Jump to content

Talk:Butterfly effect in popular culture

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

Red Alert

[edit]

Should this game really be in the article? The point of the butterfly effect (at least in reference to popular culture) is that a seemingly small event can have a large unexpected result. Killing Hitler is not a small event by any means, that's why they did it in the first place. The plot of that game is an example of counterfactual history, not the butterfly effect.--Blackmagicfish (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. This article is plagued with scope issues. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it, and since it was the entirety of the video games section, I deleted that section as well.--Blackmagicfish (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination

[edit]

Is Final Destination An Example Of The Butterfly Effect? If So, Should It Be Put In This Article?

D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.15.98 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Final Destination focus completely on a different topic of debate i.e. premonition, which is completely different from Butterfly Effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archit shrivastava (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound of Thunder

[edit]

The short story in fact demonstrates that a small action can have small consequences. 83.93.36.235 (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Tale's the Walking Dead

[edit]

This game, at least for parts, shows the Butterfly effect, choices you make effect different parts of the game. If you choose to save [character a] then [character b] dies and you end up with one less basket of biscuits at a farm later in the story. If you save [character c] and [character d] goes to save him after he messes up, [character d] goes missing, but if [character c] dies and [character d] goes on, then in that case [character e] falls and [character d] goes missing saving that character.

Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde

[edit]

The entire Thursday Next series of novels by Jasper Fforde, beginning with The Eyre Affair, strikes me as a sophisticated exploration of the Butterfly Effect. Not only are there explicit Butterflyish incidents (preventing the death of a cyclist, for example), but as the series goes along, the world in which Thursday lives changes qualitatively--apparently because of the activities of her time-travelling, Hamlet-quoting father ("The time is out of joint"). I'm not confident enough in my understanding of the Butterfly Effect nor of my literary critical abilities to add this to the article, but would be interested to hear if anyone else shares my interpretation.

--DJ Leslie (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life is strange

[edit]

Life is strange is a game that uses time travel. This game starts when a girl moves back to a town she grew up in. She finds out she can rewind time after she enters the Womens bathroom and finds a butterfly. Shortly after that a student was threatening a girl which she soon finds was her friend. after the man shot her she put her hand out and realizes she can rewind time. You can find more about it here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Life_Is_Strange (Note i did not make the life is strange page that is entirely someone elses work)

Pinkamena Diane Pie 22:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks. but this is exactly the level of intricate detail that is plaguing this article 82.47.31.154 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proofs of existence

[edit]

@BrightRoundCircle - please see discussion on AfD page. When the fact in question is whether a song/film/book etc named "Butterfly Effect" exists, then a reliable source that proves that that item existed in popular culture is exactly what is needed in the article. I am (of course) perfectly well aware that we very often need much more than that, and some of the new citations go much further, but when the claim is a modest "they wrote the song", "they named their band after the butterfly effect", then an existence proof is both necessary and sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think that it has to go that far since films, tv shows, songs, ect. are considered reliable sources about themselves. That's why film articles don't need secondary sources for plot sections. JOJ Hutton 14:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TRIVIA. List of songs, bands, works of fiction etc that merely exist is not significant and does not contribute to the article. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ JojHutton: Thankyou for the support, but we are facing both an AfD and a nominator who is deleting references rather than discussing. We do require sources here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ BrightRoundCircle - No, please listen and think rather than repeating that everything everyone else is saying is WP:TRIVIA. We are NOT just making a list, we are saying that in popular culture, the concept of the butterfly effect was so greatly exciting that pop groups named themselves after it (proof of existence needed), that they named songs after it (proof again), that books were named after it (proof again), and so on. The article ALSO contains proof (if it hasn't been ripped out) that pop culture also discussed the butterfly effect in film, books, song lyrics, etc, which the refs also serve to demonstrate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between references that show a work of fiction exists, and reference that show a work of fiction is significant. "Refs as examples" is original research. Using references to prove something exists does not mean that it's significant, only that it exists. "This song is called Butterfly Effect" is trivia. If you want to include it in the article, you need a reference that discusses its significance, not one that merely states it exists. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion shows there's sweeping consensus that examples are not "self-sourcing" and they are required to be significant. Any example that is referenced to a primary source or to a source that does not show the example's significance should be removed. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring material without citations

[edit]

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" - this is Wikipedia policy. "Stable version" is not Wikipedia policy (even though it was once under consideration). Neither is "proof of existence". In fact, as far as I can tell, there is pretty strong consensus that "the source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance." There is no support for restoring all the unsourced material to this article. There is clear policy and clear consensus for removing this material. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are tagged as needing citations. This isn't new information that was just recently added without citations. The article is stable so let it rest for now and give it more time for people to add the citations that you want. JOJ Hutton 00:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been tagged since 2008 (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. The 2008 tags were improperly replaced with 2015 tags). The article rested for eight years. Eight years is enough times to find citations. Please do not restore unsourced material. There's no policy that says articles should rest or have a stable version. There is a policy that says not to restore uncited material. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since films and books, and such are citation about themselves, the need for citations is moot. That is because the information is easily verifiable through watching/reading the material. But of course citations can easily be inserted, but that would be overkill in this case. You didn't get your way with getting the article deleted, so now you are trying to gut it. Why are you making this article a battleground on this?--JOJ Hutton 12:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Current tags are from 11 days ago" - this is outright false, see the links. You're ignoring Wikipedia policy and consensus, you cannot use "self-citing" sources and you cannot restore uncited material. Don't like it? Provide adequate citations, not citations that merely state "this example exists". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example this citation is a review of a film. It does not deal with "butterfly effect in popular culture", it merely says "this is a film that exists, it's called Butterfly Effect, it's a poor treatment of the subject." No mention of impact or influence on popular culture. Read the consensus about "self-sourcing" examples for "in popular culture" material, read the ample links that show that the tags are from eight years ago (no, you can't "renew" tags to eleven days ago - let's renew them for today then!), and no, you can't restore uncited and poorly-cited material. Instead of asking why I'm making a "battleground", ask why your edits are against Wikipedia policy and consensus, and why you have to justify them with false information and flimsy excuses ("the tags are from 11 days ago" - false, "restoring to stable version" - not a valid reason, "what's the rush?" - for an article tagged OR for 8 years, etc). BrightRoundCircle (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why I have to explain it in ten different ways:

Can you address the issues (Wikipedia policy, consensus) instead of deciding that I'm unworthy to clean up this article because some imagined grudge I have? I have not made a personal comment against anyone here, let alone you. All the edits are strictly according to Wikipedia policy and consensus. It's restoring unsourced and poorly sourced material that's against Wikipedia policy and consensus, and maybe some grudge against being held up to Wikipedia policy and content standards. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • It doesn't matter at this point. I got the full version saved on my sandbox and I'll just add all of the citations there and transfer them here. I've already started adding citations, but looks like you may have removed cited material. Once everything is cited however, I expect you to stop your deletion of this information. Thank you. JOJ Hutton 01:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You may have removed cited material" - not properly cited. Remember that "self-citing" examples are not proper sources. When you added a proper source (even just as a bare URL) it was kept in the article. When you added a "self sourcing example", I removed it, because there is consensus that such citations are not valid sources. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-sourcing examples"

[edit]

Sources that don't meet the "self-sourcing example" consensus:

These are not valid sources, these are "self-sourcing examples" with sources that either point to the work itself or a review that does not discuss the work's significance (or source that's a wiki or a forum post). This is mainly for Jojhutton who is attempting to use these sources indiscriminately. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: found the Milenio article on archive dot is (remove "example.com/" from the URL to access it), it's a recap/review/interview. It does not discuss the significance of the work or the butterfly effect in popular culture. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and for the sake of completion, here are the good sources (and some flimsy but still acceptable sources) from the article:
  • Dizikes, Petyer (8 June 2008). "The meaning of the butterfly". The Boston Globe. - the best source in the article, specifically discusses the butterfly effect in popular culture at length, surprisingly in-depth for a newspaper article.
  • Flam, Faye (2012-06-15). "The Physics of Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder"". Philadelphia Inquirer. - an okay source; doesn't directly discuss the butterfly effect in popular culture, and mostly centers on laymen physics and speculation about time travel, but at least it discusses the significance of The Sound of Thunder a little bit.
  • Scott Brake (December 19, 2000). "Renny Harlin and Pierce Brosnan Hear A Sound of Thunder". - relatively poor source that discusses the significance of A Sound of Thunder in a short list of examples of supposed influence, doesn't go into detail. Still, it's one step above the "this exits" sources above; not good, but defensible.
  • Clader, Emily (13 August 2014). "Did chaos cause mayhem in Jurassic Park?". Plus Magazine. - this one is slightly better than the IGN source. It actually devotes a single paragraph to discussing the butterfly effect in popular culture, but it doesn't really discuss Jurassic Park's significance. Like the IGN source, it's still better than the "this exists" sources, and its value is defensible.
  • Stewart, Ian (23 March 2015). "Five Things Discworld Will Teach You About Science". IFL Science. - this is almost a "this exists" citation, except it dedicates an entire sentence to the butterfly effect in popular culture (and none to the significance of the example it gives)! That sets it one sentence apart from a "this exists" example! I'd argue it ultimately is a "this exists" example, but again, that single sentence (and the prominence of its author) make this reference at least defensible.
Those last three sources have an at-best-minor relation to the article, but they're still slightly above "this exists" examples because they have some discussion of the article's subject and some indication of the significance of the examples they give. Compare to the "this exists" sources which have no discussion of the article's subject and no indication of the significance of the example other than... it exists. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Butterfly effect?

[edit]

I realise that there was an inconclusive deletion debate several years ago, but perhaps now's the time to merge the most significant points in this list (e.g. the Bradbury short story) into the butterfly effect article and leave out the trivia (e.g. song lyrics; YouTube). At present, there is no popular culture element to that article at all. Ravenclawed (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been developed since 2016 and includes a lot of material with secondary sources, and no links to YouTube, and it is not a list, although notability of the grouping appears supported by secondary sources in the article. At present, the Butterfly effect article prominently links to this article as a way to incorporate the popular culture element, and a merge seems better to avoid because the topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, the resulting single article would likely be too long or "clunky", and this article can be expanded. Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article as-is, a merge would be fine. The text is fit for TV Tropes, apart from 5-10 sentences which could easily fit into the main article. Some of the examples are truly trivial, like citing a review of a film, not as a secondary source, but as a primary for the fact that the review itself uses the term "butterfly effect" (I removed this, and was reverted by Beccaynr). While we surely can rack up a lot more examples like that, they're missing the topic. For instance, perhaps the most lasting exposure of the butterfly effect in the general public was James Gleick's non-fiction book Chaos, which probably inspired at least a few of the examples in this article (see e.g. [1]). Tracing and discussing these kinds of influences would be a lot more encyclopedic than simply listing mentions of the term. Daß Wölf 20:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, an objective review of the sources in the article, including but not limited to the secondary sources I restored to support content (because it is encyclopedic verification, commentary and context), demonstrates this is a discrete subject warranting its own article. I am concerned that original research, e.g. subjective analysis of what is most important, is not enough to support a selective merge. Beccaynr (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using a Guardian article to show that the same article uses the term doesn't qualify as using a secondary source. The Guardian is used as a primary source basically to support the statement, "The Guardian used the words 'butterfly effect' here." This is in no way WP:SIGCOV for GNG. It can even be argued that making and editing a list of these results is, in a way, OR, since we're doing the job of a secondary source by picking which of the many RS mentions of the butterfly effect are WP-worthy. Daß Wölf 15:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article topic of the Butterfly effect in popular culture meets WP:GNG per the significant coverage of the broad subject, and these sources are cited in the article and the lead. Expansion of the lead with information from some of these sources may make the scope of the article more clear. Contrary to my earlier comment in April, this article does include a list of popular culture examples, and these examples are often supported by additional secondary sources that find it noteworthy that the work used 'the butterfly effect', or are marked as needing a citation. Per MOS:LISTBASICS, Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain.
Per MOS:PASI, Secondary information is external to the fictional universe; it is usually taken from secondary sources about the work or the fictional world it describes, or from primary and secondary sources about the author and the creation of the work. We are encouraged to use as much secondary information as necessary and useful to cover the topic's major facts and details from a real-world perspective. By contrast, primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, etc., while independent reviews of a work that offer context and commentary are secondary, because they provide analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
I have been researching and removing works that appear to have no primary or secondary support for actually using 'the butterly effect' as a concept, and adding secondary support for works that have been verified and found noteworthy for how the concept is used in the particular work. From my view, the use of secondary sources as support for inclusion is one reason why this article is not based on original research. From my view, this is a dynamic list that can continue to develop and offers encyclopedic information to readers. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the article clearly meets the first four GNG criteria. There's at least several sources going in-depth about how the effect is portrayed in culture, e.g. the articles by Dizikes. The issue is that most of the text consists of indiscriminate examples sourced to primary or to secondary sources that aren't particularly notable in this context, such as episode reviews (see e.g. MOS:POPCULT). Once these examples are removed, not much remains, and certainly not so much that it would overwhelm the 2,700-word Butterfly effect article.
Consider this example: 'During the COVID-19 pandemic, "the butterfly effect" was also used to describe the impact of increased waiting times within the health care system in the UK, i.e. "The knock-on effect this would have on my day – the beating of a butterfly's wings in the morning causing tornadoes by the afternoon",' cited to an op-ed containing the quote. In what capacity is this a secondary RS? If we were to use it as evidence of the unpredictability of doctors' schedules, it would be a primary source, because the author describes his own experience (WP:PRIMARYNEWS also applies). In actuality, the article analyzes the text of the source itself, which is again primary per WP:ALLPRIMARY (as we don't have a second source commenting on the op-ed author's choice of words). Not to mention that, strictly speaking, a newspaper article is not an item of popular culture. Daß Wölf 23:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are guidelines that appear to anticipate the inclusion of examples of a notable topic in a list, e.g. WP:NLISTITEM, WP:LISTN, and I think if the lead is further developed, the scope of the article could more clearly explain why these examples are included, even though I think the current article already demonstrates that the examples are not indiscriminate, due to the contextual presentation.
From my view, the examples add encyclopedic content and should not be removed. More specifically, an op-ed seems to be an example of popular culture, because it is commentary, not a news article, and it is an example of how the concept is used as a term of art, not the scientific reference. My preference is to include secondary sources whenever possible, but the fiction MOS does not appear to always require it, and I think when the use of the concept is clear in a work, a secondary source is not strictly necessary to support inclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, MOS:POPCULT looks fairly explicit to me: 'Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item.' (emphasis mine). Even with the most lenient reading of this guideline the page can be brought down to ~470 words, which is roughly the size of the MOS:POPCULT section itself. Daß Wölf 13:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:IPC essay talks about articles, and seems like helpful perspective on the inclusion of content. I have worked to revise and expand this article over time, and I think a merge is inappropriate for an article like this, about a discrete topic with such a capacity for expansion, into an somewhat-related article because of a subjective belief that there is nothing more to build. Beccaynr (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IPC also cautions against using primary sources and trivial mentions: "Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute original research where the reference itself is ambiguous ... In determining whether a reference is encyclopedic, one helpful test can be to look at whether a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone. For example, if a movie or a television series has been filmed in a town, the viewer is seeing a concrete representation of what the town actually looks like at street level; but if the town is merely mentioned in a single line of dialogue, the viewer hasn't learned anything except that the place exists." -- I understand you've put work into this page, but it still has to conform with the guidelines, including being concise and illuminating to the reader. For instance, if all a reader knew about butterfly effect was from the op-ed discussed above, to them it would be just an unknown hapax legomenon. Being familiar with this example teaches them nothing more than what they've learned from the 2nd para in the lead. Daß Wölf 14:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to emphasize that I see opportunities for expansion of this article within the various guidelines that I believe can help address your concern, including with content from the academic journal I recently added [2]. From my view, your feedback indicates there is more work that could be done to make the scope of the article more clear, and I am happy to make the attempt because I find your perspective to be helpful insight into ways this article can be improved. However, I do not plan to work on this article today, and I would appreciate your patience with the article development process. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Butterfly_effect_in_popular_culture&oldid=1206494985"