couldn't find a better example, what does that tell us? 202.81.243.116 (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, as you well know, I did not suggest that the LOTR article justified my edits, merely that it was an example of many articles that contain this type of section. I picked it completely at random. The model that you cite, Ip Man (film)#Historical accuracy, is, in my opinion, a poor one, as the lack of supporting references for the actual facts makes it difficult for a reader to assess whether the comments made out of context in the quotation are in fact correct. A reliable source may still contain inaccurate content. If, for example, The Times quoted a prime minister as saying "All my opponents are Fascists", that wouldn't make the statement true and it would be wrong to use it in a wikipedia article as if it were unchallenged.

As for "Have I "accused" you of "adverse criticism of the series"? Really? Where?" Yes, in your statements "You are inserting your own personal criticisms of the show into the article" and "I don't care about any slurs you cast on her". If you're now withdrawing that accusation, I'm pleased. Deb (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

For the LOTR -- whose fault is it if it is a poor example? For Ip Man: the criticisms are reported and who made them, under the "reception" section. It's not a WP editor's job to back up or gainsay a critic's comments about a work of fiction. I refer you to WP:Verifiability, not truth. "Supporting references for the actual facts" are of course found in the article about the historical Yip Man, linked from the lead. Similarly, anyone interested in the real history of the milieu of the White Queen will read the copious articles about that. Can you not distinguish between articles about historical events, and articles about works of fiction based on them? Really, there is an enormous difference.

And I'm not "withdrawing" an accusation. I stand by the statements you cited. If you insist on construing them as "accusations", I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe when you get over that you might consider WP:SYN and how it applies to an article about a TV series. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for a source that makes the claim as implied in the article

it doesnt matter who points it out to you that your WP:SYN is WP:SYN, its still SYN and you still keep not providing any evidence that it is not syn by showing where the claim of historicity issues about the tv show has been made by the sources you are providing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

moving on to the next one

“

• William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings, a pivotal figure in the transfer of power from Edward IV to Richard III, is completely omitted from the TV adaptation. In fact, it was Hastings, not Anthony Woodville, who was Jane Shore’s lover and was disgraced along with her following Edward’s death.

”

References

When you added the content, it looks as if you are taking a look at the cast list, source A, and noting that a character is NOT on the cast list and comparing that non existent data to the 2004 edition of the Dictionary of National Biography , source B, which does not mention anything about the tv show. You then put the two pieces together in the above text which you placed in the article about the TV show under the section of "historicity" and so you must be implying that there is somehow a "historicity" connection between the two. Which reliable source has made that connection? From all present evidence it was you, which is not allowed under WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

stone me, are you still here?Basket _Feudalist 13:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Historicity issues for discussion at the Dispute Resolution Notice Board

Anyone interested in participating in the dispute resolution process may join at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#The_White_Queen_.28TV_series.29.23Historicity. I think I included all the recent participants, but if I missed you, please join. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As advised in the dispute resolution noticeboard, this discussion is being brought for wider public commentary:

Does it improve the encyclopedia to ignore the technicalities about Wikipedia editors inserting content to imply conclusions not specifically made by the sources to include the following content in the Historicity section with sources that verify the facts of history but do not mention the television series misrepresentation:

• The Battle of Bosworth Field is depicted as taking place on a winter's day, with snow on the ground, when historically it took place in August. In the same episode, Thomas Stanley is seen ordering his men to charge in support of Henry Tudor. In fact, it was his brother William Stanley, in command of a separate army, who attacked Richard at the decisive moment.

• In episode 6, "Love and Marriage", Jane Shore, Edward IV’s mistress, is portrayed as a youthful courtier. In fact, she was the wife of a London tradesman, probably in her thirties by the time she began her liaison with the king.

• William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings, a pivotal figure in the transfer of power from Edward IV to Richard III, is completely omitted from the TV adaptation. In fact, it was Hastings, not Anthony Woodville, who was Jane Shore’s lover and was disgraced along with her following Edward’s death.

References

or does the inclusion of such observations place undue weight on the issue by calling out discrepancies which have not been identified by experts in the field(s) when they have been discussing the subject of this article, the TV series.

Discussion

• do not include - Short version: there have been no reasons put forward that show that either this particular article nor the encyclopedia as a whole is improved by the inclusion of this trivia which have been noticed by Wikipedia editors, but not by either historians nor television or culture critics in their published work about the subject of this article, the television series. Including these observations by Wikipedia editors places WP:UNDUE weight on the failures of "historicity" in the television show, when in fact, historian Michael Hicks has commented: "As with Philippa Gregory's source novels, they've done their research". When the sources are not commenting about the subject of the article, Wikipedia editors should not be shoehorning such content into the article to show how much smarter we are than the creators of the television show. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Do Not Include - Both of those additions are clear beaches of Original Research and Synthesis policies and don't add anything to the article. It's clearly not worth breaking policy when all that is being said is that the Actress who plays Jane looks younger than the real Jane was -its a very insignificant fact. If policy breaches are allowed for things so petty, it would never end. Many other actors are also the wrong age, especially considering the time-frame the show covered was several years. I spotted some bigger "clangers" in the show than that; I've not resorted to the sort of referencing used above as it's OR and Synthesis.

We all know the show was very different to the books, and very different from what really happened, but it's called historical-fiction for a reason- its fiction; so having a "historiocity" section is a bit dubious. Should we add one to Dr. Who's article? I can think of no end of "errors" in their portrayal of the past...

As it is the section is very over inflated. For example the huge section about a tiny glimpse of a modern drainpipe and stair rail. -That's something you'd find on that show by Robert Webb on BBC3, not in a serious encyclopedia. --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - can we also add the "The battle is depicted as taking place on a winter's day, with snow on the ground, when historically it took place in August. In the same episode, Thomas Stanley is seen ordering his men to charge in support of Henry Tudor. In fact, it was his brother William Stanley, in command of a separate army, who attacked Richard at the decisive moment" section into the discussion, as it is also Original Research/Synthesis. The fact that the battle is depicted in winter but was really fought in August has no references. The bit about the Stanley Brothers has no reference for what was seen in the program, and only a reference for what really happened; so its the same Synthesis as those lines discussed above. The Forest vs. Field issue of the Battle scene is included without breaking policy; These other battle related thing should be too.

I've vote for flat out removal of the un-cited August/Snow thing. It's more indicative the time of year the program was filmed than anything else. And we had snow in May this year... so again; its overkill and unnecessary.

The Stanley Brothers section has somewhat of an argument for inclusion. But if someone commented on the forest vs. field, and thus made it suitable for inclusion without breaking policy, surely someone must have commented on the Stanley brothers? If no one did, its obviously not as big a clanger as I thought, and thus it's not worth breaking policy to put in. --Rushton2010 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• • since only you and i have commented and I fully support your analysis, i have formally inserted it into the RFC. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• do not include If there is a "Historicity" section at all, it should be a subsection of "Reception". Already half the "Reception in the UK" section is about this; the issue is covered adequately, it's beating a dead horse to list every single error someone noted. But certainly it should comprise only cited critiques of the show, not errors noticed by WP editors (which are inadmissible as WP:SYN in any case). Some of the existing notes on reality vs TV could be worked into the relevant sections of plot summary where the events come up, as notes rather than "gotchas", rather than the current separate list that adds nothing to viewers' understanding of the events or show. But most are so trivial as to be better simply deleted. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note on related issue: I'm struck that there is not one single reference or wikilink in the Episode summary section. All the real names and events are simply bare text. See for example The Six Wives of Henry VIII (TV series), the names and some of the historical events are linked. It would be a better use of research work to enhance the plot section by references than to score points by compiling a list of errors. Yeah, WP:SOFIXIT. Since my earlier efforts here have all been reverted, and I am not a big fan of the show myself, not at this time. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Include where appropriate, but do not include a laundry list created with synthesis. I think that a "historicity" section is more than appropriate, whether or not part of the "reception" section. I do think it is appropriate to list errors that have been noted by reliable sources. I do not think it is appropriate to create a list of editor-generated and -researched errors. I think that it may, under certain circumstances and used sparingly and judiciously, to note very obvious errors or changes that come up organically in the text of the article. For example, it might be appropriate to note in a character or plot section that one historical figure was not actually the lover of another. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include any differences for which there is not a third-party source that discusses the difference. Whether it's differences from a novel, differences from an earlier adapatation, or differences from history, discussion of such differences should be limited to those differences that have garnered attention from third-party sources, as a means of establishing that they are non-trivial. DonIago (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Include on the basis of TRPOD not understanding the policies which shold not be used against the expansion of the encyclopedia. I am not impolite enough to say he doesn't know what he's talking about. Ignoring the historical inaccuracies further suggests it is accurate, and WP is not the place to further the ego of a second-rate story teller. Cheers! Basket _Feudalist 10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

violations of WP:NPA do not constitute a rationale to include material against polices of WP:V and WP:OR. Do you have any policy based rationale? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're classic! Only in your world could not being impolite constitute a personal attack :D Basket _Feudalist 11:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

so the answer is "No", you do not have any policy based rationale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just saying Red Pen misunderstands policy isn't an argument, except in the Monty Python sense. Please say exactly how the policies (specifically WP:SYN) should be applied (or why it should be ignored). And "ignoring historical inaccuracies" implies no endorsement of the "truth" of events in a work of fiction. Editors' opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: on "politeness"; note that You Can Act Like A Man just deleted my above remarks, a direct violation of Talk page guidelines. (They were restored by another editor.) But that's just another policy I misunderstand, I suppose. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Don't include We rely on reliable sources to determine relevance, and pretty much everything else here. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Boring, I know, and this is a pretty trivial instance, but its a categorical imperative. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include - though as a historian (no, not "an historian": I'm a Yank) I despise such inaccuracies, it is not our place as Wikipedia to call out the film for them where reliable sources have not done so. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include unless there are reliable resources discussing these inaccuracies. As others have said, not our job, OR, etc. The fact that I like to see such information is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Do not include - RfC bot directed me here. Having read the discussion, I believe that it doesn't improve the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Do Not Include - I agree with the reasons of other users here. United States Man (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

any opposition to an early close?

Given the essentially unanimous view from outside editors, and the view about the content from the outside content review at DRN earlier, does anyone object to closing this early? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

hearing no opposition.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to close now per WP:SNOW. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Margaret Beauforts's husbands

On Beaufort's wiki article, Stafford is listed as third husband and Lord Stanley as fourth. I changed this twice but it was reverted twice. Shall I try again or did the series say they were second and third? REVUpminster (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not so straight forward. The "first marriage" was when she was an infant: "Margaret never recognised this marriage. In her will, made in 1472, Margaret refers to Edmund Tudor as her first husband. Under canon law, Margaret was not bound by the marriage contract as she was entered into the marriage before reaching the age of twelve." While she may have been "married" it is a bit dubious to count the first as a "husband"; as above, she didn't. And this first "marriage" is not referred to in the series. Anyway, make a footnote to explain your position and you might avoid more edit warring. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Reception in the UK

The last phrase of the opening sentence in the section "In the UK the series received mixed to positive reviews, with critisims only of historical inaccuracy. " has been challenged as unsourced and POV.

Based on the reviews from UK papers which include

• ", England itself was painfully absent as the entire series was shot in Belgium and looked exactly that dull and boring. " .. " but because of a lack of clarity in the writing."
• "The others, including Elizabeth and Edward (Rebecca Ferguson and Max Irons) are mainly just totty so far."
• "I have no idea why she went from hate to love. "
• "Where previous episodes had been shrouded in so much darkness you could barely see who was stabbing whom in the back,"

Its clear that the cinematography, writing, acting, characterization and lighting have also been received as sub par and so a claim of "with critisims only of historical inaccuracy. " would indeed require specific sourcing to even be considered. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because it clearly doesn't fairly summarise the reviews, as opposed to the opinions of some editors here. Also, misspelled. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Second son of Edward IV

Fun discussion. I note that nobody has mentioned the curious inclusion of the story of the survival of the second son of Edward IV, Richard, in the film. This is not something that any historian would state as fact, since all that is really known from the public record of the period is that the two boys simply vanished and were never seen again. There were two pretenders during Tudor rule who claimed to be Richard in later years, but both were not taken seriously even though both did inspire minor conspiracies against the Tudor regime of the day. I was a bit surprised to see one of these stories raised to the level of plot and script in the film. Not really resolved well and should have been left out. But, that's no big deal. It was a good watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.110.209 (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The book and the series clearly imply that Perkin Warbeck was the real son of Edward IV. But I've given up trying to improve this article because of the actions of wikilawyers. Deb (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The White Queen (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130926112854/http://www.creativemediamanagement.com/editors/jamie-trevill.htm?title=Editors to http://www.creativemediamanagement.com/editors/jamie-trevill.htm?title=Editors
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130926194844/http://www.wizzoandco.co.uk/cvs/David---Luther---DOP(Commercialsetc)---none.pdf to http://www.wizzoandco.co.uk/cvs/David---Luther---DOP(Commercialsetc)---none.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rebecca Ferguson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)