Talk:The Prisoner

Concerning April 16, 1966

Concerning April 16, 1966

Hello

I am posting material here concerning an edit to 'The Prisoner: Origins and Productions' section. This concerns the placement of the date of April, 16 1966 as the date that Patrick McGoohan 'pitched' to Lew Grade the summation of The Prisoner TV show (detailed in the 'Troyer interview', cited in the body of the article (7).

I will look forward to your input.

Sincerely

A Contributor

Hello CKatz

I have made an editorial contribution of a verifiable date (April 16, 1966) concerning the production period of The Prisoner (TV 1967) and have included the source as the "Daily Express' article by the reporter Martin Jackson. This has been removed. In that this is a verifiable source that adds new information to the body of the article (The Prisoner: Origins and Production) I would like to know upon what basis this has been removed. If you need, as an editor, to verify this for yourself you can do so at the digital archive UK Press Online.

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Sincerely

A Contributor

Hello Fellow Contributor/Editor

Here is an example of how the edit was presented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Prisoner&diff=432227037&oldid=432207552

I look forward to your comments.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In the article, titled 'Danger Man To Quit', Jackson states: 'Now McGoohan has put up a new TV idea to ATV’s managing director Lew Grade. He (McGoohan) said: “It is another adventure series but a very different sort of character. It promises to be very exciting. Mr. Grade said: Mr. McGoohan is coming to see me tomorrow to discuss the details. We hope to start work on the new series in October.'

I don't know why Ckatz removed it, but I removed it for a variety of reasons. For one, I don't see anything in that quotation that verifies that this information is connected to The Prisoner; that's worrisome. Second, The Daily Express is a tabloid journal, thus meaning it isn't necessarily a reliable source (we could check this on WP:RSN if needed). Third, the information is extremely vague; it simply says, if accurate, that McGoohan was planning a new television show, and a small amount about the "style" of the show; to me, that means it's not very important information. Finally, if we do decide that information from that interview is worth including, it needs to be rewritten--we don't call people "Mr."; it's unclear what part is a direct quotation, and we need a full citation (specifically, a page number). To be honest, I'd actually like to see the complete article before including, although I know that's not really an easy request with such an old article. But, I'd like to hear what others have to say. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns that this user is editing largely out of the desire to promote fan questions over the creators of the series. Based on this IP's initial edits, there is a focus on raising questions as to whether or not a certain individual did create the idea, and an attempt to use sources to argue that point. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

The addition of a historical (and verifiable) date about the origins and the production of The Prisoner is the sole intention of the edit, the article currently has no such date, it would be a self apparent valuable addition. Martin Jackson was a recognized Fleet Street show business reporter at the time of the reporting, the ability the confirm the date is not in question.

I have given the means through the UK Press Online (official digital archive for the Daily Express) to confirm or access more of the news item for any editor who wishes to do so.

The suggestion of removing the "Mr." from a verifiable journalistic quote would amount to vandalizing the quote and diminish the ability to authenticate it. The page number is included in one of the edits as "pg.12" (see below). The quotes are in the exact sequence they occur in the news item.

'Suspicion' of an editor does not alter the veracity of a verifiable date that would add clarity to the content of the article.

Here is my suggestion to add the edit to the body of the article:

These events occurred on April 16, 1966. [8]

[8]Daily Express' April 16, 1966, pg. 12 written by reporter Martin Jackson in the article, titled 'Danger Man To Quit', Jackson states: "Now McGoohan has put up a new TV idea to ATV’s managing director Lew Grade. He (McGoohan) said: “It is another adventure series but a very different sort of character. It promises to be very exciting. Mr. Grade said: Mr. McGoohan is coming to see me tomorrow to discuss the details. We hope to start work on the new series in October."

The above is a reconstruction of how I had once presented the edit in the article, this can be confirmed through the edit history of "The Prisoner": "Origins and Production" section. This would then be a simple matter of restoring the edit as presented.

Thank you for your observations. I hope this moves the process of adding this valuable date to the body of the article forward.

I look forward to your prompt replies.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First, on the "Mr.", that's my mistake; I didn't realize that it was part of the quote; as such, if used, you are correct that it should not be changed. Regarding the article, I can't read it at ukpressonline--that page isn't available to people who don't pay for a subscription. That's fine, but we need more context from you then, since you can see it. Can you please explain or quote what information from that article explains that this quotation is related to The Prisoner? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Qwyrxian

The news item (by reporter Martin Jackson) is essentially about Patrick McGoohan retiring from the TV show 'Danger Man' as stated in the title 'Danger Man To Quit'. The material above the quote sequence, we are discussing, mentions the shows popularity,that the show was a "spy series", McGoohan's salary, that the show "had a very good run." This is all summarized by the comment: 'After four years as John Drake actor Patrick McGoohan said last night: “It’s time we turned it up.” The material, after the quotes, is about the closing of the 'Danger Man' production, mentioning such matters as the episode numbers, sales to America and filming of final episodes, all comments attributed to Lew Grade.

There is only one program that Patrick McGoohan was known to have pitched to Lew Grade at the time of his retirement from 'Danger Man' and that was 'The Prisoner' as corroborated by the quotes from the Warner Troyer interview contained in the wikipedia article as footnote number [7] in the Origins and Production section.

The wikipedia article lacks a date for the events described, which the news item entitled 'Danger Man To Quit' would supply.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for noting the issue of removing "Mr.".

I would point out again that anyone can view the news article at ukpressonline for confirmation as the 'subscription' is actually a '48 hour pass' at a nominal cost of about $12.00 US (approximately). 66.235.14.67 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem that I think we have is that if the article does not mentioned "The Prisoner" by name, we are engaging in original research to assume this article is talking about the show. I mean, its very intuitive that with the timing and what actually happened is that Patrick left Danger Man and directly went to Prisoner with no intervening roles but that's not explicitly stated, and approaches WP:SNYTH. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Masem here. I know, it's weird, because in "real life", the assumption that McGoohan was talking about the show that later became "The Prisoner" is reasonable and almost certainly true. Wikipedia, however, does not allow such an analysis, as it's a form of original research (SYNTH, which Masem linked, is a part of that). Because technically, for all we know, Masem McGoohan actually pitched 17 different shows during this period, and the one he talked about in the interview isn't the one he was actually able to produce later. So, unless we can verify that he's actually talking about "The Prisoner", I don't think this can be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I *wished* I pitched 17 different shows during that period... :) --MASEM (t) 01:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

At first I was like--what? Are you claiming to McGoohan? I thought he was dead? Then I went back and read what I wrote.... Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Martin Jackson, reporter for the Daily Express, considered a reliable source by wikipedia standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.234.26 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the Daily Express (and particularly the Daily Express as it was 45 years ago) should not be considered any less of a RS than any other newspaper. However, although the new series being referred to quite clearly must (from the context) be The Prisoner, it's OR to say so. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually searched the archives of WP:RSN about that; apparently, it can be considered reliable, particularly for entertainment information, although with "hard" news, we'd be better off with another source. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is, even if this source is 100% reliable, it does not mention The Prisoner show by name. It still remains synthesis to say McGoohan left Danger Man at the time given by this article to work on The Prisoner. We can use the article to say the McGoohan left Danger Man for another show, because that's a fact, and we can say that McGoohan was working on the Prisoner on such-a-such a date, but we just cannot say that he left Danger Man for the Prisoner based on this source alone. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

However, that information can't be added here; we would have to add it to Patrick McGoohan. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello editors

Yes, Qwyrxian, with the Daily Express and Martin Jackson as reliable sources we can now add an edit to the Origins and Productions section.

With the date of April 16, 1966 confirmed as the point in time that McGoohan had decided, along with Lew Grade to "turn up" Danger Man for "another show", not necessarily The Prisoner. It could possibly include the part where he presents such a concept to Lew Grade as proof of that.

I will work up a suggested edit from the news item and post it here for talk and proper formatting. The entire point is that we now have an opportunity as editors to put a date (April 16,1966) on the events in the article in proper context.

The information could be placed here and in Patrick McGoohan as the event of Danger Man coming to an end is mentioned in the body of the article,that deserves a date. I will try to work up an edit for both.

Sincerely

A Contributor

PS I posted the request for a reliable source check so we could move forward with this edit. I was at a different computer.

66.235.14.67 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're missing the points made above. This is still speculative, as evidenced by the fact that you proposed writing "It could possibly include the part...". We cannot speculate, and I would ask again why you are going to such great lengths to try to get this in. Based on some of your earlier posts, you appear to be a fan who is trying to build a case against George Markstein as co-creator for the series. Again, we cannot do that here; we can only report relevant facts. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And, again, you need to take this to Talk:Patrick McGoohan. Since that reference never mentions The Prisoner, and we have no evidence to think it has anything to do with The Prisoner, it cannot be here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTCH

Hello

I suggest you wait for my edit first before stating the relevance to either article.

Thank you for your patience.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Here is my suggested edit, the place in the article (in brackets) and the foot note:

[Shortly after the filming of the fourth series of Danger Man in colour had begun, McGoohan told Lew Grade of ITC Entertainment that he intended to quit.]

On April 16, 1966 Patrick McGoohan announced his intention to quit ‘Danger Man’. [ ]

[ ] Daily Express, April 16, 1966, pg.12 “Danger Man To Quit” by Martin Jackson: “Danger Man, one of television’s most successful spy series, is to end for good. After four years as special agent John Drake, actor Patrick McGoohan said last night: "It’s time we turned it up.”

I look forward to your suggestions.

Sincerely

A Contributor

PS The date is a relevant fact. 66.235.14.67 (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz

Don't confuse an editor's learning curve about wikipedia standards as "going to great lengths'. Streamlining an edit to fit the body of the article is what has been occurring. I would point out that even wikipedia experienced editors can make an honest mistake that can lengthen the talk. Pointing out to Qwyrxian that removing "Mr." would vandalize a news quote put us both on the same page and a focus on talk that has been constructive.The focus here is about the date April 16, 1966, not speculation on older edits that have been removed.

I hope this addresses your issue.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"A Contributor": I still think you don't understand. That date has no connection to The Prisoner. The article, as you say, does not assert one. Thus, the information should not be in this article. It really is that simple. Unless you can provide a different source that clearly states this was The Prisoner being discussed, we cannot include that here. No way that you edit it or rephrase the sentence can possibly change that. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Thank you for the insights and suggestions. They are very helpful to the the process of making the news item useful. I will take this to 'Patrick McGoohan' talk to see if the materials have application there, per suggestions.

What is understandable is that McGoohan quit "Danger Man" as part of his actions to produce The Prisoner and the news item reveals the date that he made that statement to quit to the press. That is why the edit would have been placed where suggested. However from what can be inferred from the OR rule there is a wonderful almost wave particle like effect here and it can not be acknowledged without the words 'The Prisoner' in the news item. The end result is Origins and Productions ends up with no date for the events even though one is knowable, weird, as one editor pointed out, but rather wonderful at the same time.

Thank you again.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning Operation Epsilon

Hello

"Another documented situation with some similarities was Operation Epsilon: German atomic scientists were detained post-war in relatively comfortable isolation in a mansion in England, while their conversations were recorded. Markstein suggested that the Danger Man lead, John Drake, could suddenly resign, and be kidnapped and sent to such a location."

The above quote from the Origins and Productions section from The Prisoner seems to state that George Markstein was inspired by that historical event. There is no cited reliable source for this.

I look forward to your comments.

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Editor removed:"Another documented situation with some similarities was Operation Epsilon: German atomic scientists were detained post-war in relatively comfortable isolation in a mansion in England, while their conversations were recorded." for not citing RS and formatting, from Origins and Production section.

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Origins and Production

Persons Places and Dates

Hello Ckatz

You have removed this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Prisoner&diff=435494589&oldid=435490049

You state that this was done because of material being 'repeated". Persons, places and dates are all essential to communicate a timeline for the origins and production components communicated in the edit. The article 'Origins and Production' section is lacking any such dates. The section where similar persons or places are mentioned is in a different context, commenting on McGoohan's 'surrealistic' creative process, an entirely different issue.

Please let me know your suggested edit. I look forward to your contributions. I will also see if the edit can be improved in the intention it was posted which is to add dates to the article from a RS.

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz

Here is my suggested edit:

Patrick McGoohan said he had had the desire within in him to express his feelings on imprisonment and lack of individuality from a very early age. Towards the end of production of the third season of 'Danger Man', an ITC ,ATV film subsidiary, action series being shot at Shepperton Studios in late 1965 to early 1966, McGoohan wrote up a format as an ideal show for Everyman Films to make for ITC. He took the papers early one morning to see Lew Grade, the chairman of ITC. Grade had faith in McGoohan and told him to tell him about the idea personally, rather than read the paperwork. McGoohan did so and Grade agreed the idea was so crazy it could just work. The money was paid into Everyman Films Ltd. bank account, and production could begin.

Danger Man had begun work in 1959 with thirty-nine half-hour episodes which screened in the UK from September 1960 and by CBS in America from April 1961. Amongst the locations visited for the show Danger Man was a Welsh hamlet called Portmeirion and amongst the people McGoohan met was David Tomblin, an assistant director who had worked on shows like H.G. Well's Invisible Man. McGoohan and Tomblin found their ideas on personal freedom and creative expression were very similar, and soon formed a production company called Everyman Films Ltd.

With production of Danger Man beginning in 1964, again at MGM Borehamwood, thirty-two episodes of Danger Man were now made to fill an hour long commercial slot and premiered on ITV the following October, becoming one of the top-rated shows. Drake was now attached to MI9 and the show was sold to CBS as Secret Agent and shown in France as Destination Danger. After a break in Summer 1965, the crew moved to Shepperton to make an additional thirteen episodes in black and white, finishing on 4th March 1966 with Not So Jolly Roger. After a break of a fortnight, work resumed on two experimental episodes in color, Koroshi and Shinda Shima, which could be edited together as a feature film for the American market called Koroshi, and form part of a fourth color season in the UK. Dating the third season around January 1966, George Markstein joined the team as the script consultant and later script editor for Shinda Shima and Koroshi.

Some crew members remained under the impression that the show, The Prisoner, would be a continuation of 'Danger Man' and felt that McGoohan would continue playing the character of John Drake. Drake's last adventure, Koroshi completed work in late April 1966.[1]

I look forward to your comments.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

The above was posted at Ckatz 'talk' page to start a discussion on the Origins and Production section of The Prisoner. The edit draws from an article by Andrew Pixley called 'The Prisoner: Everyman's Production' in Time Screen No. 12. The content of the article by Pixley is about the origins and production of The Prisoner.

The edit covers McGoohan's earliest thoughts to influence 'The Prisoner', events involving production, places and people through to late April 1966 when the production period of Danger Man ends and the impression of some of the crew remaining with the idea that 'The Prisoner' was an extension of Danger Man. Mostly new information. The follow on ( after the edit) is then about the contribution of George Markstein to the origins of The Prisoner.

The edit and the article seem to repeat some (or similar) information such as the meeting with Lew Grade and McGoohan but the edit puts this event into set of dates, something the article did not have before the edit. A timeline ( with dates) for Origin and Production section is the intention of the edit.

I look forward to any suggested sentence structure that may enhance or help with the integrity of the article.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I have added this edit to enhance on the influences of McGoohan's formatting of The Prisoner.

The format was influenced by McGoohan's experience from theater, such as his work in Orson Welles' 1955 play Moby Dick Rehearsed' and the 1962 BBC teleplay 'The Prisoner' by Bridget Boland.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I have added this edit about 7 episodes McGoohan had wanted to produce:

McGoohan had originally only wanted to produce 7 episodes of 'The Prisoner' but consented to produce 17 so Lew Grade could make his sale to CBS.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I have added this edit:

In an interview given to Barrington Calia, Patrick McGoohan described the circumstances concerning the origins of The Prisoner: BC: "Is The Prisoner John Drake, secret agent ( the main character from the espionage/action television series from the 1960's) ?"

PM: (emphatically) "No! I was asked to create an action series because of the popularity of Danger Man and Secret Agent , both of which I starred in. Lew Grade called me into his office and asked me to come up with an action series that wasn't quite as literal as its spying predecessors. Unfortunately, people assume that 'The Prisoner' is a sequel to Secret Agent because I began the project closely afterward. Number Six is a former 'secret agent", which is why people maintain this false notion for the sake of continuity. I would've preferred someone else play the role, but circumstance wouldn't have it that way."[15]

I look forward to any comments.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In Use, for the above

I'm putting an "In Use" template on the article for about 2 hours, although it will probably take me less than that, to rework the Origin section, especially in light of the above additions. The section contains duplications, uses non-encyclopedic language, and uses too many quotations. To 66.235.14.67, while the info you added is useful, in general, it's much better to summarize information from other sources than it is to provide long quotations; also, please be sure to check the rest of the section you're adding to so that you don't just duplicate information already there. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A first note: almost everything about Danger Man is coming out. That can go in the article about that show. All we need to know here is about the transition. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm done with the cleanup. A few remaining concerns:

1. The very first line says that Markstein is co-creator. But, other than suggesting the idea for the location and Drake's transformation into a prisoner, the rest of this looks like it was primarily McGoohan's work. Does anyone have information that would help support the idea of Markstein as co-creator?
2. I realized while I was copy-editing that I typed everything "naturally"; since I am used to using American English as my main dialect, it may well be that I didn't write parts of this correctly. As a UK show, this article should definitely be in British English, so anyone who notices a mistake in that regard is more than welcome to fix it.
3. A few of the citations need more detailed information (specifically, a title for ref. 8, and publication information on most of the books).

Of course, I'm happy to address other concerns people have with the changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I checked the new version of the article and it flows rather well. I made an edit as "Colony 3 was not filmed at Portmeirin and McGoohan never compared Portmeirion to Inverlair. The article still need dates.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I didn't realize that the episodes filmed at Colony Three wasn't one of the Portmeiron episodes. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I would suggest the following edit for the opening line:

The show was created by Patrick McGoohan with input from George Markstein while the two were working on Danger Man, an espionage show produced by Incorporated Television Company (also called ITC Entertainment).

Rather than the current opening statement:

The show was co-created by Patrick McGoohan and George Markstein while the two were working on Danger Man, an espionage show produced by Incorporated Television Company (also called ITC Entertainment).

There is no 'creator' credit in the series credits.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I added the title "Talking With McGoohan" to ref 8.

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Before changing the Markstein/McGoohan relationship, I'd like to here what other editors think. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant to endorse any such change without solid, referenced material preferably from a source other than the IP. Sorry, but he/she seems to have started with one purpose, that being to argume for this, and we need something more than an editor's opinions to make such a fundamental change. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Ckatz, is that right now we don't seem to have a reliable source to support the idea that he is a co-creator. In other words, I'd be inclined to say that our current version isn't adequately verified. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• My 2p's worth. McGoohan created the concept of the prisoner together with its location but Markstein fleshed it out for filming the pilot with David Tomblin. In the article it says McGoohan wrote a 40 page series bible but I have not heard that. I can cite Markstein wrote a 4 page bible and that he wanted it to be a contiuation of Danger Man but as that would have meant paying royalties to Ralph Smart McGoohan came up with the numbers instead of names, an unforseen masterstroke.REVUpminster (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC

Hello

The White/Ali book presents the Markstein 4pg 'bible' as originating The Prisoner but citing Fairclough reveals the same document as an ITC internal memo from 1967 ( The Prisoner began production in 1966), possibly used in PR. Both could be cited.

I hope that fellow editors will stay with the good faith policy and weigh each suggestion for an edit on it's own merits rather than coming from a bias based on older now obsolete posts or edits. Without the good faith policy there is no progress.

Sincerely

A Contributor

P.S. Hello Qwyrxian I am glad you found the material useful. Thank you for the suggestions on formatting.

Hello

Perhaps this is useful:

Rick Du Brow

"Secret Agent' Star To Make New Film

It seems rather definite that highly popular British series, CBS-TV's "Secret Agent," which has been a mid- season replacement for two years running, is finished on American television except as it is seen in syndicated reruns.

However, the stylish star of the show, Patrick McGoohan, is expected to begin shooting a new series in Britain in September and according to the source in England, the fact that it will be filmed in color indicates that the program has the American market in mind.

According to the source, McGoohan's new series will be called "The Prisoner" and it is an idea of his own which gets him away from secret agent roles but still requires "plenty of guts and action." Other than that information, says the source, McGoohan flatly refuses to to discuss the program.

HUMBOLDT STANDARD Friday, June 3, 1966. pg 3

Sincerely

A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

IP: Please start using indentations. When you respond to someone, if you are specifically responding to their comment, add a number of colons in front of the line equal to one more than the number of colons that the previous person used. This indents messages and makes talk page comments far easier to read. You'll have to do some work when you cut and past material like you did above, but it's really necessary.

Second, to REVUpminster, could you provide a quotation or specifics that verify that comment? If there is disagreement about the creation process, our article should definitely reflect that--note, for example, the way that I showed in the second paragraph how the two interviews, both of McGoohan, provide contradictory information, without actually judging which is "true".

• Dave Rogers 'The Prisoner and Danger Man' ISBN 1-852883-260-6 (1989). Page 131 mention Marksteins 4 page bible. Also that Markstein laid claim to creating the series concept. that McGoohan was delighted with the concept. That Markstein wanted to continue John Drake but that would have meant paying "healthy royalties" to Ralph Smart. Rogers speculates that someone like McGoohans "at the height of his career. I find it doubtful that McGoohan had either the necessity or inclination to 'lift' someone else's idea."

Rogers has himself used material from Max Hora booklet The Prisoner of Portmerion (1985) no ISBN but a publication of the Six of One society. This booklet mentions the four Danger Man episodes filmed there and that McGoohan an his family holidayed there staying at White Horses cottage just outside the village. Both books mention the sales pitch to Lew Grade on the saturday morning, no date other than early 1966. Filming began at Portmerion in September 1966 and at MGM in October 1966 for the first 6 episodes of an intended 7 part serial not series.REVUpminster (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Finally, to IP again, that Humboldt Standard article really does nothing for us--it doesn't verify anything about who created the article. It just verifies that McGoohan, who starred in one show, was already planning to star in another similar but not identical program. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

The article is under the byline of Rick Du Brow, who is an United Press International syndicated TV reviewer. The relevant part of the article is this: According to the source, McGoohan's new series will be called "The Prisoner" and it is an idea of his own which gets him away from secret agent roles but still requires "plenty of guts and action."

The reference to McGoohan's new series is positioned as "an idea of his own", in other words he originated it. Note the article specifically mentions 'The Prisoner".

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

PS Qwyrxian I will try to follow your suggestions, at the moment I will post as I have been. Thank you for your patience.

Hello

Here is a news article from 1968 under the byline of Rick Du Brow, United Press International (UPI) syndicated TV reviewer from the Cedar Rapids Gazette. The item concerns the debut of The Prisoner on CBS and states that McGoohan "created" The Prisoner", lists his credits then goes on to describe the show. here is the relevant passage:

Television Today

By Rick DuBrow

"The Prisoner"

HOLLYWOOD (UPI) - "The Prisoner", CBS-TV's new one- hour weekend series, obviously means a great deal personally — besides money — to its star. Patrick Mc-Goohan. He created it, is executive producer and wrote and directed several of the episodes.

Those who came to admire McGoohan in the "Secret Agent" series once again will note his individualism.

The Cedar Rapids Gazette: Tue June 4, 1968 pg. 10

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• User:REVUpminster/Sandbox with some tweaking this is how I would present this section.REVUpminster (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

REVUpminster, if you're referring to the section of your Sandbox titled "Test Section before transfer The Prisoner", that's a 100% no-go. Your example contains no sources, non-neutral language ("Grade who knew McGoohan was a highly bankable star"), and directly contradicts several of the sources currently in the article. Overall, it presents the story of the production as if there is a single story agreed upon by all participants at all times, when even the references I've looked at clearly show that different writers have different opinions about what happened, but even the individual people changed their story over time (look just at the info in the second paragraph of the current section of the article that shows McGoohan's story changing from 1977 to 1988. Given the complexity of this issue, we need a highly sourced, extremely careful section that clearly represents the multiple different viewpoints present in our sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• All That I had written can be verifiable from the sources I quoted, I know not properly on my sandbox. The problem with this section is it iis being complicated by using sources further from the actual events by authors trying to sell books with thier own selling point when there is not anything new. Dave Rogers book 1989 uses 6of1 for a lot of his information and we might not like it but a dedicated fan site with access to McGoohan and ITV is hard to beat.REVUpminster (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says that if multiple sources disagree, we must represent a relevant summary of those opinions (in due weight to their importance). Unless you can show that some of the sources currently in the article don't meet WP:RS, the alternate interpretations must stay. Again, note that McGoohan himself changed his story across multiple interviews. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

David Roger's account gives George Markstein's statements and then states support for McGoohan, stating that McGoohan did not need to 'lift' another person's idea. Fairclough seems to give support to McGoohan and Markstein and then uses the term "justifiabe" in the idea that Markstein could see himself as 'creator'. Early news articles from 1966-1981 all seem to credit McGoohan as sole creator of The Prisoner. White/Ali also comment on the matter. I will try to post the proper citations for review here.

The newspaper articles by Rick Bu Brow (see above) are viewable to fellow editors at the digital archive called Newspaper Archive, or at the Los Angeles Times digital archive.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Here is an item from the New York Times by John J. O'connor He served at the Times for 25 years, mostly as a television critic.

The relevant comment is: "Mr. McGoohan, who had the original idea for "The Prisoner"..."

Here is the relevant portion of the news item to cite:

'Prisoner' On TV Tonight

By John J. O'connor

The production’s prime force, in front of and behind the cameras, was Patrick McGoohan, the actor who recently starred in the CBS series “Rafferty”. Mr. McGoohan, who had the original idea for "The Prisoner", was the executive producer of the series which was produced by his company Everyman Films. I addition to playing the lead role, he directed and wrote some episodes.

The New York Times January 16 1978 pg. C29

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, what is the point of mentioning Rafferty made 10 years later just to justify what is already known?REVUpminster (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The mention of Rafferty is a by product of the quote from the NYT so as to not vandalize the part relevant to the origins of The Prisoner from a RS. A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Here is a quote from a news article by UPI reporter Robert Musel of the Herald Tribune (NYT/London Times):

McGoohan: Dossier on a Shy Spy

By ROBERT MUSEL

But my visit did not come at an ordinary time.

For McGoohan had only just crystalized the conception of his new series "The Prisoner" and was excited enough about its possibilities to.forget the 15- minute limit he usually imposes on questioners. This time he did most of the talking, and if he manages to bring off before the camera the many facets of drama he sees in its basic situation, "The Prisoner" may be one of the more gratifying TV successes of 1967.

Los Angeles Times Date: Aug 22, 1966 Start Page: C30 Section: PART IV

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Summary of above

Here's my interpretation of all of what you both wrote above:

1. Some sources credit both McGoohan and Markstein creating the idea (particularly, the White/Ali and Rogers books, which both mention the Markstein bible), while a number of other sources (especially a number of newspaper articles, as well as some of the interviews already in the article) give credit strictly to McGoohan. Is that correct? If so, the section needs to clearly explain that sources disagree.
2. Sources state differing explanations of the origin of the No.6 character. Some state (as the article currently says) that Markstein wanted them to continue, but McGoohan simply wanted a clean break; others (like Rogers) state that a big issue is the royalties that would allegedly have had to be paid. Again, if that's correct, then the article needs to clearly state both of these points.

Have I properly summarized the above? If so, I will be happy at some point to try to figure out how to actually write all of that in a coherent yet complete discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• 1 McGoohan certainly created the concept and the location and after 13 episodes filmed took over most of the production with only Tomblin left. But he did not write the first episode. Including McGoohan there were a total of 12 writers involved. Then there is the timeline. Danger Man B/W finished production on Friday 4 March 1966 then a two week break and the the two colour episodes of a proposed 4 series were filmed from 21 March until 22 April 1966 at Shepperton Studios before Exteriors were shot at Portmeirion in September 66 when the hotel closed down for the winter and from October at MGM studios. The intervening four months was when McGoohan, Tomblin and Markstein appointed the writers and crew who just happened to be the Danger Man crew laid off in April except for Edwin Astley who was too busy ( The Saint, The Baron and The Champions) to do the music.

2 I agree with the Rogers version.

It will not be easy to write unless you are going to write 3/4 versions and then nobody will read it. Stick to the most widely held view and just acknowledge other versions exist. Wikieditors will always come along an edit when they think there is something new when there is not really. that is why it has 257 watchers. Good luckREVUpminster (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Your agreement with the Rogers version is, frankly, irrelevant. WP:NPOV requires that we present all legitimate theories, not just the "most popular one" or the one a particular editor likes. The IP editor has presented numerous solid sources (including sources that date close to the show itself) that McGoohan is the creator. Rogers, as a source, says it's more complicated than that. Fine. We have to tell all sides of the story. I don't understand what the timeline has to do with anything. At best, it appears to be you making an argument based on your original research about which conclusion is accurate. Unless you can somehow show that the other sources are not reliable, or that those claims were explicitly retracted, or that some sort of "expert" (I'm not even sure who that would be; maybe an academic focusing on the history of television) has concluded that one story is more likely than the other, we have to include the multiple, complex stories. Finally, the number of the people watching the page is irrelevant--some pages have thousands of watchers, and yet still change all of the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Everything I have written above comes from three books. Rogers relies heavily on 6of1. My point re the timeline is it is a myth that he stopped doing Danger Man and went straight to filming The Prisoner when there was 4 months and a change of studio. As for OR then everything on wikipedia is original research because you have to read something to cite on wikipedia. But I am not a deletist editor but work to the good faith principal unless something is obviously wrong. As for the watchers they all belive they have something to contribute even if it's only watching for vandalism.REVUpminster (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• The summary that Qwyrxian states above on points 1 and 2 is a rather good one and does draw most of the threads together from this editor's perspective. The dates mentioned of the production would be a valuable addition to the body of the article, if properly cited. A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: I haven't forgotten about this, I just don't have enough time to do a serious large-scale edit right now; I'll come back to this within a week or two, tops. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Patrick McGoohan. Footnote: McGoohan says "Danger Man" is finished, that he won't make any more episodes. But he's up to his eyes in a new series called "The Prisoner." It is his own idea, conceived by him, and is said to be very good. "The Baron To Replace Danger Man" by Nan Musgrove The Australian Women's Weekly Wednesday 3 August 1966 Page 19

A Contributor 75.164.80.201 (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that the wording in the second paragraph should read "after filming of the PROPOSED fourth series." This is because the two episodes were tacked on to the end of filming at Shepperton. Rogers always argues the third series of Danger Man started from the move to Shepperton from MGM mid filming even though the broadcast dates show no break. When I did the episode list for Danger Man I had to reflect this. The two episode fourth series is only called a series for convenience because it had such a diverse broadcast history plus as a feature film.REVUpminster (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense to me; I've added it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Finished?

I think I've incorporated both of your concerns at this point, although I may well have missed something. I didn't feel it necessary to site a whole bunch of different newspapers because having 3 different citations that say the same thing isn't really any better than just having one (in this case). If I missed some key points, please tell me and I'll work to get them in, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Most points are well covered but the article should include citing some of the earlier news items from the time of pre-production (Rick Du Brow, Robert Musel) and at the broadcast period (Du Brow) as the article states that "sources", plural, state McGoohan as the creator. The historical period of those "sources" needs to be represented and cited. A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• I have a problem with this sentance in the article: Part of Markstein's inspiration for the show came from research he conducted for Danger Man. During this research etc etc. 1. He was only on Danger Man for the last few episodes in early 1966. 2 Rogers claims it was during his work on Overseas Weekly as London correspondant that he gained "first hand knowledge of an institution in Inverness Scotland (Invelair Lodge)." and that he was attached to British Intelligence. This intelligence work is disputed on the George Markstein page. 3. Andrew Pixley claims he was a correspondant for five years on Stars and Stripes. Maybe the two were connected being GI magazines.REVUpminster (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Dave Rogers casts George Markstein as a British Intelligence agent when working for the Over Seas Weekly. Fairclough states there is no historical basis for the British Intelligence claims, only rumors to that effect. Markstein was clearly the London desk editor for the Over Seas Weekly military tabloid as he is listed on the masthead of the tabloid as such and can be cited. A check of Stars and Stripes shows no record of Markstein ever having written for the famous military paper but he did write for the U.K Eagle under the byline 'George Mark', this can be cited from the 'Stars and Stripes'. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.14.67 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need any more newspaper citations. Most of them don't say anything useful. For example, the Musel article, quoted above, verifies nothing other than an interview took place, that McGoohan was excited, and that the reviewer thought the show would be successful. It doesn't verify any of the disputed facts--that is, it doesn't tell us the exact relationship between McGoohan and Markstein. The Du Brow says its "an idea of his own", but that's so vague that its useless. That could simply mean "Lets make a weird tv show that's kind of like Danger Man but more weird", or it could mean the exact details of every point of the concept, setting, plot, etc. The Australian Women's Weekly seems better, but I'd like to see the rest of the article first, as the tone does not seem very professional, and I'm worried if it's actually a reliable source for this topic. In any event, the point isn't just to overload with a bunch of sources, as if having more sources somehow makes that point more "correct". Finally, sources from right around that time aren't necessarily better, and may well be worse, in determining what "actually" happened. The Du Brow is actually the best example of why we have to be careful about these sources: they're not being written to provide literal "facts", but rather to pitch the show, promote the actor, etc. The very intentional use of metaphorical and promotional language means we have to be careful how much credence we give them.

I think I can solve all of the concerns regarding when the research occurred and in what context Markstein did the research and whether or not he was connected to Brit.Int.: I just took it out. We don't need to go into such detail in this article--that debate can rightly be covered in George Markstein. Where he got the info from really has no bearing on The Prisoner. The sentences now read, "Part of Markstein's inspiration from his research into World War II, where he found that some people had been incarcerated in a resort-like prison called Inverlair Lodge." I think is correct, although perhaps it should be "research on" instead of "research into" (since the latter implies the research was done after the fact); feel free to rephrase it as you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Each of the reporters cited are an RS as are the newspapers and or magazine they were reported in. They are, simply put, historical sources of the day on the subject of the article about the Origins and Production of The Prisoner (by name). Each gives credit to McGoohan as the sole person for the 'idea' 'concept' or 'creation' of The Prisoner. It is not the duty of an editor to state speculation on the motives of such historical sources, just to report them. The value of the sources is to again show that multiple sources at the time of the shows Origins Production and Broadcast stated that McGoohan was the creative source of The Prisoner, that is a matter of recorded history. All of the news items cited demonstrate this and in no 'vague' terms.I suggest you re-examine each of the news items in light of these points. I will prepare a suggested edit. A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you need to go back and re-examine the sources. Not a single one of them other than the one I quoted indicates McGoohan is the sole creator. You're reading something into the newspaper articles that simply isn't there. And you're also wrong to say that these are all RS; the tone of writing itself indicates that they are questionable sources at best. Simply being in a newspaper, even a well-known one, does not make something a reliable source--each individual article must be looked at independently. If necessary, we can take the discussion to the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • I suggest that we get the matter of RS out of the way first as a constructive step. The simple statement by Dubrow in 1968 of "He created it." could not be any plainer. Again speculation on a historical source is not the duty of an editor, just to report from an RS published source. The matter of Markstein vrs McGoohan is dealing with two different claims and how those claims came to be, if early press accounts give credit to McGoohan that must be cited, if later press or published accounts give credit to Markstein that must also be cited, if published by an RS. It is not the duty of an editor to referee historical sources, only report... not render speculative opinions on motivations. A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the Du Brow. Please re-read what it says. To quote your own quotation, it says that it is an "idea of his own". That doesn't mean the same thing as creator, and, more importantly, doesn't say he's the sole or primary creator. Again, we have no idea what that means (it could simply mean "I want to have a show I created myself"). Since that article doesn't verify what the text says, it can't be used as a reference there. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • You are quoting the wrong Dubrow article. For clarity here ,again, is my original post here in Discussions:

Hello

Here is a news article from 1968 under the byline of Rick Du Brow, United Press International (UPI) syndicated TV reviewer from the Cedar Rapids Gazette. The item concerns the debut of The Prisoner on CBS and states that McGoohan "created" The Prisoner", lists his credits then goes on to describe the show. Here is the relevant passage:

Television Today

By Rick DuBrow

"The Prisoner"

HOLLYWOOD (UPI) - "The Prisoner", CBS-TV's new one- hour weekend series, obviously means a great deal personally — besides money — to its star. Patrick Mc-Goohan. He created it, is executive producer and wrote and directed several of the episodes.

Those who came to admire McGoohan in the "Secret Agent" series once again will note his individualism.

The Cedar Rapids Gazette: Tue June 4, 1968 pg. 10

Sincerely

A Contributor

I will wait 24 hours and restore the citation as DuBrow is a UPI reporter, reporting in a newspaper both of which meet wiki RS standards. I will also prepare a proper edit that will cite the Dubrow "idea of his own" and the Robert Musel (also UPI) LA Times report about the 'concept', both are reliable sources on the Origins of the series and are relevant. A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will self-revert. Please do not add any more citations to newspaper articles. Wikipedia's job is not to attempt to list every citation to every related topic. I get that you're trying to build some case that because of the large number of similar citations, and because they are from that time period, that that's the "true" story. But you can't do that. Yet another newspaper article, especially one that is so unclear, simply isn't needed. You're starting to push into WP:UNDUE territory. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the prompt revert. I am not trying to 'prove' any 'position' as the 'right' one 'or build a case'. I am trying to use quotes over an expanse of time from June 1966 through July 1966 to show the series development. This may include material from the LA Times dating from November 1967 as the series was reaching it's production conclusion. In other words a 'Production' section not 'Origins' an entirely different issue. The edit will be placed here for Discussion. Just to be clear all of the news items I posted here (including the one you chose from the NYT) was to give a wide choice of sources to choose properly from, again not just to 'build a case'. Again thank you for all your hard work on the article. A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • As an aside note you will find that Australian Women's Weekly reaches wiki RS standards and reporter Nan Musgrove was the magazines official TV reviewer and commentator. A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want, I'll take the AWW to WP:RSN, which is the noticeboard for discussing what is and isn't a reliable source from WP's standards. I'd have to have the whole source first; do you happen to have a link? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • • The item can be found through a simple word search at an archive called "Trove". A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have checked RS once again and Australian Women's Weekly is clearly a RS and so would be the content of the magazine's official TV critic and commentator Nan Musgrove. The August 1966 comment is the earliest (pre-production)that clearly sates that McGoohan is the 'creator' of 'The Prisoner'. It should be cited as it shows multiple sources of RS standards from a number of countries held the position of McGoohan as 'creator' at the time of the programs inception ( as well as broadcast). This is not mere repetition of the same or similar source. I look forward to any comments. A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody denies McGoohan created the Prisoner concept and location but that Markstein (and Tomblin) worked it into a script, Arrival and a series that would have 12 writers used for an eventual 17 episodes, that could be filmed to create something exciting that would appeal to Danger Man fans. It must be remembered for all the fans of ITC filmed shows, only Robin Hood, The Saint, amd Danger Man ever got past a first series. I am not counting The Invisible Man or Man of the World which were filmed straight through and divided into two series.REVUpminster (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I find nothing that says Australian Woman's Weekly and TV reporter Nan Musgrove are not RS by wiki standards. The quote is from the pre-production date of August 1966 of 'The Prisoner'. It will establish an early date for McGoohan as the 'creator' of 'The Prisoner' and so differs from the other current 'sources' cited and will add new context to the article. The article uses the plural term 'sources' so this should also be reflected in the number of sources cited. It is not WP:UNDUE to cite this source. I will wait 24 hours and then add the new AWW item to the sources cited for the article. A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• What do you want the Origins and production section to say? Edit (rewrite) it then we will know. I will not alter it unless an obvious error or ommission. It is never going to be perfect.REVUpminster (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• There is no need to change the current articles statement about 'sources'. The addition of the AWW cite is sufficient to show 'sources',plural, over the time of the pre-production (August 1966) production and broadcast (Dubrow June 1968) and later broadcast periods (NYT). A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh...you know what, even though I think you are completely wrong on this (it doesn't meet WP:RS--every single article is evaluated on its own merit, not just a blanket "Magazine X is always RS"), and I think it's WP:UNDUE, if you're willing to stop at 3, I don't care enough to go to 2 different noticeboards to argue about it. Go ahead and add that source, as long as that's the last one. If you're planning on adding more than that, please let me know and I will insist on pressing the WP:UNDUE issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your opinion, they have proven valuable before. AWW is part of the RS archive and as I point out Nan Musgrove is the magazine's official TV critic. Entertainment journalism has a wide variety of writing styles and personalities but are still RS. Robert Musel was a highly respected journalist and covered world wide events including WW2. Here he had direct access to McGoohan at the very beginning of the series and uses the term '..crystalized the conception of his new series "The Prisoner"', McGoohan then, later in the article, takes complete responsibility for the series. I provided this and other quotes because a fellow editor wished to have multiple sources for the article ( they may prove valuable yet in further context). The AWW quote is simple and to the point that is why it will be added, it allows the whole timeline of the 'sources' to be knowable. If you find that the source is not RS ( or come up with a better RS source) feel free to remove it. Thank you for your input and work on the article. I do respect your opinions on the matter. I will add the citation after the 24 hours in case anyone else wishes to comment. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.14.67 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have added the AWW ciation. For the sake of clarity in this section here is the quote:

Patrick McGoohan. Footnote: McGoohan says "Danger Man" is finished, that he won't make any more episodes. But he's up to his eyes in a new series called "The Prisoner." It is his own idea, conceived by him, and is said to be very good. "The Baron To Replace Danger Man" by Nan Musgrove The Australian Women's Weekly Wednesday 3 August 1966 Page 19 A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision to line about Rogers

Concerning The Prisoner 2

Hello Below is a quote of Dave Rogers (author of The Prisoner/Danger Man 1989 official companion) concerning doubts about George Markstein's version of events about McGoohan "lifting" his concepts of "The Prisoner". This quote is also noted here in 'Discussion' by REVUpminster in the section called 'In Use For The Above'.

"I find it doubtful that McGoohan had either the necessity or inclination to 'lift' someone else's idea."

Sincerely

A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.14.67 (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's what I needed. According to REVUpminster's context, it appears that "someone else's idea" refers to the question of whether the Prisoner is John Drake, not the question of whether the basic concept was Markstein's or McGoohan's. Now, the only way to sure would be to get full context (like a page or more), but that's how I read it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It refers to the who "created" the "format". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.78.145 (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not what another editor said above, so unless I can see more, I can't support the change. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since I am being mentioned, from what I've read my take is The concept, location and sale of it to Grade was McGoohans. The fleshimg out of McGoohans idea was Marksteins into a working script with David Tomblin and a four page bible for the diverse writers, eight I think, that followed. The big bible by McGoohan sounds like it was for the Art Director and not the scriptwriters. If yow watch the series it followed the pattern of earlier ITC series such as the Saint, Baron and to a lesser extent the hourly Danger Man in having at least one fight (The Saint usually managed three). I may have said before much of Rogers work comes from 6of1. REVUpminster (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

For the sake of clarity here is REVUminister original quote:

   Dave Rogers 'The Prisoner and Danger Man' ISBN 1-852883-260-6 (1989). Page 131 mention Marksteins 4 page bible. 

Also that Markstein laid claim to creating the series concept. that McGoohan was delighted with the concept. That Markstein wanted to continue John Drake but that would have meant paying "healthy royalties" to Ralph Smart. Rogers speculates that someone like McGoohans "at the height of his career. I find it doubtful that McGoohan had either the necessity or inclination to 'lift' someone else's idea."

The quote contains the reference to "Also that Markstein laid claim to creating the series concept.", so it would appear that Dave Rogers is saying that: "I find it doubtful that McGoohan had either the necessity or inclination to 'lift' someone else's idea." in reference to" "Markstein laid claim to creating the series concept." In other words Rogers is expressing doubts about Markstein's version of events.

I will type out the previous copy to the statement per Qwyrxian request to see if this will clear the matter up. A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.14.67 (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Here is the fuller quote from Dave Rogers:

"Accepting the inevitable that someone has to take the credit for originating an idea, the writer (Markstein) shrugged things off by stating "Nobody wants to know about scriptwriters. It is actors who sell the series to the public' - but he never overlooked an opportunity to pursue his claim that McGoohan was taking sole credit for his idea and concept. As to who actually did create the format, I for my part, offer no opinion other than that at the height of his career, I find it doubtful that McGoohan had either the necessity or inclination to 'lift' someone else's idea."

Rogers then goes on to state that there is a third 'origin' story by director Pat Jackson that lends support to McGoohan's version of events.

A Contributor```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.14.67 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being so patient with me. I agree that that line does match your earlier statement. I have re-added the line to the article, though substantially rephrased it--the quote you give above doesn't sound like "one time X, later Y", like the prior quote had; I hope the revised version meets your expectations. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Qwyrxian

The word smithing looks fine. Thank you. Sincerely A Contributor```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.14.67 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Four Page Document

Hello

The following statement was added to show that the four page document cited in the article as 'show bible' was identified by author Robert Fairclough as a PR document from 1967:

"However further research has shown that the four page document to be a publicity guide from 1967, well after the show was in production."

Fairclough, having cited the factual nature of the document then goes on to speculate on the documents possible uses. There is no actual historical basis that the document was used as a 'show bible' or even written by George Markstein.

I suggest the following edit:

"However further research has shown that the four page document to be a publicity guide from 1967, well after the show was in production in September 1966. There is speculation as to the documents possible uses but with no historical basis."

I will wait 24 hours for comments then make the edit.

Sincerely

A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk)

What Fairclough actually says does not bear out what you are intending to add:

Quote: "The document below was part of an ITC/ATV press book issued in 1967, outlining the key elements of The Prisoner's format. From the heading, which describes the series' name as a working title, it would seem that this was an internal file devised at the earliest stages of the show's development and later adapted for publicity purposes"

The form of words that you propose implies far too heavily that the document has been certainly shown to have been written only as a publicity guide well after production started, Fairclough's introduction to, and analysis of, the document (which continues at some length after the passage quoted above) does not support that view. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

PS - in the Introduction to "The Prisoner, the original scripts, vol 1" (p.9), Fairclough says, "Also included [in the book] is George Markstein's story information guide to the series", and indeed, "Story Information" is how the document is headed on the following page. So Fairclough doesn't dispute Markstein's authorship of it either. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Hello

"The document below was part of an ITC/ATV press book issued in 1967, outlining the key elements of The Prisoner's format."

The above opening statement is the factual basis of the document, everything else stated by Fairclough is pure speculation on the documents uses including who may have authored the document. The document is from 1967, the show was in production in September 1966. I am open to suggestion on the edit but it should reflect the facts of the documents true date and not unsupported speculations.

Sincerely

A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

In that case, I think the most you can do that's supported by reliable sources is to say that the four page document, generally attributed to Markstein, was first published (ie, made available outside the production team) in a press pack produced in 1967, and that reliable sources have suggested that it was originally produced as an internal document to guide episode writers at an earlier stage in the show's production. Fairclough's (and other's, published) conclusions (which you choose to call speculation) as to the authorship, nature and original purpose of the document is RS, your inference (which I would call speculative) that Markstein didn't write it, or that the text didn't exist until it appeared in the 1967 press pack, is not RS but is a POV synthesis that shouldn't be added to the article.

I know there's a long-running Markstein v McGoohan dispute, and I'm not particularly interested in it except in so far as one side or the other misquotes or partially quotes out of context the views of reliable sources in order to support their argument, leading to a poor Wikipedia article. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

"The document below was part of an ITC/ATV press book issued in 1967"

The above establishes the date and that the document was for PR purposes, the document is unsigned. I am open to any suggestion you may make as to an edit. Please make one.

A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Here's my suggested edit:

A four page document setting out an overview of the series' themes, structure and content, which it is generally agreed was written by Markstein (sources will be given, Fairclough, Rogers, etc), was published in an ITC/ATV press book in 1967. It has been suggested (plenty of reliable sources again) that the text originated as a guide for writers on the series at an earlier stage of production.

Anything less than that will fail to tell the story, or explain why the document is considered to have any long-lasting significance, and more importantly, anything less than that will fail to be neutral. As far as I can tell, you want an edit that says (or can only be read as implying), in effect, "The so-called show bible was not written by George Markstein and was only written long after the series was in production". I know I'm asking you to prove two negatives (not Markstein's authorship, and didn't exist until the press book was issued in 1967) but unless you have reliable sources that explicitly say both of those things, then your suggested edit is inadequate. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Hello

Here is another version of a suggested edit:

"However further research has shown the four page document to be part of an ITC/ATV press book issued in 1967 ascribed to George Markstein."

The above statement takes into account the articles reference to a 'show bible' and corrects the impression of earlier research on the matter. The longer edit suggested by Ghughesarch repeats material already referenced and over quotes from the RS.

It is suggested that the process of coming to an agreeable edit is not furthered by empty speculation on fellow editors intentions. This is in violation of the Good Faith policy by which any progress is made.

A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Again, your preferred order of words does not accurately reflect what the reliable sources say - 1. it continues to suggest, without evidence, that the text originates from (ie did not exist before) the 1967 press book (despite the internal evidence of the document itself, as explained by Fairclough and others, which strongly suggests that it predates the press book and is from an earlier stage in the series' production) and 2. it now ascribes authorship of the press book as a whole to Markstein. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • • Hello

"However further research has shown the four page document to be part of an ITC/ATV press book issued in 1967 ascribed to George Markstein."

The above edit simply points out what earlier sources fail to identify about the document, that it, the document, is derived from: "part of an ITC/ATV press book issued in 1967" and that it is ascribed to George Markstein. Content from the wiki article references other earlier sources to make the point about the 'show bible'. Simply put Fairclough himself provides the clear identification of the document and it's date of 1967.

Perhaps you should shorten your own edit. It is not the intention of a wiki article to recreate entire quotes from RS.

I look forward to your suggested edit when revised.

PS Here is one suggestion edited from your material:

"Further research has shown the four page document, generally attributed to Markstein, was first published in a press pack produced in 1967, and that some sources have suggested that it was originally produced as an internal document to guide episode writers at an earlier stage in the show's production." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.14.67 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely

A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

I think you are failing to see the point. However, I'll suggest:

A four page document, generally agreed to have been written by Markstein, setting out an overview of the series' themes, was published as part of an ITC/ATV press book in 1967. It has been suggested that this text originated earlier, as a guide for writers on the series.

Ghughesarch (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Your shortened edit works rather well.

As for 'seeing the point' I suggest you look into the story about a boy named Oblio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.14.67 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Good, let's go with that then. I didn't much like the version you edited into your earlier comment as it seemed to confuse published with written, implying that the text in question definitely did not exist before the press pack was produced, and the "further research" bit is always a bit tabloid newsy, implying that it's hot new information (and that it's automatically more reliable than the version we've known for years). Ghughesarch (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Excellent.

Most editors don't like their own words, especially if edited by someone else. Keep in mind it was just an example. But you seem to have gotten 'the point', just like Oblio.

Sincerely

A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

well, perhaps for "suggested" in my version, a tweak to "generally been accepted" would be better, as them's the facts. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

OK. Feel free to 'publish' as 'written' with the proper 'tweak'.

Sincerely

A Contributor66.235.14.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC).