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)

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)