Talk:Isaac Newton

NPOV edit war

Alright, since I'm being accused of violating NPOV, let's take it to the talk page. While it's certainly the case that there are many other articles that prioritize other media over the show in terms of appearance, and I support those articles wholeheartedly, this isn't even slightly applicable to this situation. The illustration in question comes from The Lonely Computer which you can read here. The illustration with Newton is on the second page (of two), Newton is a background character, and Newton is not mentioned in the story. At all. Insofar as there is a reference it's "Standing about, looking annoyed, were some of history's most famous leaders, artists and scientists."

Newton does not appear in the story, and in the associated illustration he's a background element. Indeed, it's not even explicitly stated to be Newton.

Compare this to Wild Blue Yonder (TV story), where Newton does appear in the story, and multiple references are made to his earlier appearance later in the episode. There's just no comparison. I don't see the slightest argument for supporting the illustration here as the main infobox image. I'm more than willing to include it. But by no means should it be first because it was released first. The very idea is silly. Najawin ☎ 21:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton, 1689.jpg

Portrait of Sir Isaac Newton, 1689.

While Newton in Wild Blue Yonder is more prominently featured in its respective narrative than Newton in The Lonely Computer... how do I phrase this carefully and respectfully... presumably every non-visual appearance of Newton is presumably in line with how Newton historically appeared rather than an actor who looked nothing like him, a la historically accurate Cleopatra vs Elizabeth Taylor's Cleopatra. (Ironically the Taylor Cleo appeared in The Lonely Computer.)

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

21:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

T:NO RW applies with a vengeance. Najawin ☎ 21:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

is the future of this wiki just going to be social activists hopping on to vandalize articles anytime the show offers some political pandering 146.70.193.79^{talk to me} 21:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're as concerned about the state of the wiki as you claim, perhaps you should make an account and contribute regularly. Which I, the alleged "social activist", have been doing for some time. Najawin ☎ 21:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What'd be the point in a new user bothering to do that? You're more familiar with the sites policies and willing to quote them to support your agenda. The amount of reading and work a new user might have to do to attempt to counter your bad faith actions is beyond what any reasonable person might be willing to do, and any successful attempts would be undone by anyone willing to wait long enough to quote policies out of context again. 142.181.99.68^{talk to me} 21:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find that these policies are being quoted in context. But, I'd like to point you towards T:FAITH. My actions here are in good faith, not bad, and I'd hope yours are the same. I'd hope that if an editor truly cared about this site and had views different than mine they'd put the effort in to edit and argue effectively. Lord knows that Epsilon and I have disagreed on things before. And that I don't agree with other users on everything. If you think you're right and care about this wiki, surely you can put the effort in, rather than just complain. Najawin ☎ 21:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

IP user, I'm seconding Najawin's gesturing at T:FAITH. I don't think I've ever seen so spectacular a breach of that policy as your outright talking about Najawin's "bad faith actions" using that word. Do not do so again; you have been warned twice over.

@Najawin, one small note: the illustration is part of the story; it's valid. Newton appears "in the story" insofar as he appears in the illustration. The point about prominence (or lack thereof) is well-taken, just wanted to be very clear about that one bit of awkward phrasing.

We never did technically figure out what would determine the order of images in a tabbed gallery, did we? When it's not an in-universe physical change e.g. regeneration. Release order isn't the craziest standard one could propose… Equally though, one might indeed favour a primary-topic-style reasoning, in which case his prominent appearance in WBY beats his cameo in TLC. Another argument might be that we should default to in-universe age when it's clearly delineated, in which case, once again, WBY would go before TLC; he's clearly an older gentleman in that illustration. So I do think I lean towards WBY first. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

no one is impressed by your threats lol gesture away 146.70.193.15^{talk to me} 19:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I was treating the illustration as a distinct non-narrative source. So Newton doesn't appear in the associated short story, but he does appear in the illustration. (This bit is still a headache for us and we might need a thread to clean it up.) I also want to emphasize that there's no explicit mention that the illustration is even of Newton. Like. It obviously is. But I think the T:NO RW concerns alone give it second billing. Najawin ☎ 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

“I was treating the illustration as a distinct non-narrative source.”

You shouldn't! That is very specifically not the policy. Illustrations are part of their associated prose story, (and, as a special ad hoc addendum, illustrations for a given audio series are lumped in with that audio even if they're not released via the same physical medium). If the illustration were considered a GRAPHIC source in its own right, it would have its own page. Naught is a valid source of its own which hath no page of its own. The illustration is clearly not presented as a complete work of fiction unto itself — it's not its own item on the BBC website separate from the short story — ergo it's not eligible for GRAPHIC status.

Regarding the T:NO RW concern, that's on me for not having finished the closing post yet, isn't it… Bugger. But let it be known that the WIP closing post is not particularly geared towards ideas about giving "second billing" to non-explicitly-described illustrations while still recognising them as depicting the thing they appear to be depicting; that seems rather woolly, and too ad hoc even for me. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 22:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about T:NPOV @Najawin, but at the same time, it is valid to consider the context of how stories were written in cases like these. Also T:NO RW may not be so strict in the future, but that's technically not policy yet, but it is worth considering potential future proofings.

How many sources depicted Newton under the idea that he looked like his historical counterpart vs how many depicted Newton under the idea he looked like Nathaniel Curtis? I'd wager only Wild Blue Yonder did the second. I'm sure there is a comparison to be made with how we portray Mary Shelley in her infobox, although I am struggling to find the revision that placed it, but I'm sure it was an admin who did so.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

22:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, Scrooge can comment as to whether or not he buys the "in every story where we don't see Newton look like Nathaniel Curtis he looks like the historical Newton, so we should use a random illustration that also looks like the historical Newton" argument, but, uh, I find it tenuous at best. The revision that placed the current Shelley image is this one and the explicit reason given has nothing to do with NPOV or these concerns about other sources that don't have a portrayal on TV. It's entirely about standard image guidelines. Najawin ☎ 22:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The irony of quoting policies on bad faith arguments at me while threatening to silence me because I've already been warned "twice over", even though that was my first edit on this wiki and the first time anyone's replied to anything I've said on this wiki, shouldn't be lost on anyone. 142.181.99.68^{talk to me} 22:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Do note Kate Lethbridge-Stewart, which could be taken either way, but relevant to discussion. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 23:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That seems like strong evidence for the "prominence" interpretation here. Of course, it's not that we have clear policy. Najawin ☎ 23:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Might I suggest a compromise? Why not keep The Lonely Computer image on the infobox, as it depicts both how public perception sees Newton and Newton in his prime, and just relocate the Wild Blue Wonder image to the part of the article that shows the younger Newton in 1666, like with Caitlin Blackwood as young Amy Pond? BananaClownMan ☎ 12:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Newton forms his theory on "mavity". (TV: Wild Blue Yonder ^[+]Loading...["Wild Blue Yonder (TV story)"])

Like this. BananaClownMan ☎ 12:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that's a very pre-tabbed-galleries sort of proposal. It might have made sense two years ago… But both designs have to be represented in the infobox, the question is just what order to use.

Kate is indeed convincing precedent for the prominence interpretation. --Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The thing with the Kate precedent is that it can be taken either way. It's half "which one is more recognisable to the average individual who visits the website", and "which one has appeared in more stories". Now, I would argue that the answer to the first would by the WBY Newton, as more people would have watched that than the random EU stories which implicit-real world Newton appears in. However, the answer to the latter argument, I would say, is the implicit-real-world-Newton. Also note that the Kate example was in part an extension of the Amy Pond precedent (having Gillan before Blackwood). Hence it's not quite as simple as all that. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 12:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

But they've both only appeared in one story. To say otherwise is not to loosen T:NO RW, it's to cast it completely aside. Outside of these stories we simply do not know what Newton looked like. Epsilon's position is substantially more extreme here than what they argued for in the thread, and, frankly, it's in direct contradiction to any and all historical precedent. Najawin ☎ 16:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there. The "he implicitly looks like the illustration in other appearances" thing is a non-starter. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 17:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Also Aquana, the issue as I'm suggesting it isn't "which one is more recognisable to the average individual who visits the website", it's, "which one is more prominent in the medium in which they reside". The first violates NPOV. I'm not suggesting we place the TV version of Meep earlier in the tabbed gallery on their page - there are multiple comic stories with Beep, often prominently featured, so that version takes precedence. Both the illustrated and televised Newton only appear in 1 story, and the televised Newton is more prominent within that story. (As Epsilon cedes above.) It's this combination of factors that has me say that the TV Newton should be placed first. If we could find even a single comic where, say, Newton was a recurring character and appeared repeatedly throughout the entirety of it - no matter how obscure this comic I'd support this being the primary infobox picture. Najawin ☎ 18:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This makes sense. The "implicit" argument is a non-starter, and whereas The Lonely Computer features Newton only as a background character without any lines, in Wild Blue Yonder he's the main character of the pre-title. It's as easy as that: at least for now, Newton's TV appearance goes first in the infobox. – NateBumber (☎) 16:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but that does not make any sense. Why are you now prioritising TV appearance for this article when you aren't practicing the same for other real world figures? Mary Shelley was already linked here, and William Shakespeare was also a main character in an episode (he's actually had multiple TV appearances as far back as 1965) and yet the only image in his infobox is an illustration from a book. How is this in any way consistent? 148.252.133.119^{talk to me} 17:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I know everyone here is refuting my argument, but when an author writes a story, they expect you to use your real world knowledge to fill in certain blanks. If they write something about Isaac Newton, they likely would want you to envisage him vaguely how he really looked, not how he looked in WBY.

It may be implicit, as they may not exactly describe his appearance in agonising detail... because it goes without saying. Authors don't spoon-feed us information that they assume we already know.

If you write a story set in historical times featuring Cleopatra, the writer would likely want you to imagine how she actually looked... not like Elizabeth Taylor.

Generally speaking, the DWU is like the real world. If there is meant to be a difference, it'd be textual; it is silly for us to say "nuh uh, [writer] didn't give a police report level of description of Newton, so we don't know how he looks".

If Curtis's version of the character goes on to appear a bunch more times, that'd be one thing, but to me, the historical Newton has appeared three times (Summer ^[+]Loading...["Summer (audio story)"], Newtons Sleep ^[+]Loading...["Newtons Sleep (novel)"], and The Lonely Computer ^[+]Loading...["The Lonely Computer (short story)"]) and Curtis's version in one story. (I'm discounting The Bits We've Missed So Far ^[+]Loading...["The Bits We've Missed So Far (comic story)"] as that Newton is a very stylised illustration; he's bald, big nosed, buck toothed, and has a scraggy beard. His appearance is also incredibly brief and set in another universe.)

To be clear though, I'm arguing for TLC illustration over his appearance in WBY not because the former is historically accurate, but because that version has appeared thrice in my eyes. Just want to make that clear as I've been harping on about "historically accuracy" and don't want anyone to misunderstand my angle.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

18:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Epsilon. The younger version of 1666 is only one appearance against the thrice appearing "prime Newton". BananaClownMan ☎ 18:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I already addressed the Shelley issue, it had nothing to do with the illustration looking like the historical Shelley. I'm more skeptical on the Shakespeare issue, but the reasoning given is here. It's also not that works outside TV are given priority, or that historical representations are given priority. It's that the character in The Shakespeare Code might have, according to some sources, not been Shakespeare.

Regardless, there has been a ruling. Epsilon's failed proposal relies on us blatantly ignoring T:NO RW, so hopefully there's some resolution to that thread at some point and we can stop having confusion there. Najawin ☎ 19:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not blatantly ignoring the policy, I'm highlighting the fact that authors don't expect readers to read their works in a complete vacuum without any knowledge of Earth. The policy was written to stop us adding detailed biographical information to pages, not from understanding Isaac Newton typically looks like... Isaac Newton. This is hatbox/hat box level of over-strictly applying T:NO RW.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

19:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"The policy was written to stop us adding detailed biographical information to pages, not from understanding Marco Polo has the birth date of... Marco Polo." (Is physical appearance not part of someone's biography, at least implicitly?)

But no, this characterization of the birth of T:NO RW is not correct, as discussed in the thread. While detailed biographical information is used as the example in its current form, it predates this by over a year. The oldest I could find being Talk:Cobalt bomb.

We work with in-universe references, we don't 'imagine' or speculate anything. We work with what the source material says. -User:Tangerineduel

In reality, though, the way forward with this article is to avoid the real world [entity], for th emost [sic] part. Instead, provide details about how the [entity] was [presented] in each of the cases listed. -User:CzechOut

That second comment is precisely the opposite of what you suggest. T:NO RW, in its original formulation, is directly against your view. Najawin ☎ 20:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Who are you to decide "there has been a ruling"? That is not something you just get to decide yourself. If people disagree with something they have every right to express that. 148.252.133.119^{talk to me} 20:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Then, @Najawin, T:NO RW was built around an absolutely insane idea, that we pretend we're aliens who exist in a void and the only information we know about Earth is from Doctor Who. Absolutely ridiculous.

I understand, however, T:BOUND applies; therefore, I wish for that thread's completion before any action is taken on this page. If we cannot acknowledge the fact that authors generally want us to use our knowledge of the world to fill in information that goes without saying... then that needs to be addressed.

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

20:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Who are you to decide "there has been a ruling"?

Our newest admin made the ruling above?

It's as easy as that: at least for now, Newton's TV appearance goes first in the infobox. -User:NateBumber

It's in bold and everything. Najawin ☎ 20:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that the page protection is up, perhaps we can have another look at this? It's clear there's still much disagreement and it's not certain what the approach should be. Instead I'm being accused of "vandalism" for acting on what I believe to be policy because of an unclear "conclusion". 85.255.233.125^{talk to me} 00:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

There was never any page protection for registered users, just for IP users vandalizing it. And, no, disagreement does not an active issue make. This is the entire point of T:BOUND. You repeatedly reverting something because you disagree with it after it's been decided otherwise by an admin is archetypal vandalism, specifically type 6. You are strictly incorrect about what policy is. Policy was resolved above. The only other user who seems confused about this is another IP user. Until we change our policies related to T:NO RW or adopt a more general policy about tabbed galleries, this is settled. Nate's statement that we're doing this "at least for now" was not an invitation to change it the next day, the next week, or the next month because he didn't specify that it was binding for all time. It means that it holds until there's a broader policy change. No broader policy change has taken place. Thus it's still policy for this situation. Najawin ☎ 00:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

As you are a new user (but then if you intend to keep participating in policy discussions you really ought to create an account for yourself) you could be forgiven for not knowing this, but when a user's name is pinkish-purple, like mine or Nate's, this signals that they are an admin; and when one of us admins says something in bold, this generally signifies that we're speaking "with our admin hat on", i.e. making a ruling/decision. There was nothing unclear about Nate's conclusion, though again it's understandable that you wouldn't have realised it was one. Still, a conclusion it was, and as per T:POINT, you can't just restart already-closed discussions without new arguments to bring to the table, especially not mere weeks after the original conclusion.

Regarding broader discussion of the limits of our policies, those belong at Forum:Loosening T:NO RW, which is still open, although I'm thinking of closing it soon unless discussion livens up again. But (without "spoiling" the conclusion, in part because I haven't fully formulated it yet!) although I do think it will be loosened to a point, "taking into account the idea that Newton looks like the real one in stories without a visual component when we're weighing the prominence of different infobox images" is and always be a step way, way too far.

Besides, look… it might, perhaps, be another thing if WBY!Curtis looked radically different from anything the writers might have pictured — if Wild Blue Yonder were, say, a single source asserting that Newton was blue, or a large non-anthropomorphic lobster in a frock coat, or something… but crikey, Curtis isn't even a million miles off from a portrait of the real man, if you set aside IRL knowledge of his non-European ancestry! He's just an attempt to depict the historical Newton with some necessary liberties taken. It's not at all comparable to Wild Blue Yonder making an active fictional claim about Newton that we would be unfairly favouring over the "implicit assumptions" of earlier sources. Insofar as there is an implicit assumption in an earlier source it's "if this were a visual medium, Newton would look more or less like the real one, or anyway like whatever BBC actor they can get in to play him who looks passably like him". Which is what Curtis is. Honestly he's closer to the historical Newton than Ian McNeice ever was to the historical Winston Churchill, to my eyes, but you don't see anybody counting up instances of the historical Churchill being referenced and asking if we should use the archive footage from The Lie of the Land instead, now do we? Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 00:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This might be a good place to point users to Tardis:Edit wars are good for absolutely nothing. If you are not familiar with the policy, please make sure to read it. Shambala108 ☎ 02:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)