Talk:Kidnapped (American TV series)

Changes
I reverted some changes, as there were instances of bad grammar, overlinking, and removal (w/o any explanation) of info that seemed useful. It seems like there was a rash of perfectionism where, if anything seemed imperfect, it was just removed instead of being fixed.

Also, I recommend checking out MOS:Wikilinking x 09:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Critical reviews
I've removed quite a bit of critical content: 'Ratings for the premiere were somewhat disappointing'...is POV.

'One year earlier, the season-premiere of former occupant Law & Order netted a 10.3/16 in the overnights'..not really encyclopedic or informative, especially if only to support POV.

'Critics were more enthusiastic however'...more POV that might be suitable for a periodical.

'The Chicago Tribune says:"Several new dramas, including the apocalyptic "Jericho" '...inserting reviews could go on forever, and isn't really informative, just a way to insert editorial content in the guise of references. x 03:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Consciousness reinstated in Trivia
I've reinstated The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind in the Trivia section. This is bona-fide trivia, not "editorial content," as indicated when this mention was removed.PaulLev 23:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Leopold Cain says he is reading The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, in the premier episode. Even though it's true, how is it of value as encyclopedic content? So far it's just trivial, not trivia.

Like the mention of Marshall McLuhan in the second season of The Sopranos, this puts Kidnapped in the rare company of tv dramas with characters literate in classic media theory. This is pure POV. If you can point to a source where someone specifically qualified has poiinted this out in a way that is of encyclopedic value to the article, maybe you can couch it in that kind of reference. x 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone qualified? I'm Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University, author of numerous scholarly books and articles on the subject of tv and popular culure translated into 12 languages, have a BA, MA, PhD in this area, etc. The intertextuality of media - how one medium draws upon and references others - is one of the most important areas in media studies. Do a search on the Web - or just take a look at the Intertextuality article here on Wiki - and see what you find. It's not "pure POV" at all - but an important facet of scholarly studies. I'll wait for your response before I reinstate.PaulLev 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Since one of the main requirements of Wikipedia is to not post original research, my point was that if there is specifically published and acknowledged info already existing regarding Kidnapped as belonging to a notable collection of TV shows for whatever reason, then maybe that could be included in the article. This isn't about questioning your own qualifications or the accuracy or importance of your text (which by itself is irrelevant to Wikipedia); it's about questioning how you've applied this to the article. Though it is indeed POV with supporting data, it is POV first. x 21:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The show just premiered a few weeks ago, so of course there are no published articles identifying it as belonging to "a notable collection of TV shows for whatever reason".  But there is an article already on Wiki about this show - not of my writing - with a category, Trivia, also not of my creation.  Further, I already alerted you, in my last comment, to Wiki's Intertextuality article (also not of my writing), which focuses on the importance in our popular culture of media presentations that draw in various ways on other media presentations.  If you don't find the Wiki Intertextuality article persuasive about the importance of the Jaynes book being referenced in this TV show, I suggest we take this to Dispute resolution.  Please say how you would like to proceed.PaulLev 22:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PS - I did see at least one review of Kidnapped which mentioned The Origin of Consciousness - if you thought a citation to that might help the article here, I'd be happy to track it down and include it.PaulLev 22:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since x hasn't responded to the above, I reinstated The Origin of Consciousness, for the reasons I gave above. I think it's best that this minor but (in my view) significant disagreement be taken to Disputes, if this passage is removed again.PaulLev 22:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to address this as a dispute if you wish. But again, my concern does not relate to either the importance of the book or its reference on the show, that's irrelevant, and again, POV. I made some suggestions as to alternatives, and the response seems to be that because this opinion is not available and citable elsewhere (for whatever reason), then POV is allowable. That's not Wiki policy.


 * If the review you mention is intended to become the subject of the trivia, and it is not merely substantiation of your POV, or it is not just proof that the book was mentioned on the show, then maybe it is indeed applicable. x 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've taken a different approach to this issue, where maybe a list of literery references is supplied as a trivia item (w/o the POV). I do know that a second reference has been made during the first three eps (which I'll try to track down), and possibly more may be made before the show ends. x 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I was just about to request that a 3rd editor be called in to look at our disagreement, but if we can resolve it ourselves, so much the better. I have no problem with your listing literary references in the show, and if you can find more of them, that's so much the better as well.PaulLev 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cancelled
Someone should edit this to show its canceled. Im terrible with html.


 * Response to above: as far as I can tell, the show has not be cancelled, but moved to Saturday night, and this already mentioned in the article.PaulLev 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it has technically been cancelled, but it was decided that the original order of 13 eps would be completed and aired on Saturdays. But an entire 22 ep season would not happen, and a second season also would not happen (unless the ratings improved). So it's kind of an unusual cancellation. x 16:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's still being broadcast, then it's been moved and clipped, not cancelled. But we're saying essentially the same thing.  Your "unusual cancellation" = my "moved and clipped" :-)  PaulLev 07:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Links
I removed the link to tvseriesfinale.com because the story it pointed to was out of date.

I removed the Reuters link because it was just redundant to the Daily News link. x 14:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Series overview
There seems to be an insistence by several editors on inserting the cancellation of the series into the overview section. The overview section is there to explain what the show was about. The scheduling section explains its fate just fine.

The only real sense of mentioning the cancellation in the overview is to explain how the idea of the show was not able to be fully utilized, since part of the premise included multiple seasons as an element. As long as that's explained clearly, then great. x 22:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right - I think that aspect is fine now - see below. Tvoz | talk 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Xtramental's point here -  it was added to the "Series Overview" section originally to replace some awkward phrasing about the premise being cancelled - but it's fine now with the sentence out of there completely.  However, it belonged in the very top intro (which I inadvertently referred to as "overview" in edit summary, but meant the top intro) which very briefly summarizes the status of the show. See, for example, The O.C. (TV series) and many others - top short intro  has to include its ultimate fate.   Tvoz | talk 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kidnapped cast photo.jpg
Image:Kidnapped cast photo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)