Talk:Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Bone Marrow Analysis paragraph removed

The article previously contained this paragraph: The characters and text refer to these androids (or "andys") variously as "robots", "machines", and "programmed", but it is later made clear that they are constructed of organic materials so similar to a human's that only a tedious "bone marrow analysis" can independently prove the difference. To save time in identifying incognito androids, various style personality tests have been devised. This is mentioned in the book, and many feel that the fact that the androids are organic is very important to the themes of the book. Many also don't think it's important, but I don't think this paragraph should have been removed just because some people think it's not important. If no one objects, I'll revert the edit that removed it. AmethystFloris (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I object. The scientific specifics are not needed for (and are even overwhelming to) a mere summary paragraph. We're looking at general background that connects to the plot and the most general events/motivations of characters within the plot. Wolfdog (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Since it's very important to the themes, it should be mentioned in a Themes and analysis section (with the proper citations). DonQuixote (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

That could work. Wolfdog (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm down with that, but I also can't help thinking, wouldn't that require the creation of an entire section simply for one theme? I mean, I can try to embed it into the plot somewhere if you want instead, but the question of whether the andys are organic or not is something wondered by many, and if you can't find an answer on Wikipedia, I feel like Wikipedia's not doing its job. It should be your first port of call. AmethystFloris (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not wikipedia's job. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to summarize reliable sources. If you want an in-depth summary of the plot, then you should look at something other than an encyclopaedia...or read the book. And you're right, an entire section for only one theme is too much. That's why we should summarize what reliable sources say about themes and analysis.. DonQuixote (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate...and I don't think the composition of the andys is "in-depth"; it's basic. Even if you put a pin in the importance of it as a theme, which is a subjective matter, in the plot summary, without explaining that they're organic, it makes no sense as to why Deckard has to administer an empathy-based test rather than a physical one, so I think it's also important to the plot. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Tertiary sources educate by summarizing secondary sources. That's to avoid original research. DonQuixote (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I know. I'm very familiar with Wikipedia. But at the moment, we've got a page that previously explained the organic composition of the androids and the subsequent development of personality tests, and now that's been removed, it just jumps straight into the empathy tests. So I'm going to write it into the plot section unless someone'll revert it. AmethystFloris (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably Wolfdog because he literally objected to it above. The scientific specifics are not needed for (and are even overwhelming to) a mere summary paragraph. We're looking at general background that connects to the plot and the most general events/motivations of characters within the plot. DonQuixote (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

He objected to it being restored to its original place, which was the introduction "setting" section; not the longer plot section. AmethystFloris (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That's still Synopsis. Instead of trying to shoehorn it into Synopsis, it might be better to include it in a well written Themes and analysis section. DonQuixote (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think a well-written, well-cited Themes and Analysis section is definitely something that would be a credit to the article. I also appreciate Wolfdog's argument that the original paragraph as-written was overwhelming for the initial "setting" section. But right now, without explaining that they're organic so empathy tests are necessary, the plot summary doesn't make sense. I'm suggesting a change along the lines of -

Current: These androids are capable of extremely realistic behaviors, which make them difficult to detect, but Deckard hopes to earn enough bounty money to buy a live animal to replace his lone electric sheep. Deckard visits the Rosen Association's headquarters in Seattle to confirm the accuracy of the latest empathy test.

Suggestion: These androids are made of organic matter so similar to a human's that only a "bone marrow analysis" can independently prove the difference, making them difficult to detect, but Deckard hopes to earn enough bounty money to buy a live animal to replace his lone electric sheep. Deckard visits the Rosen Association's headquarters in Seattle to confirm the accuracy of the latest empathy test (to save time in identifying incognito androids, various style personality tests have been devised). AmethystFloris (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What's confusing about These androids are capable of extremely realistic behaviors, which make them difficult to detect,? Makes perfect sense to a general reader. DonQuixote (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't explain why the tests aren't physical -- if anything, it's more confusing, because why use an empathy-based test when they have extremely realistic behaviours, instead of a physical one? So, I'm going to add that change now. AmethystFloris (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There, I've put that in. I hope you approve. AmethystFloris (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)