Talk:New Amsterdam (2008 TV series)/Archive 1

Similarity to Forever
The New Amsterdam plotline somewhat resembles the plot of Pete Hamill's Forever. From Hamill's wiki entry:
 * "Fox Broadcasting Company has introduced a television show for the 2007–2008 season, "New Amsterdam," which bears a noticeable resemblance to the novel, Forever. It's not yet clear if this is just a coincidence."

Ormaybemidgets 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * CNN has a story about the similarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.171.37 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless credit is given by the "creators" of the show somewhere, why don't we call this what it is - plagiarism. DP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.88.255 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a fan of Hamill's book. Having said that Hamill did not come up with the idea of an immortal in New York.  Highlander was there first, and all three of them owe alot to vampire stories.  Hamill's book was really two books; a non-fictional history of the city wrapped in a story of revenge and letting go of hatred.  The Series is about other themes.
 * Now admittedly they do both share that the character was given immortality for saving a life, and that their immortality ends when they find their soul mate. Other than that they are no more similar than say two cop shows set in LA.  The thematic execution of the two works is different enough that the similarity is much smaller than it might at first seem.  The character in Forever will die if he leaves the island, and there is no indication that he cannot be killed, only that he does not age.  Amsterdam can go anywhere, and will apparently recover from almost anything.
 * Also Forever's fictional narrative was heavily about the past, and the character's blood-feud. New Amsterdam is mostly about the present, and a search for love.
 * From another point of view, just as Star Trek owed much to Horatio Hornblower and "Wagon Train to the stars", New Amsterdam could be described as Highlander but with Forever's version of immortality. None of that is actually plagiarism, just borrowing concepts from the zeitgeist that is popular culture.  You do not own ideas, you copyright the particular expression of those ideas.
 * —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a similarity to Wagner's opera "Flying Dutchman". The dutch sea captain is cursed to sail the seas forever until redeemed by true love. John Amsterdam is dutch, and will live until he finds his true soul mate. Anyone know if the writer or producer is a Wagner fan?

It wouldn't be the first time a theme from Wagner found its way into television. In the '50's, the overture to "Flying Dutchman" was the signature tune of "Captain Video and his Space Cadets". Speaking of space cadets, will any amount of true love redeem George Bush? Papagano (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There was an American television series from 1970-1971 called The Immortal. Back in about 1985, I attended a scriptwriting class and the tutor told us that there are very few plots, but millions of characters. There's nothing new under the sun. If you look hard enough, you'll find everything is a copy of something. One journalist wrote that Night of the Living Dead is a remake of Plan Nine from Outer Space. Eligius (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeline?
Is there a source for the timeline, other than someone watching the shows? For one thing, wouldn't that be OR? Not criticizing, just trying to clarify for myself what constitutes OR. The main reason I ask, though, is to see whether there's an official source for "Johann van der Zee". Yes, I watched the episode, and I came away with "Flandersee". "Van der Zee" definitely sounds more Dutch to me, but I would like to know whether it's official, or based on someone else's hearing. Thanks! Applejuicefool (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be original research to make extrapolations about things not discussed on screen, but simply reporting the events is fine. Episodes are valid sources.  As for the spellings, I watch the show with the closed captioning turned on for exactly that reason. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bravo for showing that closed captioning can be used as a source. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but some of the stuff in there IS extrapolation, which is why I wondered if it came from a published source. For instance, "2007: John has had 609 girlfriends, 36 dogs, and a few wives. Omar York owns Omar's: Bar–Grill, Wines—Liquors. Omar has a daughter named Hallie, who herself has a son named Corey." All we know about John's dogs is that he's had a dog named "Twenty-nine" and now has a dog named "Thirty-six". While it seems probable that he's numbering his dogs, there is no direct proof of this in the show. And, duh, I should have remembered Closed Captioning, I usually use it myself, but I missed episode 2 and watched it at the Fox website. Applejuicefool (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When we only had Thirty-six as an example, I would have agreed with you, but as of episode two, and dog Twenty-nine. It honestly never occurred that he was not numbering his dogs.  What I meant by extrapolation is stuff like "since he was in the 'Big Red One' and they were in such-and-such action, then John was there too". I suppose your right that we do not know with 100% certainty that he numbers his dogs, but if he does not then its an very odd pair of names to use, especially given that they are in sequence for the timeline. —MJBurrage(T•C) 04:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's taken directly from episode dialogue. In the second episode, during the conversation in the cemetery, Omar says that John numbers his dogs.  Henrymrx (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Omar says, "Do you number your wives like you do your dogs?" ColdFusion650 (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, yep, I forgot about that line. But even though that gives credence to the idea that John numbers his dogs, it still doesn't prove the fact that he's had exactly 36 dogs. What if his first dog was named "Zero"? What if he had some other dogs with regular names? My point is that trying to work out encyclopedic facts from a few lines of dialogue is iffy. Who even knows for certain that the characters are telling the truth? Certainly John messes with the truth from time to time (though not as often as one might expect), by using aliases if nothing else. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If we followed that logic than we could never use anything anyone says as information, even flashbacks would be suspect because they could be faulty memories etc. Unless the show itself suggests we should not believe something; we should take it at face value. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia policy? I've been considering, and it still seems to me that information like this should be qualified in the article, perhaps: "According to Omar, John numbers his dogs. John calls his current dog 'Thirty-six'." That way, Wikipedia is telling the truth even if the characters are lying. It's based on facts, not supposition. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If we had any reason to believe that John was being deceptive, I would agree with you. However it is very clear by now, that John is telling the truth, and that it is simply dismissed by others as joking since by their understanding the truth is "impossible".  To treat it otherwise would be unnecessarily wordy.  Think about describing a story in which a character discusses their unseen brother.  We would not write "according to X, they have a brother named Y" we would just say "X has a brother named Y".
 * Now if the story was about deceptive statements or the story implied such deceptions/delusions it would be appropriate to discuss them. but that is not the case here. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But there are other reasons a statement might be factually incorrect other than lying. What if we learn, in a later episode, that John DID start numbering with "Zero" rather than "One"? What if we learn that he skipped "Thirteen" because he is (or was at the time) superstitious? In either of these cases, the statement that "John has had 609 girlfriends, 36 dogs, and a few wives" will have been shown to be false (And, yes, I do realize that if both these circumstances are true, the total will still come out to 36). The truth is, we just don't know for *certain* that John has had 36 dogs. We should only include in the article facts about which we are certain. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as an analogy, it would be like, if the Milky Way article said "There is a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way." This is highly likely; in fact, it is what most scientists believe based on the evidence available. But the article instead says "The galactic center harbors a compact object of very large mass (named Sagittarius A*), strongly suspected to be a supermassive black hole." The truth is that although the evidence points in certain directions, we're just not certain (in either case). Applejuicefool (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In your example you are using an article about the real world, and something that is specifically a theory about the topic. Wikipedia is very clear on presenting such information.  In an article about a fictional story, the only source for the background is the work of fiction itself.  Unless that work of fiction gives you a reason to doubt it, you take it at face value.  Using M*A*S*H as an example, over the years most of the characters told us things about there background, and an article simply reports what they said as fact.  But in the specific case of Hawkeye Pierce, where in the film his father was said to be a fisherman and in the series he was said to be a doctor, this discrepancy is noted.  were as in the case of say Maxwell Klinger the article does not parse his hometown as "Kilnger claims he is from Toledo, Ohio" it just says that "Klinger is from Toledo, Ohio"
 * So unless the series gives us a contradiction, or shows that John just makes stuff up sometimes, we can take his comments at face value. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But there are differences between a show with an 11-year run, which ended so we know what contradictions are there and what there aren't, which was based on a movie and has a couple of spin-offs, so we have even more information about it; and a show that's been extant for a whole three episodes. With MASH, we have a wealth of information to base our assertions on. With New Amsterdam, we just don't have enough to know yet. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, your last line about taking John's comments at face value: The question then is, "What is face value?" John has never said "I have had 36 dogs." He has a dog that he calls 36, and Omar has implied that he numbers his dogs, but as I've pointed out, inferring from these statements that John has had 36 dogs is not a sure thing. I keep coming back to the dog example because it fits my point so well, but there are other exampes as well. For instance: "Johann van der Zee is born on June 1, 1607, in Amsterdam, Holland." We don't know this for sure. All we know is that John muttered (thought?) this name, date, and place as he was filling out his...what, enrollment application? for military service using a different name, date, and place. It seems a good bet, but it's still an assumption that Johann van der Zee goes with June 1, 1607, and Amsterdam, Holland. I applaud you for not concluding (at least not in the article) that Johann van der Zee is John Amsterdam's real name, but if you are willing to make the leaps you have, why not that one? Applejuicefool (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why assume we are being given couched or incorrect information. If we have seen two dogs, and they both have numbers for names, and a character said he numbers his dogs, what basis is their to couch describing that with "maybe he skipped a number" or "maybe he also had some dogs with non-number names".  Sure those could be true, lots of things could be true, (maybe he liked seven so much that he used it twice) all we need to do is report what the episodes tell us, and we do not need to second guess it unless the show becomes the type of show that is intentionally deceptive.  We know he numbers his dogs, we know he is on number 36, we have no reason to make it more complicated than that.


 * Exactly, so why are you? (or whoever wrote the timeline). The timeline takes it that extra step and says that John has had 36 dogs. This is information we DON'T HAVE. All we know is that John numbers his dogs, that he has had a dog in the past named Twenty-nine, and now has a dog that he calls Thirty-six. We do NOT KNOW how many dogs he has had. That is an assumption. Logical, given the information we have, but still an assumption. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Using M*A*S*H again, in the first season Hawkeye mentions being from Vermont, in the rest of the seasons he is from Maine. If we were watching the show now, then during the first season, the page would just say Vermont; during the second season, the page would mention the odd change; and eventually the page would say what it does now. I.E. Vermont was either a mistake or a retcon.  But we do not have to start second guessing every detail just because something like that might happen.  We just deal with it if it does happen.  I cant think of any show page on wikipedia that does what your suggesting. (except again for those shows where the whole point is to figure out what is really going on, and where main characters are often deliberately deceptive, such as Lost) —MJBurrage(T•C) 15:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But in this case, why should we put our assumptions up as facts? It's unnecessary. It is just as easy to say "John has a dog he calls Thirty-six" as it is to say "John has had 36 dogs." And while the latter is an assumption, the former is empirically true. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the birth day, the show carefully matches him writing one name while saying the real one, writing one birthday while saying the real one, and then writing one birth city while saying the real one. Very clear that as he wrote out the details for the York Alias, he was saying the real details.  And absolutely no reason to assume otherwise. —MJBurrage(T•C) 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, now I'm getting confused. You are defending something that is not - and shouldn't be - in the article. I gave you props for NOT asserting that Johann van der Zee is John's real name, and you're defending that assertion. Yes, it's pretty clear, but it's not given in the show as a fact. It's a logical leap - just not a very big one.
 * Here's another example: "late 1800s / early 1900s – John is a furniture maker named J. G. Benwaar." We don't know for certain that John goes by the name Benwaar during this period. At least to my recollection (and please correct me if I'm wrong; I don't mind admitting when I screw up), all we know is that John made a desk and an antique appraiser judged it an authentic Benwaar. We don't know that it was John operating under this name; perhaps he sold his furniture through an intermediary. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They show a photo of John as Benwaar, and the name is on his tool case. —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I must have missed that one. What evidence do we have that the medicine woman was Lenape, other than John saying he lived with the Lenape for a while? Applejuicefool (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He saved, and then was saved by the natives of Manhattan (episode). The natives of Manhattan were the Lenape (Real life). If that was it, then I could see your point, but then in a later episode he names them as Lenape. If you can't accept anything—unless he carefully spells it out, in exacting detail, all at once—then we can't put anything on this page.  Where else in describing fiction does wikipedia hold to the standard you are asking for here?
 * And I do understand that their is a line between what they tell us and extrapolation. For example we know he has (at least in part) Lenape blood, and we know the shaman poured liquid into his wound.  One could argue that the liquid was blood, and that is the connection, but it could have been medicine, and there could be a later explanation. One brief image, and one comment are not enough.  But the dog stuff was spelled out for us, their names are numbers, Omar points out that John numbers his dogs, and we know John is on number 36.  It is actually the bigger assumption that he has not had 36 dogs. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My point about the dogs is, it's an assumption either way. We DON'T KNOW for certain how many dogs he's had. We should stick to facts, not assumptions, especially when it the assumption adds nothing to the article. You asked "Where else in describing fiction does wikipedia hold to the standard you are asking for here?" Policy-wise, check out WP:PSTS. The TV show itself is the primary source. According to the policy: "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: (bullet) only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (bullet) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." I read that to mean that when we work from a primary source, we should only describe it, not make assumptions about it. If you can find a secondary source - a magazine, perhaps, that says he has 36 dogs, then by all means say he has 36 dogs and attribute the claim to that source. But we can't say for certain based on a purely descriptive viewing of the show, that he has 36 dogs. It doesn't absolutely follow. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The show is the source for 36 dogs. He numbers them, the current one is 36.  It's that simple, 36 dogs.  In this case anything else is a convoluted assumption. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I see logical debate is breaking down here. Let me try once more, and then we'll try something else. We know the following facts about John's dogs: 1) He has had a dog named Twenty nine. 2) He currently has a dog named Thirty six. 3) Omar has implied that he numbers his dogs.
 * That's it! Nothing else! At least, nothing else that affects this discussion (for example, we know that Twenty Nine was, and Thirty Six is, black. And we know that they are practically, if not, identical. But these don't affect the current discussion). We don't know how many dogs he has had! I have pointed out a few possibilities that aren't even all that unlikely: It is possible John had a dog named "Zero". It is possible John skipped one or more numbers, such as "Thirteen". Here's a new one: Maybe John currently has another dog that we haven't met yet. And another: Maybe, somewhere around the world, John owns a dog shelter, with a bunch of unnamed and un-numbered dogs. Now, I am in no way suggesting that these are the truth or that they should be included in the article. They are assumptions, and therefore do not belong in an encyclopedia article. The reason I even bring them up is to point out that YOUR assertion, that John has 36 dogs, in no way rises above the level of "assertion" itself. When you say "The show is the source for 36 dogs", you're citing a primary source in a way that we're not supposed to use primary sources! We cannot simply watch the show that we've seen so far and observe definitively that John has 36 dogs. Applejuicefool (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are always "possibilities". Take a program about a family, with three kids (two shown, one at college and only referred to).  It's possible that the parents adopted the oldest one, and are keeping it a secret.  It's possible that they had a dead kid, that no one talks about.  That does not change the fact that an article will simply report that they have three kids.  Given a show about a workplace; a character says they have a kid, we report that they have a kid.  We don't speculate that maybe they don't and are delusional even though it's possible.
 * It's not my assumption that he has had 36 dogs, the show clearly told us that he does number them "So what does that make my mother? The fifth, the 25th? Does she get a number like your dogs?". The line makes no sense what-so-ever if John does not number his dogs.  Finally the first episode tells us that he is on dog 36. —MJBurrage(T•C) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Once I was corrected about Omar's line, I never argued that John does not number his dogs. What I am saying is that we don't know HOW he numbers them. It is a bit of a stretch just to leap to the conclusion, from Omar's line, that John must have started with the name "One" for his first dog, "Two" for his second dog, etc.; never skipped a number, never had ANY dogs named Fido or Rover, or whatever. These DO qualify as assumptions, given our current level of knowledge.
 * As promised, a different tack. I have three suggestions for changes to the article:
 * #1: In the Plot section, make the following addition: ""...marked by loss as his friends, lovers, children, and dogs (who John numbers - his current dog is named "Thirty Six") gradually grow old...".
 * #2: In the Timeline section, Year 1941: "...favorite books, and his dog is named "Twenty nine." Under pressure..."
 * #3: Also in the Timeline section, Year 2007: "In the series' present day, John claims to have had 609 girlfriends and a few wives. He calls his current dog, a (breed? anyone know?), "Thirty six." Omar York owns..." and the rest as is.
 * Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Applejuicefool (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't contest the above change, it just seems like a really wordy way of saying what the article says now. The current wording does not even say they have all been numbers, just that he is on number 36.  I would expect (but would not put in the article for obvious reasons) that he used regular names for the first dozen or so dogs, and only started numbering them after awhile.  I still think it is silly to argue that a guy who has been for some time numbering his dogs would not have the number-name match the dog number.  In other words no mater what the first 28 dogs were named, twenty-nine would have been his 29th dog, etc. —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, I'll go ahead and make the changes then. The current wording (prior to my impending changes) does NOT say he is "on number 36", it says he has had 36 dogs! Applejuicefool (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, done, except I left out the breed in the 2007 timeline because I just don't know it. That might be helpful information, if 29/36 are a recognizable breed. Applejuicefool (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to say, is that while I agree that we do not know if he has always numbered them, we know he does now, and that thirty-six is his 36th dog. You were saying how do we know he didn't have a zero or skip 13 etc. I never disagreed with that, he could have had a Rex, and a Buddy in there as well, but when you start numbering anything, you count what you have had, and start there.  I.E.  the sequence could be 1) Rex, 2) Buddy), 3) Sam, 4) Fluffy, ... 14) Fourteen.  I.E. "Numbers your dogs" means that whenever he got tired of reusing normal pet names, he would still know how many dogs he has had, and the number he would use for a name would match the number he was on.  Anything else is completely silly given the dialog.  Just like your comment about the nurse handing him Omar as an infant would be completely silly if he was not actually the father. —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it's about 50-50 whether he started with "real" names and switched over to numbers at some point, or whether he started off with numbers to begin with. In either case, there are non-ridiculous situations which could lead to him having had a different quantity of dogs than 36. You say "Anything else is completely silly given the dialog." Imagine this situation. John has three dogs, a male and two females. They are named Rex, Lady, and Wilhelmina. John's child (whichever of his progeny) loves these dogs. One day, Lady begins to give birth. John's child watches, fascinated. As she gives birth, the child begins to count the pups: "One, Two, Three..." and so forth. Lady has seven pups. John is so amused by his child counting the births, that the names stick. The pups are named One, Two, Three....up to Seven, in the order of their birth. After that, John always numbers his dogs in honor of his child. This is a totally plausible situation in which John numbers his dogs, but has had not 36, but at least 39 dogs. Yes, it is a totally unfounded hypothesis, but I present it to show that there is a non-silly circumstance in which he might start numbering at One after having had normal-named dogs. Applejuicefool (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed at the back and forth on this particular topic. I think it's quite likely that John had normally named dogs originally and then switched to numbers when he ran out of names he liked. --John T. Folden (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, quite likely. And just to be clear, I'm not actually espousing any of the theories on the topic. I'm just saying the article shouldn't speculate when it's not evident from the show. It may seem like this particular topic is a silly one to quibble about, and truth be told, there are probably more important things to do to improve Wikipedia, but this is what I found. Applejuicefool (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Omar?
Question is Omar is biological son or can he not have children like the show highlander...? Tj21 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The show never says anything about John not being able to have children. All of the dialog between John and the Shaman is as follows:
 * Shaman: "In all of time, there is only one person you were meant to be with. We feel this.  We know it.  But we do not know how to find the one."
 * John: "What have you done to me?
 * Shaman: "You will not grow old. You will not die, until you find the one, and your souls are wed."
 * John: "How will I know when I find her?"
 * Shaman: "You will feel it, here, in your heart."
 * That's it, nothing what-so-ever about kids. The only reason I can fathom for some people thinking he can't have kids is Highlander, but the shows realities have nothing to do with each other. —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * John (in the Pilot episode) relates the story of how he felt when his six-year old son got killed to the mother of the murdered woman. It's possible he simply made up the story in order to comfort the mother, but if not then that would indicate that he;s had at least one child. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So far—according to the show—he has had four kids: 1) Omar York, 2) the dead five-year-old boy, 3) Em his daughter and secretary from 1941, and 4) the one that looks like the male collegian victim in a future episode. —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also the scene where Lily has the nurse hand Omar to his "father" - John - is illogical if John is not the biological father. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We are carrying a thread about John's Names, his occupational timeline, etc at http://www.thebluewhalepub.com Specifically you can find the link to the discussion thread regarding names here: http://thebluewhalepub.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=637 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.17.222 (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Times Square corner
In the pilot episode, it is shown that John has taken at least 75 photographs of Times Square, which is presumably the spot where he was blessed with immortality. Anyone know the exact intersection that he's photographing? — Loadmaster (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not a native, but from Google maps it looks like he is on West 45th Street facing One Times Square (to the south) This would be the direction that takes you to the location of Fort Amsterdam. Right about at 40.75787°N, -73.98561°W. —MJBurrage(T•C) 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Blood
Someone had added that R$Z$R$Z$ blood was fictional. A quick Google search disproves that (Rare Blood Types for example), but I could not find anything on the web that explains well what exactly R$Z$R$Z$ is. Does anybody know enough to add something to the appropriate article here in Wikipedia? —MJBurrage(T•C) 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had added the "fictional" wording because I couldn't find any mention of R$Z$R$Z$ at the time. Thanks for the link. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The mention of his blood type really shouldn't be wikilinked to the Rhesus blood group system page, since R$Z$R$Z$ has nothing to do with the Rh factor. Richwales (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Made the change JaysFan77 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

David Manson
Unless the readers of Wikipedia are supposed to believe that producer David Manson is an immortal himself, I would suggest changing the fact that clicking on his name leads to an article about a man that was born in 1750 ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.105.160.89 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I wouldn't know how we'd go about doing that, though.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Military service
The following was added to the article:
 * It has been said by Amsterdam himself in the episode "Solider's Heart" that he has been in the Marines, Army, Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not the Air Force since he doesn't like heights. He has been in the Army three times.

When exactly was this said? I have seen the episode twice now and did not hear such a line. —MJBurrage(T•C) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats not true, he was just a doctor in the civil war Tj21 (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He says it himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clausewitz01 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 12 March 2008

Ah, got it, during the opening credits. I notice that he does not specify the nationality of service in his quote. —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that what was said? I sort of half-heard the line and came away thinking he said he hadn't been in the Navy because he didn't like *ships*. Guess I misheard. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He was an Army Doctor during the Civil War, to the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong doctor in the military do hold "ranks" although a doctor who hold s the rank of captain would regularly be addressed as "Doctor So-and-So", rather than "Captain So-and-So". By this thinking his Civil War service as a doctor would count towards his three times serving in the army JaysFan77 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * actually majority did NOT hold rank. The only doctors that did have rank were military soldiers holding rank before they became doctors. So they were allowed to keep their ranks. The structure of giving them rank officially came to be in the 1880s.35.11.200.66 (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, as I said it was to the best of my knowledge at the time JaysFan77 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

John's names
While it is normally Wikipedia style to simply use a surname when referring to a subject later in the article, I think that should be slightly altered for this article. Since the character has had many surnames, but usually sticks with John as a given name, I am suggesting that we use surnames for references specific to an alias, but use John when referring to the character in general. I.E. Amsterdam is a cop, York was a lawyer, but John has unusual blood. This would mean that most references would use John, but that some specific ones would use a surname. I believe this will be clearer in the long run. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Makes sense, unless he has used aliases that did not begin with "John" in which cases the alias should be usedJaysFan77 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tidbits
Some interesting things, that I am not sure where (if at all) to put in the article:—MJBurrage(T•C) 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Amsterdam's medical file at St. Francis Hospital is labeled "Feb." and "02".(Ep.104) (My guess, pure supposition, is that that is when he became officer Amsterdam.)


 * John's Wounds:
 * above heart - "ran into a sword"
 * shoulder - "bullet hole"
 * stomach - "shotgun blast"
 * arm - "another sword, more like a dagger really"

takes on new identity ...
Is it really every decade because in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMIbB6V-iGo he states its every twenty years. Which makes more sense to me, since it would be pretty hard to change identities/jobs every 10 years, compared to 20 where he is less likely to run into someone from his previous idenitity. 35.11.200.66 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "As often as once a decade" (open ended, could be longer) is not the same as "every ten years" (specific interval), If we cite the interview as well I suppose it could read every 10–20 years, but I still think the open ended wording is better. —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Van der Zee
I realize MJ is going to love me for this one, but do we actually KNOW that John was "born Johann van der Zee" as the article states, or is that based on his thoughts as he filled out the military enlistment form? I don't recall the name coming up other than then (of course it's possible that I missed something...) It's probable that that's his name based on that scene, but not definitive... Applejuicefool (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a quote of what he says to himself as he writes out York's details on a form. (Which I why I kept it as Holland rather than the more modern Netherlands, and see Van (Dutch) for capitalization guidelines.)  If you want to put it in quotes, go ahead, but given that we're already sourcing each line of the timeline already, I would think it overkill.  Now if he ever contradicts those very specific details, than that should be noted.  (As I did when a title card date did not match a prop date.)
 * I think the timeline entries would be silly if each one was couched with "John said he ..." or "John remembers ..." (since all of the flashbacks are his memories), if there is no existing contradiction. —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're saying, and I agree that we don't necessarily need to couch everything with "John said..." etc. My point here is, he DOESN'T say. He simply mutters or thinks the name, etc., as he fills out the form, with no clear-cut indication of what he means by them. We are speculating when we infer from those thoughts or mutters that he is saying his actual name, birthdate, etc. I agree that it's the most likely reason he would say them, but by no means the only possibility. Maybe he's thinking of a childhood friend that died in a war. Does anyone call him Van Der Zee in any of the flashbacks? I don't remember anyone ever addressing him by that name directly, though I could be mistaken, as I said. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just watched the scene again (just to make sure). John is filling out a form for the army; it asks for his name, his date of birth, and his place of birth.  As he fills in each of details for the John York alias, he says out loud (to himself and 36), each of the Johann van der Zee details.  This scene makes zero sense unless the spoken details are his real details. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What you should say instead of "This scene makes zero sense unless the spoken details are his real details" is "I can't think of anything that would make sense, except that the spoken details are his real details." There are other possibilities which might unfold given the twists and turns that modern TV shows tend to take. As I mentioned above, he could have been thinking about a friend or relative who died in battle. He could have been reminiscing about a former alias. The truth is, I don't know what scenarios might develop, any more than you do. I do know that assuming those details are John's true details is perhaps the most likely state of affairs, but it's still an assumption, not a fact. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But he was explicitly reading and answering the questions on his enrollment form. Name: writes John York; says Johann van der Zee.  Date of Birth: writes Jan. 6, 1904; says June 1st, 1607.  Place of Birth: writes New York City; says Amsterdam, Holland.  He says each real answer, as he writes each alias answer.  This scene is 100% clear on what is going on, no assumption required. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Everything he says out loud is supported by what we already know about his mortal life. The idea that he would be talking about someone else is completely unsupported. --John T. Folden (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You know what? I agree with you. In my personal opinion, John Amsterdam's original name was Johann van der Zee, and all of the other information that he muttered in that scene applies to him. You know what else? Our opinions don't matter. I am not saying that these details actually relate to anyone other than John. I'm just saying that it has NOT been established as fact within the storyline thus far that these things DO apply to John. An encyclopedia is about facts, not about suppositions, no matter how likely the suppositions. Nobody has ever referred to John as "Johann van der Zee", he has never specifically said that that was his original name. We have never seen him sign his name "Johann van der Zee" (If I'm incorrect in any of these statements let me know). We just have nothing definitive. Heck, the mentioned enlistment form scene is the ONLY time in the whole series the name is even mentioned, and it's just not presented straightforwardly enough to allow us to say "That's the way it is" without disclaimer. Applejuicefool (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - When he's telling Sara "the truth", does he mention van der Zee then? I don't remember. Applejuicefool (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a starting point, I'd suggest removing the line "He was born Johann van der Zee on June 1, 1607 in Amsterdam, Holland" from the "Cast and Characters" section, and changing the Timeline entries for 1621 and 1642 to read "John" instead of "Johann". Applejuicefool (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I continue to disagree. There's nothing to suggest the info is anything other than his own. If we were to go along with your ideas, not only would the article end up less accurate but a large amount of other info would need to be removed, as well. I think we'd need further opinions here or the discussion will just go round and round. --John T. Folden (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

True, there is nothing to suggest the info is anything other than his own, but encyclopedic articles aren't about *suggestions*, they're about facts. There's nothing verifying or even stating directly that the info IS his own, and only the juxtaposition of him filling out the enlistment form even SUGGESTS that he might be talking about himself. There's just far too little evidence that he is talking about himself to state it as a fact. It's like saying "There's nothing suggesting there are no aliens in the Andromeda Galaxy, and, dang, there MUST be life in something that big. Therefore, let's put in a Wikipedia article that aliens exist in the Andromeda Galaxy." You say the article would be less accurate if we went along with my ideas - what if it did happen to turn out that he WASN'T talking about himself? Then it would be far less accurate as it stands! The truth is, we can't say for certain. My suggested changes do not make the article less accurate, in any case. They simply remove a supposition. If you mean "less accurate" in calling John by his current name when he wouldn't have gone by that name at the time, it's merely an identifier, since we don't know what his name was at the time (for certain). Applejuicefool (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post - just wanted to add that the standard for whether something is included in the article should NOT be "There's nothing to suggest" it isn't true. The standard for inclusion should be "It is true, according to the evidence we have." We just don't have the evidence that John's muttering in that one scene refers to him, therefore it shouldn't be stated as fact in the article. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

John, I just feel like I need to say one more thing while I wait for a response: I get the idea that MJ and you are under the impression that I want to change the article to an assumption different from "He was born Johann van der Zee on June 1, 1607 in Amsterdam, Holland". That's not true. I want to remove assumptions from the article altogether, and stick with facts that we know - or at least that characters we believe to be truthful have directly stated. It has never been proved or stated that John Amsterdam was born Johann van der Zee, except in THIS ARTICLE. As I stated in the above discussion about the dogs, Wikipedia guidelines tell us not to use a primary source (the show) for ANYTHING OTHER THAN direct description (WP:PSTS) Applejuicefool (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, in this case, the show was very clear that he was saying his name, his date of birth, and his place of birth, while he wrote the same details for his "John York" alias. There is no basis to conclude otherwise.  As I stated above, the form asked his Name, and he wrote John York as he said Johann van der Zee; the form asked for his his Date of Birth, and he wrote Jan. 6, 1904 as he said June 1st, 1607; the form asked for his his Place of Birth, and he wrote New York City as he said Amsterdam, Holland.  They could not have made this any clearer.  —MJBurrage(T•C) 12:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, they could have made it clearer. They could have had somebody call John "Johann" during the scene where he got stabbed. They could have had John doing a voice over saying something like "My name wasn't really John York... I was born Johann van der Zee, June 1, 1607 in Holland." They could have flashbacks to his early life before coming to America. They could at least say the name more than once in the whole show, if they wanted to be clear. In truth, all we have is John writing a name and saying a different name; writing a date and saying a different date; writing a place and saying a different place. Whether you will admit it or not, there ARE other possibilities - however unlikely - than that he is saying his own real information. We have a strong supposition, but it's still a supposition and not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. As a source, all we are allowed to use the show itself for is "descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source", according to WP:PSTS. "...analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source" are not allowed. Applejuicefool (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no O.R., since in the scene John does "directly and explicitly" give the viewer the real answers as he writes the answers for the York alias. To claim otherwise is just as silly as claiming that we can't say he's human because (no mater how unlikely) he might have been left with his parents by Doctor Who. In fiction anything could be possible; the writers can make mistakes or even change their minds with a Retcon, but if the show flat out tells you something, you accept it until the show contradicts itself. This scene does, flat-out, tell us his original birth name/date/place. —MJBurrage(T•C) 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless we get a number of other people commenting on this then I think the info needs to stand as is. This conversation isn't going to change the minds of any of the three of us currently involved and I continue to disagree with AJF's opinion on the matter. --John T. Folden (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MJ first. What is your understanding of the meaning of the phrase "directly and explicitly"? I'm not trying to be a wise ass here,I'm honestly stunned that there is even a question here. According to Wiktionary, "directly" means "In a straightforward way; without anything intervening; not by secondary, but by direct means. Without circumlocution or ambiguity; absolutely; in express terms. Exactly; just." The relevant definition of "explicitly" is "very specific, clear, or detailed." Now please explain to me, given some guy filling out a military enlistment form, and saying information that is contrary to the information written - straightforwardly, without ambiguity, absolutely, in express terms, exactly, very specifically, clearly, and in a detailed manner - relays the information that he must actually be saying his own real information. It just doesn't absolutely follow, and "absolutely" is the standard. The show did *NOT* "flat out tell" us that John's real name is Johann Van Der Zee. To say it does is ridiculous. "Flat out tell"ing us would be John saying "My real birth name was actually Johann Van Der Zee." Or someone in a flashback of John's early life calling him that, and John responding appropriately. Or even seeing a portrait of him labeled "Johann Van Der Zee" which John remembers posing for. What we *have* is one scene. A scene in which John says a name, a date, and a place.

Here's another piece: On the FOX website, the New Amsterdam show info says "In 1642, JOHN AMSTERDAM (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau), then a Dutch solider in the colony of New Amsterdam – later to become New York City -- stepped in front of a sword to save the life of a Native American girl during a massacre of her indigenous tribe. The girl in turn rescued Amsterdam, weaving an ancient spell that conferred immortality upon him. Amsterdam will not age, she told him, until he finds his one true love. Only then will he become whole and ready for mortality." No mention of the name Johann van der Zee. In fact, one could infer from this text that John's name at the time he was stabbed was - (gasp) - John Amsterdam! The all-caps emphasis on the name is not even mine! It's FOX's!

I tried to find a reliable secondary source on the internet that says John's real name is Johann Van Der Zee. IMDb is the best I could come up with - unreliable as Wikipedia itself, and for the same reasons. The one reliable source I could find (mentioned in the previous graf) implies his original name was John Amsterdam. Personally I don't believe that to be the case, but it's researchable facts that matter, not opinions.

JT: For what reasons do you disagree with me? What arguments do you bring? Just saying you disagree isn't productive. I have, through the course of this discussion, made NUMEROUS relevant arguments that have not been addressed. You say "This conversation isn't going to change the minds of any of the three of us currently involved...." Why? I know why I'm not changing my mind - because I've addressed every argument you've both made, and now you're just calling my arguments "silly" (MJ), or simply saying you "disagree" with no reasoning behind it (JT). Neither of you has explained why you aren't changing your mind. My sense is that you simply feel from watching the show that you are interpreting the scene in question correctly, and are stubbornly refusing to see that there are alternate interpretations or viewpoints. I have given you a few other reasonable interpretations of the scene. If there are other reasonable interpretations, then the scene is obviously open to interpretation, which means it is not direct or explicit, as MJ quoted above. So why the disagreement? Applejuicefool (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Question - the enlistment form scene was in Soldier's Heart, right? (I hope I'm right about that - can't remember for certain). The FOX episode information from that scene (and it's the ep info in our article too) reads "A homeless Gulf War veteran confesses to the grisly murder of a controversial psychiatrist, but Amsterdam is skeptical. While reviewing the psychiatrist's soon-to-be published book, Amsterdam contemplates the reliability of memories and the reasons people bury them. Could the motive for this murder lie in the psychiatrist's own research? The murder also brings Amsterdam closer to finding "the one" who he believes will unlock his heart and make him mortal. Though he's certain the sparks he feels are real, he encounters the unexpected." John questions the reliability of memories...it wouldn't be unreasonable to wonder if John even remembers his real name...Applejuicefool (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AJF, In one of your own posts you said They could have had John doing a voice over saying something like "My name wasn't really John York... I was born Johann van der Zee, June 1, 1607 in Holland."
 * That is exactly what they did. He is reading and filling out a form about himself.  He reads the question "Name?" and answers "Johann van der Zee".  He reads the question "Date of Birth?" and answers "June 1st, 1607".  He reads the question "Place of Birth?" and answers "Amsterdam, Holland".  It is so clear, that JT and I just don't get your objection.  (I actually though it was an April Fools joke at first)
 * As for the validity of "John Amsterdam" compared to his other aliases, it was long considered completely valid for immigrants to use there anglicized given name and city of birth as a name. Hence "Johann van der Zee from Amsterdam" is "John Amsterdam".  Of course that explanation is O.R. with respect to this article, but I and JT see no reasonable doubt on the "Johann van der Zee" details as they are spelled out to the level of detail Wikipedia (and you) asked for. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought of a new way of phrasing this argument that might throw some light on the differences in our positions: It is obvious from the events of the enlistment form scene that the show's creators intend the audience to BELIEVE that Johann van der Zee to be John's real name. That is not in dispute. My position is that the show has not yet presented that information AS A FACT. In the context of the show, that information has been presented as a teaser - a hint. In other words, as the show stands, it is not a factual certainty. A plot twist could still logically reveal a different reality. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you keep looking for deceptions and misleading twists, this is not the X-Files or Lost, if the show tells us something than that's it unless the show later contradicts itself. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AJF, I stated my opinions on the subject originally and have already stated under this topic, and another between you and MJB, that going around and around about items are pointless. I feel that the data and the way it was delivered satisfies the requirements of being listed in Wikipedia. Nothing you have yet posted gives me cause to believe otherwise, therefore no need to repeat myself continuously. Frankly, I see no confusion in the way the information was delivered here that makes the listing of this name any differently than any of his other names and your mistrust of the way it was delivered seems to be without solid basis and is only your particular, unique POV. I certainly don't believe it was presented as "hint". Barring any future hypothetical plot twists, this information is presented factually. We can't make decisions based on an unknown future - no crystal balls here. --John T. Folden (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * MJ - I am not looking for twists. That's the point - I am not looking for anything from the show itself other than what it gives, PERIOD. On this issue, the show has given us one scene. John wrote some information on an enlistment form. As he did so, he muttered contradictory information. That is all that happened. Think about it...did anything else happen in that scene? If so, what? That is an objective, direct observation of the scene. In order to arrive at ANY conclusion about what that information - written or spoken - means, we must connect it to information from outside the scene, because there's no other information IN the scene to clarify what it means. We can connect the written information with dialog outside the scene in which John goes by the name "John York." Since he goes by the name John Amsterdam in modern-day scenes, and by the name "Dutch" in others, some or all of these names must be aliases. But with what other information can we connect John's verbal utterances from the scene in question? There is NO other mention of Johann van der Zee ANYWHERE in the show. Therefore, anything we think we know about Johann van der Zee is q.e.d. supposition, not fact. So unless there is a reliable secondary source stating that John Amsterdam was born Johann van der Zee, that bit of information doesn't belong in the article.


 * MJ - I just saw your post about how John muttering "Johann van der Zee...June 1, 1607...Amsterdam, Holland" is the equivalent of a voiceover in which he directly and straightforwardly states "My name wasn't really John York... I was born Johann van der Zee, June 1, 1607 in Holland." It is clearly IMPLIED that those mutterings refer to John's true information. Obviously that is the IMPRESSION that the show's creators are trying to achieve. But there is no direct statement relating that information to John himself. This whole debate hangs on the difference between "stated directly" and "implied." I gave you some definitions related to the former previously. According to Wiktionary, "implied" means "Suggested without being stated directly." It is NEVER stated directly. All we have is a muttered name, a muttered date, and a muttered place. Those do not qualify as direct statements. Nonetheless, as I have stated before, I personally believe that Johann van der Zee and the other information DOES pertain to John. You seem to take my use of the word "imply" or "implied" to mean "not true". It doesn't. It just doesn't rise to the standard of use for a primary source.


 * JT - Looking back at what you've said in this discussion: 1) "Everything he says out loud is supported by what we already know about his mortal life. The idea that he would be talking about someone else is completely unsupported." I grant you, there is nothing in what we know about John that would disprove the muttered information from being his original name, birth date, and birth place. I am not now, nor have I ever, suggested that they are not! But the possibility that he's talking about someone else doesn't HAVE to be supported, it just has to be a legitimate possibility. In other words, the likelihood that John was given the name Johann van der Zee at birth must be incontrovertible - that is, it must be a true statement on its face. You yourself admit that this is NOT the case: "Barring any future hypothetical plot twists..." At this point, we can't bar them, because we don't have enough of a preponderance of information that such plot twists would be illogical. Answer this - if there's not going to be some kind of plot twist along these lines, why is the show being so coy with this name? In seven episodes about an immortal person, they have POSSIBLY mentioned his birth information ONE TIME. In Soldier's Heart, questions were raised about the reliability of memory. Now that the beans have been spilled (if they have), why not repeat it...make it clearer...perhaps have a flashback where somebody calls him Johann? Sounds reasonable. 2) "There's nothing to suggest the info is anything other than his own. If we were to go along with your ideas, not only would the article end up less accurate but a large amount of other info would need to be removed, as well." As I said before, we're not looking for suggestions...we're looking for clear, precise, facts. Descriptions of the show - that's all we can do with a primary source. And the bald statement "He was born Johann van der Zee on 1 June 1607 in Amsterdam, Holland" is not a simple description of the show, it is an inference based on the fact that he mutters those words as he fills out a form. As to the second point here - are we really going to let the integrity of our article slip because we'd have to take out some stuff? If it's not truthful or factual, it doesn't need to be there to begin with. 3) "Unless we get a number of other people commenting on this then I think the info needs to stand as is. This conversation isn't going to change the minds of any of the three of us currently involved and I continue to disagree with AJF's opinion on the matter." You introduce no new arguments here, you simply restate the fact that you disagree. 4)"Frankly, I see no confusion in the way the information was delivered here that makes the listing of this name any differently than any of his other names and your mistrust of the way it was delivered seems to be without solid basis and is only your particular, unique POV." Are you serious? With each of his other aliases, we've had people using it in speaking to him, and him responding appropriately. We've seen scenes and flashbacks where people have called him "John York", "Dutch", "John Amsterdam"...and in every case he reacts to that conversation appropriately as if they were his name. We haven't had that with "Johann van der Zee." Applejuicefool (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AJF, 1) WP is NOT a Crystal Ball. Information placed into an article is not to be influenced by future possibilities or events. As you have just admitted "there is nothing in what we know about John that would disprove the muttered information from being his original name, birth date, and birth place". At this point in time, we have no information in any of the episodes that contradicts what he said. The fact that he answered verbally to a written question is no different than if someone had asked his name. Also, it's pointless and unconvincing to ask WHY the producers have not done something. We take things at face value, it's not a puzzle game. If something is straight-forwardly presented, it's not our job to look for any conceivable way it could be twisted - nor do we use a crystal ball to guess. Virtually ANY data provided on ANY TV show ever created can be retconned at some future point if the writer's wish to do so but that can't be our worry in the present. 2) See 1. Also, as is highly obvious after this long thread - what constitutes as "truthful or factual" on this issue is in disagreement by you. 3) Yup, that's exactly what I did. 4) This is incorrect. J. G. Benwaar, for example, is another alias that is most certainly one of his own but that no one has called him directly to his face. His names/aliases have been provided in a myriad number of ways, and not always in the course of conversation with someone else. --John T. Folden (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

JT - 1) Wikipedia doesn't need to be a crystal ball. I have indeed admitted that there is nothing in what we know about John that would disprove the muttered information from being his original name, birth date, and birth place. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is not "it must not be disproved", but "It must be proved". There is nothing in the show that proves that this information is John's original birth information. Just because I can't point to a line or a scene and say, "Yep, that disproves it!" doesn't mean that it is absolutely true. He didn't respond verbally to a written question. He muttered words as he filled out a form. People don't routinely respond to a written form by saying words, they fill it out. How do we know which of the two versions - written or spoken - is true? Sure, John is an honest guy, but obviously he's lying about one of them, right? What evidence do we have to judge which is true? You say "Virtually ANY data provided on ANY TV show ever created can be retconned..." That's not relevant to my primary point with this issue; I simply use retconning (or a planned plot twist, whichever may be the case) to illustrate ways that the information might possibly be untrue. THE MAIN POINT is that the writers don't HAVE to retcon, in this case, because the issue hasn't been "conned" to begin with! There is nothing directly, explicitly stating in the show that the information is a) true and b) John's. (2) EXACTLY! Thank you very much! What is truthful and factual on this issue IS in dispute - which means it is not simple, straightforward or obvious. The dispute is in whether the information has been PRESENTED factually in the show - NOT what we believe to be true. 3) Very productive. 4) LOL "certainly"? I was under the sole impression for several weeks (until my wife and I went back and rewatched the episode) that John was selling his woodwork through a *third party* named Benwaar. I still half believe it - there's certainly nothing in the series that would contradict this theory. So Benwaar is an exception to my statement above. It doesn't change the fact that "Johann van der Zee" has not been presented definitively and factually as John's birth name. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to move this discussion forward, I will revise my suggested changes: 1) Replace the penultimate line of the Cast and Characters section with "John's birth name, date, and location have never been directly stated as such in the series; in one scene, however, he says 'Johann van der Zee...1 June, 1607...Amsterdam, Holland' as he fills out a military enlistment form with different information. This scene has led some internet sites to list Johann van der Zee; 1 June, 1607; Amsterdam, Holland; as John's 'real' birth information," with appropriate citation. 2) Once again, change the Johanns in the Timeline section to "John"s. This will allow readers to draw their own conclusions based on a description of the show, as outlined in WP:PSTS. Applejuicefool (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AJF, I (and I presume JT) understand you arguments, but we simply disagree, The show was very clear on this point; he reads to himself a series of questions and answers them out loud (see above). The scene does a fantastic job of telling the viewer his birth details in a way that fits the episode's flow and pacing, and it is not any less valid just because he is talking to himself. In fact, that he is talking to himself, and not another person, only makes it more reliable.  The edits you suggest above are POV, and unsupported by the facts of the show.  The page is correct on these points as it stands now, to suggest that the episode was not clear on his identity would be less accurate. —MJBurrage(T•C) 02:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between a clear, bald statement and an implication? Even if an implication is a VERY CLEAR implication, we still can't use it if it comes from a primary source...even if it's an interpretation that ANY viewer will make, it's still an interpretation, not simple description. I agree that it's a great scene, and for any viewer that has a wit in his or her body, it DOES do a great job of telling John's birth details. But for Wikipedia, we cannot interpret the meaning of a primary source AT ALL. And that slight amount of interpretation IS NECESSARY to glean that John is talking about his own birth information in that scene. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One other thing: My proposed change does not "suggest that the episode was not clear on his identity"!!! Implications can be clear. My proposal simply and accurately reports that the show has never directly stated John's original birth information AS SUCH. Which it hasn't. The pertinent scene did not factually state that John's birth information is Johann van der Zee, June 1, 1607, Amsterdam, Holland. As I said above, it's a strong, clear IMPLICATION, but it's still an implication. Applejuicefool (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand everything you have said. I also disagree with it.  He specifically reads and answers three questions out loud.  That is as clear a statement as any dialog could be, and I am not the only editor who thinks so.  This entire thread boils down to that short a summary, and is now just a back and forth on the fact that you do not think it is a clear statement, and we do. —MJBurrage(T•C) 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced you're not even bothering to read my posts anymore, even when I keep them nice and short like the latest ones above. You say you understand everything I have said. In my last message I did my best to make it clear that I am in no way questioning the clarity of the scene. Whether it's clear or not, and whether it's a statement or an implication, are two totally separate things! The entire thread boils down to the indisputable fact that, for viewers to arrive at the notion that "Johann van der Zee" is John's birth name, viewers must take what John says, process it in their brains, and end up with MORE information than was directly visible or audible in the scene. Yes, it's very clear. No, there's not a logical reason for him to say it other than it's his birth name. I concede those points. But to arrive at the latter realization: "There's not a logical reason for him to say it other than it's his birth name", the viewer must (as, indeed, EACH of the New Amsterdam viewers, must have) undergo a logical process. There is a moment of realization when viewers CONCLUDE that he's talking about his birth information. Therefore, to say that Johann van der Zee is John's birth name is NOT a pure description of the events or images or dialogue in the show, but a statement of conclusions one reaches after viewing this particular scene. Applejuicefool (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I really do not want this to become contentious, and I read everything you wrote carefully. I just respectfully disagree with your interpretation.  I do dispute that any interpretation of the scene is required, he is directly telling the viewer his name, date of birth, and place of birth.  I saw it as that simple and direct the instant it occurred, and remain convinced on this point. All of our back and fourth, and my description of the scene, was developed later for your benefit.
 * His exact line of dialog is Name: Johann van der Zee. Date of birth: June 1st, 1607. Place of birth: Amsterdam, Holland. It was not something I had to think about while watching the episode, because it was too direct and straightforward to require any analysis or interpretation. —MJBurrage(T•C) 08:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not looking to become contentious either; I apologize if my frustration is coming through in my posts. Going by the line of monologue you offer, an assumption or an inference is still required to conclude that 1) John is talking about himself and 2) it's true. He doesn't directly state "This is my information," or "I was born Johann van der Zee." You say he's directly telling the viewer his name, date of birth, etc. That may be true, but he's not telling them that it IS his birth information. The reader has to assume that the information belongs to him. We also have to assume that the spoken information is true - this is a reasonable assumption, but it's not a trivial one because, as we know, John routinely uses aliases. It certainly isn't a direct way of saying, "This is my actual personal information." Applejuicefool (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no other person in the scene, so presuming that it might be just another alias is unfounded, and as such more of an interpretation by your own standards than just taking the statement at face value. If we couch our use of this information because it might be deceptive, than we have to do that for everything he says about himself, which is also to date unfounded.  Unfortunately for this discussion coming to a conclusion I still firmly believe that what he did say is equivalent in directness to what you wish he had said.
 * Even after this discussion, I have no doubt that this information is his birth detail, and still feel it would be inappropriate to rewrite the the first entry as if such doubt existed. Having said that I am not as strongly held to keeping Johann vs. John in the next two entries.  The reason they are worded that way is twofold however.  First, John mentions in his AA Journals that he never used his birth name again after being saved by the Shaman hence Dutch Johann becomes English John; and secondly I really do think it read and flowed better this way. (both logically and aesthetically) —MJBurrage(T•C) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree - it is assumption and interpretation to say conclude that Johann van der Zee is another alias. It is also assumption and interpretation to say that it is deceptive. Just because the opposite view is based on assumption doesn't negate the fact that your view is based on assumption. I don't "wish" John had said anything in particular. I, for one, LOVE that scene the way it is. It was a GREAT way to present the information. I had chills when I saw it...I missed the line the first time through and was asking my wife "What name did he say? What's his real name?!?" I had to go back and watch it online to catch it. Just because a scene requires assumption or interpretation to understand it doesn't make it a BAD scene. It's just not appropriate to base an encyclopedia article your own interpretation of the scene. The great part about the scene is exactly that it DOES require interpretation. It provides a measure of interactivity - the viewer has to consider momentarily just what is going on. This adds interest over just a bald statement of the details. I have no doubt that the information is his birth detail either, based on my own interpretation of the scene.
 * I appreciate your willingness to compromise on the timeline entries. I would be more interested in working together to try to come up with a line in the Cast and Characters section that we BOTH can live with. Evidently you think it's perfect the way it is, but I'd like to give it a little more thought and see if there's a version you can live with that doesn't violate my sense of how primary sources should be used. I'll give it some more thought. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The scene does not require assumption or special interpretation, only basic comprehension of the bare info provided us. We can not rewrite something simply because it wasn't stated specifically how you wished it to be, honestly. To cast any doubt about this info in Wikipedia would be dishonest based on what was provided to us, imo. As MJB, I completely disagree with rewriting the text in any way which indicates any falsehood in the details provided. That would not be true to what was presented on screen. This really is just a round-and-round at this point. The fact that we disagree with you does not mean we do not understand you. --John T. Folden (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and now that I look, I do think using Johann in the next two entries is, also, the way to go. Ideally, I believe it is much more helpful to use the names and aliases that John used during each era on the Timeline (if we know that information). It helps keeps specific events tied to the proper persona, for a start. --John T. Folden (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * JT - trust me, if I didn't honestly believe in the correctness and importance of my stance, I could have found something else to do long ago. Re: your statement "We can not rewrite something simply because it wasn't stated specifically how you wished it to be," well, that's actually the point of Wikipedia, isn't it? If I find something wrong in an article, I CAN rewrite it at will. Personally, I believe in trying to work things out before I go in and start making changes willy-nilly. That said, I'm NOT threatening to engage in any type of edit war. I'm just pointing out that my opinion here is no less valid than yours. "...based on what was provided to us...." Let's examine that a bit further. What was provided to us in that scene? John is filling out a military enlistment form. As he reads the form, he writes some information in the appropriate blanks, information that we know to be his current (at the time) alias, John York. At the same time as he writes, he SAYS contradictory information, including "Name: Johann van der Zee." Never, in this scene, does he specify what he MEANS by "Johann van der Zee", other than (if you take the stance that he's saying it in response to the prompt in the form, which is itself an assumption) that it's a "Name". As I stated above, John has used a number of aliases; what evidence do we have that "Johann van der Zee" is his TRUE name and not another alias? Applejuicefool (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AJF, I think we all believe in the correctness of our respective opinions - as I'm sure you'd agree - but unpopular edits rarely stand. After this lengthy bit of back and forth, it's pretty much all been said or covered more than satisfactorily, imo, with no one changing anyone else's view point. I think it's unproductive to keep rehashing it over and over again. You previously suggested that you might be devoting some thought to developing an edit we all could live with, perhaps we should leave this as-is and move on to that when you come up with an example. --John T. Folden (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What evidence do we have that "Johann van der Zee" is his TRUE name and not another alias? Applejuicefool (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think MJB covered that question quite well the first time you asked it. --John T. Folden (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been asked before but what evidence is there that "Johann van der Zee" isn't his TRUE name? I agree with the comment well above that with this show not being an "X-Files or Lost type" show that intentionally misleads, or confuses viewers we should take informatiuon presented as true unless proven otherwise in the future JaysFan77 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only answers to this question run along the lines of "The scene makes no sense otherwise," or "There is no basis to conclude otherwise." In the same post as the latter, MJ continues to say "...the form asked his Name, and he wrote John York as he said Johann van der Zee; the form asked for his his Date of Birth, and he wrote Jan. 6, 1904 as he said June 1st, 1607; the form asked for his his Place of Birth, and he wrote New York City as he said Amsterdam, Holland. They could not have made this any clearer." Apart from the final sentence, that's a pretty good description of what happens in the scene. Remember, we're allowed to use primary sources ONLY for the purposes of describing them. The problem is, John is providing TWO sets of information here. What evidence do we have to allow us to choose between them? "The scene makes no sense" is NOT an objective fact, it's an interpretation on it's face!


 * JaysFan, you sure you want to get sucked into this?!? :p To answer your question, ABSOLUTELY NONE. I personally believe and wholeheartedly support the idea that Johann van der Zee IS his birth name, but that belief is based on an assumption. The problem is, we have no evidence either way, and to leave it in the article, we need evidence. I agree with you that NA is not (to this point, at any rate) a show which misleads. However, in this case, any leading that's been done has been done through implication and not through factual presentation within the show. The policies of Wikipedia are quite clear - primary sources (like the show itself) may only be directly described in the article, WITHOUT interpretation or personal inference.


 * You say "...we should take information presented as true unless proven otherwise in the future." As I mentioned just now, John actually provides two sets of information in the scene...which one are we supposed to take as true?


 * Heck, maybe we'll get a definite answer tonight. :D Applejuicefool (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a thought lets simply state what occurs in the scene, with the statement "leading veiwers to believe that this is his actual identity", this seems like a solution that can please everybody JaysFan77 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have suggested something similar before; the problem is, we have to word the "statement" carefully or it will be considered original research (or we need to find a secondary source for it). I must say, I am becoming less and less convinced that Van der Zee is John's birth name: 1) The show's creators have certainly had ample opportunity to repeat the information. 2) Why wouldn't John reveal that particular detail to Sara to try to get her to believe him? 3) After the season finale, any claim of John's "honesty" is suspect - he was a freaking con man! 4) He CONSTANTLY uses aliases - there's no evidence that Van der Zee isn't simply another alias. The truth is, we just don't know for certain who Johann van der Zee is because there's been no solid evidence regarding the name - just John saying it in one scene. Personally, I'd have to say I still *do* believe that Johann van der Zee is John's birthname, but it's really no more than a hunch at this point. Applejuicefool (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

To add something new to this discussion rather than the same round-n-round, those who have access to an HD feed of episode 106 will note that Johann Van Der Zee is the name at the very base of his family tree. If it weren't plain as day before, I can't imagine what else anyone would need. --John T. Folden (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the best evidence we're going to get as to his "birth name", for the time being anyway, know the question becomes does the family tree include his birthdate and place? JaysFan77 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By the fact that he says the information out load, in response to questions, as he writes the same for his current (at the time) alias; it his clear that this is his identity. As to whether it is an alias or his original identity:
 * In the AA episode he says:
 * that he was considered dead after the night he saved the Native American women
 * that his death was reported to his parents
 * that he never again used his actual birth name (This fits the switch from Johann to John)
 * The birth date fits the often quoted age of 400 for his character
 * The birth place (Amsterdam) fits the entire premise and name of the series
 * As for why they have not gone out of there way to say it again to avoid confusion, they do not have to because it was very very clear the first time. Given the setting, pacing, theme, presentation, etc. this is how they told us, and I am sure the producers would find this whole discussion rather amusing.  It is possible to be too rigorous on accepting on not accepting evidence just because the character did not turn to the camera and also say "hey this is the truth".  The fact that he as lied to others as a grifter, has no bearing on what he says, to himself, in private.  As for what he told the doctor, until he convinces her he is really immortal, any more details would just seem like part of a bigger delusion, or deception.  Until he somehow proves it to her, we will not get a scene where he gives her a detailed rundown on his past.
 * Lastly no one should take this lengthly a defense of what I think is obvious, to assume that the scene needs such a defense. Just like anyone can doubt anything, one can also defend what should not need defense. —MJBurrage(T•C) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey MJ. I promise I'm really not trying to be obtuse. Sure we have *evidence* that John = Johann. In other words, we have hints. While it might be clear that Johann is John's identity due to a preponderance of hints, we don't have the kind of descriptive proof that Wikipedia requires. You say "It is possible to be too rigorous on accepting or not accepting evidence..." It's also possible to write the article so that it tells absolute factual truth, follows the rules of Wikipedia to the letter, and still get the idea across that Johann is John's birth name. How? Well, if it's so clear from the scene as presented in the series, then simply describe the scene. It should be clear to the readers of the article, eh? That way, we are presenting a true descriptive representation as WP:PSTS requires and still including the information we need to. In other words, if the *series* doesn't need to come out and say "hey this is the truth", why do we?
 * I don't understand how your three numbered points prove anything, except possibly that John York (or John Amsterdam, Dutch, etc.) is not John's birth name. And just because the spoken date and place "fit" John's supposed birth date and birth place doesn't prove that they *are* his birth date and birth place.
 * Whether the producers would laugh or not is not my concern. In fact, I agree they probably would, just not for the reasons you imagine. And if they think the discussion is dumb, they are free to publish a secondary source with the right information at any time. That would certainly clear things up.
 * As for the doctor, he gave her quite a bit of detailed information already. I just think it's odd that he left out those particular details. It's certainly possible that she could research those birth details and check his story. Possibly find a portrait of John listed under his birth name. I'm not saying this is proof of anything...I'm just saying it's odd.
 * And as to your last point, this isn't really about defending a viewpoint, it's about arriving at the most appropriate thing to include in the article. It's inappropriate to state as fact in an encyclopedia article a detail that hasn't been established as fact in the series. And this detail has been hinted at, but not established as a canonical fact within the series itself. Applejuicefool (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * JT, unfortunately I don't have a copy of the episode to watch. Depending on the way the tree is set up, the name at the base could refer to John, or it could refer to an ancestor or descendant of John. John could be one of the branches, in other words. While it would make sense for John to have a tree to keep track of his progeny, it wouldn't be unheard of for him to also trace his ancestry in the same tree. But my memory of that scene is faint and I don't have a copy to watch :( Applejuicefool (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: John's Birth Info statement OR?
I am requesting comments on this issue because we're not getting anywhere. As per the discussion in the "Van der Zee" section above, I believe the statements in the show regarding "Johann van der Zee" and the date and place as mentioned in the show are implications and hints, and mentioning them as fact in the article without secondary source attribution is original research. It would be easy to correct by simply describing the facts as they occur in the scene without concluding as fact that this is his birth info. If it's so clear, then let the article reader make that conclusion, not the article writer. The pertinent statement is in the "Cast and Characters" section in the main article. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As is probably clear from the above section I do not believe that the scene is unclear, and therefore I do not believe it is original research to state that the details spoken in the scene are his birth details. —MJBurrage(T•C) 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to be snarky AJF but I believe the "we're not getting anywhere" would be more accurately stated as "no one, so far, agrees with you". Everyone else who has commented, including myself, believes it to be a clear scene. The details in question were delivered in an obvious manner, are supported by other data in the series - including the listing at the base of his tree of descendants as displayed in episode 106, and do not constitute OR. --John T. Folden (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Still as WP:PSTS decrees, we should DESCRIBE those details rather than drawing conclusions from them. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And I've never said the scene is unclear - it's just not factually presented. It's clear in the manner of a clear implication, not a clear fact. Applejuicefool (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

CID
The CID entry came from the episode where he writes down all his drunken sins. Now that a later episode said he was in the CIA, I went back and re-listened to the the original scene again. It actually sounds most like "CAD" which makes no sense (there is no such agency), but there are overlapping confessions ''which makes it hard too hear. CID still sounds closer than CIA, but I am not 100% sure. Anyway, I would not mind another ear (or even better a script, the closed captioning just says "overlapping voices"). —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He says the CIA not in a drunken confession, but during early meeting with the agent who is undercover under a bridge.35.11.200.66 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my question, he clearly says in the later episode that he served ten years in the CIA, but in the episode where he reveals everything bad he did while he was drinking, he said that he blackmailed his superior in the C??. It sound like C?D, with the D clearer than the ? which could be an "A" or an "I", but maybe the D is from one of the overlapping lines. Hence I am looking for a confirmable script or some input from other editors. Did he really say CID in the earlier episode or something else? —MJBurrage(T•C) 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not CID at all it is CIA, i watched the scene 5 times to confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.200.66 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be so obtuse, but are you saying that the scene from "Keep The Change" where John is writing his AA journals is clearly CIA? or are you describing the later scene from "Legacy" where John says "Did a 10-year stint in the CIA." to the undercover cop? It's the former scene that I am wondering about. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry for not being more clear its the keep the change episode that im referring to. 35.11.200.66 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Category
Thoughts on adding: Category:Time travel television series? I could go either way. John's not actually time-traveling, but the show is so unique, it's hard to classify otherwise. Maybe it's not worth it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think it really fits into that category. Is there a category "Shows with immortal (or preternaturally long-lived) protagonists"? Highlander, Angel, Doctor Who, and Moonlight would all fit, as well as New Amsterdam. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is John Amsterdam a remake of John Oldman?
Is the character John Amsterdam based on the character, John Oldman, from the 1998 work of Jerome Bixby, "The Man From Earth"? There are too many simularities in the story, which was conceived in 1960 by the sci-fi author. In the 2007 movie release John's son actually appears with him as his elder psychology professor. I have been a fan of "New Amsterdam" from the beginning and tonight I viewed "Man from Earth," the 2007 release on DVD. "Man from Earth" appears to be a better pilot for the television series than the actual pilot. Look out network execs, you might be getting a visit from the Bixby family's attorney. (207.193.29.237 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Nope. Just like all of the claims about which vampire story is stealing from which other vampire story, the ideas behind New Amsterdam, Highlander, Forever, and The Man From Earth, go back much farther than any of those four examples.  Immortality, and its ramifications (including meeting your own descendants) are not new to any story in the last number of decades, and you cannot "steal" such common ideas.  What sets each of these works apart (they are all well done, excluding the Highlander sequels) is the specific writing and execution of the story.  You can own a specific character, you can copyright specific story ideas and plot points, you cannot own the general ideas they are based on. —MJBurrage(T•C) 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also along the same lines but in a comedic vein, there's Mel Brooks' 2000 Year Old Man. That's from the '60s, so there's nothing new about any of this. Applejuicefool (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually you only have to worry about visits from copyright lawyers if you copy something that makes a lot of money. Eligius (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

cancelled?
i have read from various sources that they are not renewing it for a season one. can anyone confirm this?Tj21 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to my original research :p the only FOX series officially renewed for fall is Prison Break. I haven't found a source saying New Amsterdam is officially canceled, though. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No decision has yet been made, however, last week the show runner told me he was hopeful. A post in my forum from Nikolaj, also, seemed optimistic. The decision has not yet been made but we should hear something between now and mid-May. Pay no attention to the rumors for now. --John T. Folden (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Off rec.arts.tv -- http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Ausiello-Scoop-Fox/800039290 MMetro (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary all out of whack
Why is it 75%+ production information? From reading the intro, I know nothing about the premise of the show, its genre, notable actors, or whether it has garnered any noteworthy critical attention. From an end-user perspective I find it highly unhelpful, though since I personally don't know anything about the show, I am not in a suitable position to rework it. Suggest all that ordering of episodes, commercials etc. info be moved to its own section or integrated elsewhere. Poechalkdust (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Immortals Here?
I like the show myself, but after scrolling down to the end of this page, even without reading all of it, it seems that some people have more time on their hands than the title character. "Answer me these questions three." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't had much experience with fantasy television fans, have you? Eligius (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirection?
I think the redirection should be changed to the show, because that's where most people are going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwolf116 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)