Talk:Pan Am (TV series)/Archive 2

Use of Clipper
We need to be careful about the use of the term Clipper with respect to Pan Am jets and routes. Clipper is not a type of jet or route, but rather a naming convention. Originally, "Clipper" was Pan Am's call sign (just as, for example "Speedbird" is British Airways', taken from the stylized wing motif on their livery) and was first used as part of the names of some of their earliest mail planes, which were largely boat planes. When Pan Am became prominent for their Asian air routes (many of which they mapped for the fist time), they borrowed the term for speedy long-distance ships, known as clippers, that largely sailed Asian routes, to describe their air service. At the time the series was set, Pan Am's biggest jets were the Boeing 707, and they usually carried the name Clipper; it later was assigned to the larger Boeing 747 (PA 103, which went down over Lockerbie was Clipper Maid of the Seas, for example.) Drmargi (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As an aviation history buff, I'm well aware of what the Clipper is and what it was for Pan Am as well as the history behind it. As far as the series is concerned:
 * (1) The Clipper nomenclature was specifically used in the series pilot and it was made clear that it was the Clipper's inaugural flight.
 * (2) The Clipper was a signature of Pan Am - the use of it in relation to the article on this series is important, because the series writers made it important in the pilot episode.
 * (3) I haven't heard it mentioned in the episodes following the pilot, however, removing its use from anything dealing with the pilot seems like overkill to me.
 * Lhb1239 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please bear in mind my comments weren't directed at anyone in particular; I've seen several misused of Clipper in the article that have come and gone. No question Clipper is strongly identified with Pan Am.  I'm concerned with the generic use of the term.  And true, they did describe the pilot flying Clipper Majestic in the pilot.  Regardless, my reading of the summary was that the term was used in a more generic sense, thus my removing it.  Drmargi (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "Clipper" had numerous uses, and a naming convention of aircraft was one such use. Each aircraft in the Pan Am fleet was assigned a Clipper name. For example, as mentioned above, the B-747 aircraft of Flight 103 was named Clipper Maid of the Seas. The B-747 having the aircraft registration of N747PA was Clipper Juan T. Trippe named for the founder of Pan Am. The B-707 having registration number of N704PA that flew the Beatles to the US was Clipper Defiant.Television fan (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Question not related to cast list order
In episode 3 "ech bin berliner" What was the song Collette sang? By the stink in the room I'm guessing the Nazi Anthem. Can anyone confim? Since I Don't speak german maybe a link to a translation of the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.226.249 (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The song is commonly known as "Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles"; it's formally known as Deutschlandlied. It has been the German national anthem since the 1920s.  Post WWII, the song was closely identified with Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler by non-Germans because of the Nazi doctrine that taught all those outside Aryan bloodlines were inferior.  Indeed, "...Deutschland uber alles" translates to "Germany above all".  Easy to see why it's was not thought fondly of by those who were affected negatively by Naziism, ethnic cleansing, the Holocaust, and the Third Reich.  Lhb1239 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Change in Order?
Since the majority of the users support to Put the list in order according to the show's credits then new cast members at the bottom, shouldn't we make this change now, as only 2 other users object, the overall consensus has spoken. B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Look again. Three editors object - and consensus building isn't meant to be a "majority vote".  It's meant to be a consensus - a coming together of ideas and hopefully the resolution comes out of that - it's not an "us versus them" situation.  Besides, there's a discussion just started two days ago at another board, so I think we need to give it until at least over the weekend.  There's no deadline in Wikipedia.  What's the rush (who's it going to hurt to leave it as it is)? Lhb1239 (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Its just not correct thats all, thanks for the heads up. B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What;s "just not correct"? Lhb1239 (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need for the sarcasm, as always, LHB. It was a reasonable question. It can be changed after the AFD thing has finished and I was told by an admin that we don't have to wait for everyone to agree as it may never happen. But I agree, the discussion on the other page is much more important to fixing this issue properly. Jayy008 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're making assumptions again, Jay, as well as still not exercising WP:AGF. I wasn't being sarcastic.  I didn't understand the statement and honestly asked B.Davis to explain.  Lhb1239 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's actually been more than enough time for a consensus to have been built, and a majority of this scale is sufficient to go with one option over another. GRAPPLE   X  11:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

@Grapple, agreed. I just don't personally want to make the changes until the overall discussion is over on the Manual of Style page. Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Episode summary
Just been watching tonight's episode, and it seems to me like little time was spent in Rangoon - only a scene at the pool where Kate picks up her camera. The "night on the town" scenes are all in Jakarta. Elizium23 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Then go ahead and fix it. Just don't cut and paste anything from a copyrighted source (like others have been doing lately). Lhb1239 (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing the Order!
By next week, we will be changing the cast order to that of what the consensus has decided on, more than enough time have been given, and the expressions heard vote in favour of ordering in cast order. So this is a heads up, by the end of episode 1x06, the change will occur! Thank you for your time! B.Davis2003 (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I do agree, if the issue was only on this page. But it's been brought up for bigger discussion, so I don't think the changes can be made until the overhaul discussion is over on the ProjectPage. Jayy008 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Episodes Swap
ABC announced earlier this week there would be a change in the episode lineup. They pushed up "Truth or Dare" to 11/6/11, and they will air "Unscheduled Departure" on 11/13 and "Romance Languages" TBA. You can find the information at the abc medianet website and other website covering this tv show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.115.10 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Truth or Dare episode summary was deleted, why?
Per WP:BRD, I have reverted the deletion of the episode summary for the most recent episode ("Truth or Dare"). I realize that portions of it contained nonsense, but why not just rewrite it to match what actually happened in the episode? Moreover, while the editor deleting it indicated it was a minor edit, I'm pretty sure it would not qualify as such. Could User:Fat&Happy please explain here? Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

During the infancy of the jet setter?
I know there is an edit war/dispute over this wording in the lead paragraph, so I am not directly fixing it. But I just wanted you to know that it sounds ridiculous. I imagine a yuppie in diapers holding a rattle when I read "during the infancy of the jet setter" so perhaps a better term can be found that fits both that and "the jet age". Elizium23 (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It was my edit which used infancy. Found synonym to be "beginnings" (yes, plural). Changed the applicable pages.Television fan (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Episode summary
Why was it removed? Will there be a new page for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.69 (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * List of Pan Am episodes‎‎ Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

UK reviews?
Is it appropriate to have negative non-US reviews for this US series included? And, if they end up being kept, should they be given as much weight as they are currently? My opinion is 'no' for both questions. Anyone else want to weigh in ? Lhb1239 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What reasons do you have for not including them? Rain the One  BAM 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reasons I stated above. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well above - you asked questions and stated your opinion as "no". You did not state why you believe it is not appropriate to have international reviews. Rain the One  BAM 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I stated in the OP, it's a US show, the reviews are from outside the US, and those non-US reviews are given undue weight in the article. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In order to comply with Wikipedia's neutrality policy, both positive and negative reviews need to be included. There's nothing to prevent non-US reviews being included but we need to include both positive and negative non-US reviews. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see that, but undue weight given for non-US reviews of a US show? I don't think so.  Those outside the US are going to see a US show differently than those in the US.  A mention of a negative review from outside the US I can see (as long as it is accompanied by a positive review from outside the US), but two negative non-US reviews that take up the space of a large paragraph?  That's not balanced.  Lhb1239 (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, and you are welcome to correct me, I originally thought were not happy about a Brit reviewing your American programme. Lhb this programme is broadcast overseas - that means that this that this topic is not exclusive to the US. There is an oppurtunity to broad in coverage. You have now explained your view - (a non-US review will see things in a different way..) See I think that can only be a good thing, as it is giving information from else where. You say it is not balanced, but for now it has balanced the section as a whole. I came here to read the reviews, however it was just biased. Only praise apart from a bit of nabbing about the characters not smoking. As for the UK review themselves not being balanced, that can easily be rectified with the addition of positive reviews. Which I or anyone else may add. Rain the One  BAM 17:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you came to this article to read the reviews (as you say) then you've come to the wrong place. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository of or source for television program reviews. I'm well aware the series is shown overseas, however, it has a wider and larger audience in the US and remains a US topic-based program. Undue weight should not be given to non-US reviews -- negative or positive -- as such reviews wouldn't represent a fair and balanced viewpoint. You wouldn't want a UK-based TV show article to contain undue weight from US TV reviewers (whether it be positive or negative) would you? Lhb1239 (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? So are you telling me I cannot use a wikipedia page for quick convience to find out if a TV series was well recieved or not? You'd generally excpect that information, well from seeings many TV related articles it the norm to have that information. You shouldn't be reverting claiming you know which are the lesser known publications - actually do some research. The Metro is a tabloid and The Independant is a Broadsheet - yet you removed the latter. lol You cannot soley decide how many reviews are included either - and maybe you should read the guidline you are so keen to wikilink. It has a lot of weight on US reviews, just because it was produced and first aired in the country doesn't give it any special handle on an encyclopedia aimed at a worldwide audience. They gave it international distribuation - so why should American reviews get the chorus line. I'd like to remind you that another editor has also said it is fine to include review from elsewhere aslong as they are balanced. I think the same - so you shouldn't really be reverting just yet. I cannot click my fingers and add them straight away, but I'll certainly keep looking to balance them out. So if I add them back later with matching positive review, would that be okay on your behalf? Rain the One  BAM 18:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * More than two UK reviews (one positive, one negative - as it is, it's 1 1/2 negative and 1/2 positive) would be WP:UNDUE for a US TV series, in my opinion. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You cite the guideline again - yet state because it was filmed and first screened in the US, US reviewers get to have more review than others. How about viewing reception as a whole, a section which is meant to feature a broader view of different opinions to provide a balance. I did find positive reviews from the UK when having a longer look - but would you revert again? Please answer me this. Do you think that only American views should be the focus on a programme that is shown in a number of other countries? Rain the One  BAM 19:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how reviews from a country a series in broadcast in would be considered undue weight, especially if they're from solid sources. The Independent is a great source to have for anything at all, to be honest. Limiting critical reception to just a an article's country of origin seems to be more in violation of WP:UNDUE than including a broader international reception, to me. GRAPPLE  X  19:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If that was the only thing I had above (limiting the reviews to just the US), then I could understand your comment, Grapple. The conversation has gone beyond that, however, and your response isn't even on point anymore. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Grapple - it is censoring perfectly okay views from legit sources in favour of US ones. Which does create a weight issue. What I do not understand Lhb, is why you to asked for anyone elses opinion here. You asked the question - three people think it is okay - you disagree and still you hastily remove the information to suit yourself. Though in a previous discussion regarding reception (see above), you cited the "No Deadline" essay to someone for removing information before it had been talked about properly. Rain the One  BAM 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, not "censoring" at all - the undue weight was removed. If we put in reviews from every country where the series is shown, we would have more reviews than content about the show.  Trimming it down to one positive and one negative is reasonable.  As it is, it's (as I already stated above) one-and-a-half negative and half a positive.  Lhb1239 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you could atleast restore it until this conversation is wrapped up. Are you willing to do so? Rain the One  BAM 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously there's a limit to the number of total reviews needed to form a decent reception section, but to limit where those reviews come from is needless. It would make for a stronger section to use several strong international sources (pulling names out of my ass, the New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian (especially from Charlie Brooker), The Independent, Onion's AV Club and, I dunno, the Globe and Mail) than to rely on scant US-only sources, such as a fleeting mention of The Insider. GRAPPLE   X  21:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw something good in The Guardian that critiques the casting, that is something not really covered in the section, so it may be of use. Rain the One  BAM 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Responding to the initial question, I see nothing wrong with the presentation of the UK reviews. I'm not sure they add much that's already been said, but I actually prefer they cohesive way they've been presented to the hodge-podge of American reviews.  More problematic to me is the inclusion of the nonsense statistics from Metacritic (metanalysis being a highly flawed methodology) and the bloated statement from a professional organization that should not be in the reception section at all.


 * The bottom line is: who cares? As it stands, this article, absent more than superficial description of the individual characters aside from one recurring character, and with minimal other content, has very little to recommend it.  It's a shame the editors seem far more dedicated to parsing procedure and arguing over order of cast, reviews and anything else they set their minds than in actually developing a substantive article.  Drmargi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Point of information; The Evening Herald is not a UK publication - it is published in Dublin, Ireland (Eire). Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment There is nothing in our policies that says sources have to originate in the same country as the topic, nor should there be. Dlabtot (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Protected
The article has been fully protected one week due to the complaint at WP:AN3. Holding a discussion here on the talk page would be useful. If consensus on the major issues is reached, ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll start: edits were made to this article today by me in an effort to keep unsubstantiated rumors, dead-link references, and unreliable references out of the article. I would think that doing so would be seen as productive and helpful in building an encyclopedia, apparently some disagree.  Does anyone have anything WP:AGF and on-topic to add?  Lhb1239 (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you once again breached the three-revert rule (3RR) on this article and were reported for it. With only limited exceptions, which are detailed at WP:NOT3RR, an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period and you made five. Persistent edit-warring at this page over the past few weeks made it necessary for an administrator to step in and fully protect the page. Editing that results in the page being fully protected is not "productive and helpful in building an encyclopedia". When it becomes apparent that you're likely to breach 3RR if you continue, it's always necessary to step back and take some other action, even if that's just hoping that other responsible editors step in and fix the problems. A request at WP:RFPP might have successfully had the page protected for as little as a day to stop the speculation, rather than the entire week that we're now stuck with. As far as I can see, most of the edits made today were good faith edits, but some talk page discussion should have started about five or six hours before it was protected. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with AussieLegend. You know edit warring is bad, you've been blocked for it in the past, and you were warned after four reverts, yet you jumped in and reverted a fifth time. I don't know what it takes to get the message across that WP:3RR is a policy that must be followed strictly, and this article, it's really not worth all the bother. Elizium23 (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stay on-topic by commenting on edits and the article, not editors. Edit warring is off-topic. A 3RR report was made, but no one was blocked because it was determined that edit warring did not occur. If someone was blocked for edit warring at this article, then edit warring would be on-topic. If you want to talk about the 3RR/edit warring report, take it up with the administrators involved on their talk pages. Anyone have anything productive to say about keeping the article free of unsubstantiated rumors about the show's demise and editing cooperatively and collegially after the protection is lifted? Lhb1239 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your initial post in this discussion attempted to justify edit-warring by claiming that you were just trying to be "productive and helpful" so edit-warring would seem to be right on-topic if your post was. The 3RRN report did not say "no one was blocked because it was determined that edit warring did not occur". Five reversions (all yours) were correctly submitted, and the admin who protected the article specifically identified you, saying "Lhb1239 should not expect that continued reverting on this article is a safe activity". In otherwords, you escaped another 3RR block by the skin of your teeth. I say "another" because you were blocked for edit-warring at this article less than 3 weeks ago. This meets your criteria that "If someone was blocked for edit warring at this article, then edit warring would be on-topic." The progress of this article, and List of Pan Am episodes as well, has been hampered by edit-warring over a prolonged period, and this has been noted by numerous editors. It needs to stop and this was the thrust of my post above. Editors need to collaborate and "certain editors" need to accept that the opinions of other editors are as valid as their own and, in some cases, more valid. Until that happens, this article can't be improved. It may well be that this requires one or more editors to stop editing here, but hopefully that will be unnecessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you insist on talking about editors rather than edits, why not talk about what you - an editor - can do to keep things in this article cooperative and collegial? After all, you are the only person in Wikipedia you can control.  Lhb1239 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please can you let other editors atleast add some information without challenge. I understand half of what gets added here isn't needed, sometimes new additions may need some correction... but everytime information is added, you change it to how you think it should read. So this is on-topic - it feels like this is your article. Rain the One  BAM 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as other editors continue to "pile on", lob personal attacks, and talk about editors rather than edits and how to work cooperatively, nothing is going to change or get resolved and the article will remain locked for the entire week. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account that none of the regular editors at this article have been able to give any productive and helpful suggestions as to how this article can be edited cooperatively and collegially, I can only assume that those who placed the edit warring notices on my talk page and submitted the 3RR report did so seeking punitive action and not preventative in the best interest of the article. Suggesting an editor you don't agree with should leave the article editing duties is not cooperative or collegial and is not a helpful, viable option - in fact, it only suggests cliquish ownership and those who aren't considered part of the clique need not edit here. I'm willing to work with you all, however, considering Elizium's 10/20/11 war cry of, "...you are going to find yourself roundly shouted down wherever you go"; the ensuing harassment and hounding I have received from a number of you since; and the concentration above not on the article but one particular editor and the perceived wrongs allegedly committed by the same editor, it doesn't seem any of you are willing to do the right thing. You've made your choice. Too bad it's not in the interest of the article and the Five Pillars. Lhb1239 (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We have given examples above, but like the many attempts at discussion on your talk page, you refuse to hear what others say, no matter how many times others say it.
 * Do not edit war
 * Discuss contentious changes
 * Accept the opinions of others
 * Do not ignore others
 * Do not own the article
 * Be civil to others
 * Read and understand policy
 * Those are just some of the things that need to be done. Most are doing all of these. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the statement above "Most are doing all of these" is fraught with prejudice and doesn't accurately assess the actions of the regulars at this article, I will throw all of the above right back and add the following:


 * Do not threaten and/or bully others
 * Do not harass others
 * Do not hound others
 * Do not behave in a troll-like fashion
 * Do not attempt to run off those who see things differently than you do
 * Sadly, none of what you've written above gives any productive suggestions for how you (or anyone else) intends to try and work cooperatively, rather, it only suggests that you think things should remain status quo (which is dysfunctional at best). I've said above that I'm willing to work with you all, however, considering your one-sided viewpoint above coupled with your "resolution" that I should leave the article - all I can gather is that you refuse to work things out so collegially.

Like I said previously, you've made your choice and it isn't representative of the community Wikipedia is supposed to be as defined in the Five Pillars. Instead, it only further represents and plays out Elizium's threat. Sad, that.
 * Lhb1239 (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody has done any of those things, although I understand that you think people have. Other than that, there's really not much more to say, other than to restate what I said in my last post: "you refuse to hear what others say, no matter how many times others say it." It makes trying to discuss anything with you impossible, as has been demonstrated in the numerous recent discussions where you've conflicted with so many different editors. It's not good for this or any other article that you're involved with and, until you can realise that the whole world is not against you, nothing is going to improve. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Jonah Lotan
I think this article needs to mention somewhere that the actor Jonah Lotan was the main captain in the original pilot of the series. Like all pilots pitched to networks, things usually change (story lines, cast members etc), and he was replaced by Mike Vogel. Scenes were reshot with Mike Vogel and that's the pilot episode that was aired on television. Jonah Lotan's scenes however can be seen in some of the early trailers released for the series and found on youtube. Limitedexpresstrain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC).


 * If added, can you provide a reference discussing the change in actors?Television fan (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, here's a link...http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/mike-vogel-replaces-jonah-lotam-212267Television fan (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good spot Limitedexp, any information like this is welcome. Rain the One  BAM 15:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)