Talk:FlashForward

Interviews in External Links

Drmagi severely truncated the External Links section. I reinstated. Dmargi undid my revisision, and cited WP:ELNO. None of the interviews Drmagi removed satisfy the criteria for removal indicated in WP:ELNO. The LA Times interview, for example, is obviously in a notable publication, and contains information - the thoughts of the one the creators of the TV series - not readily available elsewhere. I would like to see a point by point explanation, with reference to WP:ELNO, for why each of the removed links was removed. PaulLev (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No response here, nor on Drmagi's talk page, where I also left a brief note. I'm therefore reinstating. My reasons are: 1. ELNO was cited, not ELNEVER, which means there's some flexibility in application of the guidelines for unacceptable links. 2. More important, the links removed do not violate the ELNO guidelines. All contain information not readily available elsewhere. The interviews with the creators of FlashForward, in fact, contain unique information in the words that the interviewees chose to use. And none of the sites are personal websites. Like the LA Times, which was among the links removed, the sites are all significant in the providing of information to the public about popular culture. PaulLev (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You want to discuss point-by-point, which takes a bit of research. That places a burden on you to be patient, something you haven't done. The discussion belongs here, not on my personal page or yours, so you shouldn't have expected a comment there.

ELNEVER is designed principally to address copyright issues, and isn't relevant here. ELNO is. It's very clear on the linking to blogs, fansites and related materials. The interview links to minor fan websites and the links to the fan-owned FlashForward website linked are clearly covered by the umbrella of fansites, and fail WP:ELNO. There will never be circumstances where an independent fan Wiki, even ones run by a show's network, doesn't fail ELNO. Personal websites are covered by the same policy as blogs and fansites, and as such, also fail ELNO, as well as any policies covering reliability of sources. The link section is designed to cover media directly related to the series, not to provide a series of "it might be interesting" links for fans. If the basis of your argument is anything like fans/viewers might find it interesting, you're already outside the scope of what constitutes an appropriate Wikipedia link, and have failed ELNO. I would also argue that you should read the conflict-of-interest statement just below the ELNO section of the policy on linking. You've included an interview you've done yourself in the links, which is a clear violation of conflict-of-interest.

Related are interviews with Sawyer that talk about the show. The article is about the SHOW not the book's author, even though he is a participant in the show on a limited basis. The book is very different than the show (there's only one character in common for example) so links to sites that are principally about the book or the book's author should be linked on their respective pages, not here. I've left the AMCTV link, which is still iffy, until I read it again; likewise the LATimes link. No question the LAT is a reliable and notable source (arguably its media coverage is the best in the country,) but that in and of itself does not necessarily make it an appropriate place to link to. If the content of interviews is so important it merits a link, the content should be incorporated into the article, and the link used as a source. But be prepared to have the reliability of sources aside from the LAT questioned by other editors. Drmargi (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now removed the LA Times piece, which is a short blog designed to advertise a private fansite. Again, this doesn't pass WP:ELNO. It's not the function of this article to facilitate the fan community. Drmargi (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot Hole

In the plot description of episode we jump from a description of the doll factory and the photograph of a burnt doll to the the hacker's mobile phone being linked to the guy who was seen awake in the CCTV. The section is missing important plot developments such as the fact there's a guy in the factory, he's surrounded by computer equipment and when he's discovered he blows the factory up and destroys his equipment - then we discover that his mobile was linked to the guy in the CCTV during the flashforward.--Aprhys (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum LizzieHarrison

First off, please sign with four tildes, to include the date of your post. Secondly, Aprhys comment is very clearly focused on improving the article. --78.34.249.237 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree but all Im pointing out is that the second episode of the plot description misses important information that may confuse someone who has not seen the series. To quote.

"In the aftermath of a fire, Benford sees a photographer taking pictures of the evidence. He looks at the pictures on the camera, and sees the exact picture he remembered from his vision. The hacker's cell phone is found, and reveals that a call was made during the blackout, which means the hacker was awake. Moreover, that call went to "Suspect Zero". The team now knows there are at least two people who were awake during the blackout, and that they were in communication."

Who is this hacker? All I was trying to flag is that the hacker has not been mentioned in the article up to this point. Yes I could have changed it myself but I only saw the episode once and wasn't quite sure whether what Id write would be accurate but I will change it now and anyone can amend accordingly.--Aprhys (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Does not matter. The series is scheduled to play with time in such a way as to create paradoxes (actors love chaotic plots). Incidentally the basic event is stolen from H.A.A.R.P. paranoids who say H.A.A.R.P. is supposed to use special frequencies to EMP human brains as well as electronics from non-lethal to lethal. The motive for use is funny though. I think the idea that the CIA leads a G20 group of nation intelligence agencies are acting as righteous eco-terrorists is hilarious. December 10 reveals more hints that this G20 eco-intelligence plans to use a series of blackouts to lower world population below a ecological and economic critical point of 1 billion humans -- all for the good of humanity. Already invoking shades of Nostradamus and Rimbaldi in the TV show Alias. 69.23.121.234 (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research ?

There are some sly references in the show, IMHO. The blackout lasted exactly 137 seconds. The number 137 is well known to physicists as 1/alpha, where alpha is the so-called Fine-structure constant. In addition there are a few characters apparently named for SF authors, such as Gregory Benford, John Varley and maybe even Iain M. Banks. Nothing for poor old Robert J. Sawyer though. Maybe he gets a cameo instead. They kept one of his character names, though.

Think we could get away with a note about the above in the article? Usually that sort of thing gets shot down unless you can quote the producers saying "Yeah, we meant to do that". Djdaedalus (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think as long as a third-party source (e.g. newspaper, magazine) makes the connection it is okay to state it here. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Norway

the series also started on TV2 October 8th at 2145 local time, no idea how I edit the tables at the page so just thought I would let people know Darkgun —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Full season

Just to let you know: Variety (the source you're using in the article) says the 1st season will have 22 episodes, but E! says there will be 24 episodes. --SimoneMLK (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I read several sources, and most show a nine-episode additional order, making 22. Variety is by far more reliable than E! so they are the source until an ABC press release can be located.Drmargi (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

just to say; in the UK the newspapers say that there is 22 episodes. --86.14.232.83 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

just to say; the box on the right on wikipedia says it's 13 episodes, click the link and you end up on a page listing 22 :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.129.142 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we make a page that lists all the flashforwards?

Now that we know this will get a full season pick up, I think it would be interesting if we listed all of the flashforwards, and the sooner we start, the easier it will be to do.J52y (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Its non-notable and would take too much time; it offers nothing of value to Wikipedia. --Scythre

This could be something that is explained on the pages of main characters, and developed as the series develops. SeanSkinner (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

^Talk_Contribs 10:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes?

I noticed the License plate for the SUV which rams the car with several of the main characters in it in eppisode 5 has diplomatic plate "7S 8487" Is this information approprate for somewhere on this page or shodul there be a different page for the alternate relatity game associated with Flash Forward? ~Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.205.178 (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I've just categorized every article I could find for the show; new categories are Category:FlashForward for general-scope items, Category:FlashForward episodes for episode articles, and Category:FlashForward characters for characters. Please include these in relevant new articles. Radagast (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge episodes list (for now)

I've merged the List of FlashForward episodes and FlashForward (season 1) with this article. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either the list or the season 1 page as separate spin off articles, it's simply the fact that there's no need for them at this time. They both still exist as redirects to the main article (which is extremely simple to change), and the benefit is that all of us editors who are interested in the show can concentrate our efforts on a single article for now. The real benefit is to the reader though, who won't need to navigate through multiple articles for a while. We can easily switch back to separate articles next year, after season 2 starts. Note that there was an AFD for the List of FlashForward episodes article, which I NAC'ed after merging since the AFD is then a moot point. Deletion never made much sense for that anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Seth McFarlane

On Seth McFarlane's page it said he had a recurring role on this show, but the page doesn' include him. Can anyone confirm this? If they can, he should be added under recurring cast, right? 72.220.125.86 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• On his IMDB page it says that he played - uncredited - an FBI agent in the episode No More Good Days. Maybe it'll become a recurring role, but it doesn't seem to be one yet. --Keeves (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Season Finale

It seems highly likely that the season finale would in fact be on April 29th 2010, being the date that everyone saw in their flashes and a Thursday which is the night that the show airs.Vaako (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of separate episode list

I was not involved in the decision to restore the separate episode list, but would like to speak in favor of it. There was an AfD discussion to merge the various episode list pages into one "List of FlashForward episodes" page when one user pre-empted the process, which should have been allowed to run for seven days, and merged all the pages back into the main article. Given we know the season will run 25 episodes, and that there are quite a number of single-season "List of.. " pages, it seems reasonable to leave the recent edits restoring the separate episode list page in place, as was the growing consensus on the inappropriately foreshortened AfD discussion that started all this. Drmargi (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in support too. Looking over the AfD, there was no mention of merging both pages, the only support/suggestions were to axe the season 1 page and keep the episode list. There are lots of canceled series with one season and and episodes page. It makes no sense to have the main article congested with a list of episodes and their summaries. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

But surely we don't need unsourced individual plot-only episode articles like Scary Monsters and Super Creeps (FlashForward)? No More Good Days is fine, but the rest don't seem worth keeping as separate articles. Fences&Windows 00:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, and there is an ongoing AfD on at least "Scary Monsters". Drmargi (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The deletion notice had been removed. I've warned the editor who removed it. Fences&Windows 01:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I should mention - the editor who did the restoration of the separate episode list page speaks pretty limited English from what I understand, and most likely won't join the discussion. Drmargi (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break

My only real question about this is, why now? I mean sure, the list would need to go back to the separate page eventually, but... Not that it really bothers me or anything, I'm just curious about the reasoning here. Incidentally, I closed the AFD because deletion would have been completely inappropriate regardless of anything else. It sort of bothers me to hear that characterized as somehow being "inappropriate", especially since I didn't accuse any of you of being disruptive for opening a bad AFD (which was certainly possible), but I'm not going to make a big stink about it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It was inappropriate in the sense that you closed it after by making what could be interpreted as a unilateral move that sidestepped the consensus process, rather than simply being patient and letting the AfD run 7 days as is customary, particularly given the consensus developing was to do what we have now. Why now? Because someone acted in opposition to your unilateral move and restored the separate article for the episodes list. I happened to be online when the edit was made, and based on a couple things I won't go into here for parsimony's sake, felt the best move was to start a discussion of the edits rather than allow them to stand undiscussed, which was bound to lead to a series of conflicting reverts. What seems clear is that thus far, between the AfD and what's here, the separate episode list article is preferred. As for it being a bad AfD, that's a separate issue, and your judgment alone. You can't accuse anyone here of anything -- none of us opened the AfD. Drmargi (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The AFD itself was inappropriate, which really had nothing to do with the follow up mergers (other then it was a good reason to close the discussion). A consensus to merge articles is occasionally the consensus which arises from a deletion discussion, but the intent of the AFD process is deletion, not moves or mergers. Regardless of anything else, it seemed apparent to me that not even the deletion nominator actually wanted to delete the articles, and there was certainly no third part support to delete (as shown by everyone's merge !votes). With that in mind, how would "allowing the process to run it's course" benefit any of these articles? For more information on this subject though, I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Anyway, since you're not the one who reverted the change I'll wait for an answer to the question from the editor who did. I do find your assumptions and accusations of bad faith and general attitude here to be troubling, though. The only editor I see making accusations here is yourself, for example.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not making accusations, just commenting on what I see as the state of things based on policy and established procedure -- see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed. Please don't take this personally. You might want to glance at my talk page and see the discussion there as well; this isn't my thinking alone. While I see the secondary issue regarding delete v. merge, the discussion was addressing that, which again makes a case for having let it run as is customary. As for the editor who made the edit, as I noted above, it's very unlikely she'll join the discussion, based on her history. That was the principle reason I started one; I knew she wouldn't. Drmargi (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

erhm... I suggest actually reading the section which you just linked to...
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's enough of that. You're trying to make something all about you that's not about you and pick a fight into the bargain. If you have anything more to add to the discussion of the separate page, it belongs here. If you have anything more to say, however erroneous, about my thinking or actions, take it to my talk page. I'll leave the personal stuff here long enough for you to read this, then move it there. Perhaps then you'll read the discussion that's already there that I referred you to earlier. Drmargi (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that re-factoring article talk pages in the manner you're talking about is generally discouraged. There's no reason for this to escalate any further, especially considering the fact that we both essentially agree on everything. I'm not really sure what you're stressing about, but it's definitely creating unnecessary friction right now. It's probably best for both of us to step back for at least 24 hours, here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have this aspect of the discussion end, but then, I didn't put it on the personal or confrontational footing to begin with, nor am I "stressing" about anything, just responding to your increasingly angry comments calmly and rationally. I've reverted the archiving since there is an unresolved issue under discussion, and this exchange is tangental to it. I would submit it is probably not the best choice that you, as an involved party, be the one to close the discussion by archiving. Instead, please allow a disinterested party to do so if needed when the discussion at hand reaches concensus. Drmargi (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange, my perception of the situation seems to be the exact opposite of yours.

Regardless... I am curious about what is unresolved here in relation to the article, because I don't see any outstanding issue other then this discussion. I think that's why I perceive your stance to be aggressive. Other then the overtly hostile criticism of my actions (which I also find curious, since all of our opinions are essentially the same on the issue), the only remaining issue is an assumption of bad faith in others on your part when you stated that you're staring this discussion in hopes of forcing an unnamed someone from edit warring (which implies that you were talking about me, incidentally). The aggressive attitude seems to be some sort of desire to control the situation to some end, but I'm really unclear as to what you're unhappy about in relation to the article(s) (if anything). I'm beginning to wonder if I should start a DR incident so that the two of us could work out our differences, because it's beginning to be obvious that there some sort of problem between the two of us.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

BOY have you got this wrong, and are making yourself into the target of something not targeted at you at all. I'm not assuming bad faith on anyone's part, you are. Neither is my approach aggressive in any way, which you might have recognized had you not taking an aggressive footing yourself or viewed it through an "all about me" lens.

Please try to step back, take yourself out of the equation and look at it again. GIven the original editor left no discussion and no edit summary, the general response to edits such as hers is a quick revert by whatever editor rolls along next, followed by a lively round of back-and-forth editing until someone gets a discussion going. I'm familiar with the original editor's history and knew she'd never start the discussion that should have accompanied her edits, so I simply did it for her, sort of by proxy I suppose. Again, if you care to make this all about you, I can't stop you, but believe me, you were the furthest thing from my mind when I opened this discussion.

You've suggested twice that this stop for 24 hours, to which I've agreed. But you've got to practice what you suggest, not have the last word first. Can you try to take a deep breath, step away, try to gain some perspective, then come back and look at this again without an assumption of bad faith? I hope so. Drmargi (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking a step back and re-evaluating seems like good advice. I think that if you did that yourself that you may be able to see where I'm coming from. You're protesting that I was "the furthest thing from your mind at the time", and yet the first thing that you mention above had to do with criticizing my earlier action. Anyway, hopefully an uninvolved editor will be along and give us some closure on this soon.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to call a halt, as I've said twice before. But as you step back, please try to recognize that it's possible to question the appropriateness of an edit without it being personal. That's the distinction you seem unable to make, and it's why you're so offended by perfectly routine questioning of edits made on this page. Drmargi (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

←Actually, one thing that I do find offensive is your continuing aggressive characterization of myself as being somehow out of line. I've been perfectly reasonable about this thoughout, and I sought outside assistance on this as an absolute last resort (which, in retrospect was probably a mistake). It's obvious that you've had some sort of issue with me for a while, but you won't really talk to me about it. Snide commentary and backhanded insinuations are hardly conducive to collaborative effort, and the fact that you believe that your behavior is reasonable right now is a real problem regardless.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my lord you've got this wrong. Please try to believe I have no issue with you other than what's come as a result of this discussion. I've tried to repeatedly and calmly explain why I did what I did and what my assumptions were, but you refuse to believe me, so naturally you're not getting the explanation you want. You persist in erroneously characterizing my motives, which were meant to use the processes in place here to head off a potential problem, in the most negative way possible for reasons that defy comprehension, and are simply not hearing a word I say. Clearly, this is beyond pointless. I've commented on your assertions where you requested help, and from here, we're done. Drmargi (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you, but I've been attempting to explain my own view to you in the (seemingly fruitless) hope that you could see my side in all of this. I understand that you think that you're being reasonable in this, but I'm attempting to explain that your not along with the reasons why. I've also never presumed to assume that I knew what your motives are or were, I've been explaining my perception of the situation throughout. All of this is what I've decided to request outside help, because it's obvious that for some reason there is a real communication issue between the two of us. Hopefully a third party can assist us in resolving this so that everyone is satisfied (which, incidentally, archiving this discussion would go a long way towards doing. If you would feel more comfortable with your name on the archival then feel free).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Was Wikipedia used on FlashForward?

In the latest episode, Playing Cards with Coyote, at around 37 mins., Janis looks up "Sperm donation" on a website. The layout of both the website and the article is identical with Wikipedia, but in the upper left corner you see the name of the website ending in "...ndium", like "Citizendium". Citizendium has no article on sperm donation, and as I said, the article is clearly ours. This could be a Wikipedia mirror site she's looking at, or they might have simply changed the name for whatever legal reasons. I know this has no relevance to this article, but I find it intriguing nevertheless. Any ideas? Lampman (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the list of Wikipedia mirrors on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, and there are apparently no mirrors ending in "...ndium" other than Citizendium. They sometime mirror content from here, but that was clearly not the case here. It seems the show's graphics department has done some trickery here. Lampman (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

They had to have. The word "Citizendium" was in the place normally reserved for the article title. If you have a big enough screen, and can pause live tv you would have also seen that the URL was malformed. - Drew Smith What I've done 21:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Why all the page moves?

FlashForward and Flash Forward are two different spellings. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for a discussion on the matter. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Flash Forward (Canadian TV series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Lloyd's son with autism" vs. "Lloyd's autistic son"

I don't believe there's a WP guideline on this, so we're talking about opinion when we say one is better than the other. I think "Lloyd's son with autism" is very awkward, almost sounds like autism is Dylan's mother. In English, adjectives go before the noun. Given this is how the language works, I don't understand someone making the claim that "autistic son" puts the emphasis on autism. "Son with autism" is not how the language normally works, so that makes it conspicuous. You introduce your "lovely wife", not your "wife who is lovely". Is Drmargi a native speaker of English? -- AvatarMN (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Drmargi is quite clearly a native speaker of English (as even a cursory review of my writing on this site would make abundantly clear) and has expertise in this area. Et tu? Your lovely wife example doesn't hold together as it is not parallel, as well as a rather silly example. Edit summaries are too concise so I'll explain here: when writing about disability in most disability communities and the academic community (and we assume an encyclopedia is nothing less at its must fundamental than an academic document), it is customary to use person-first language when writing about people with disability, which de-emphasizes the disability in favor of the person. Thus, the form is son with autism, not autistic son. That the Wikipedia is behind in developing a policy or a section in the MOS on this issue simply indicates the need for it to catch up with the form the disability community favors. See the following: [[1]] I've left the recent edit in place because I don't want an edit war, but if we're going to get precious about this, I'll challenge the description of the child as having autism, something that is utterly laughable in its inaccuracy, despite what the show claims. Drmargi (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The debate is dumb. I seriously cannot fathom anyone actually thinking "Lloyd's son with autism" is preferable. Little Mookie (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Strike that from the list of constructive responses. And it's not a debate. It's just a simple discussion. Drmargi (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Two questions that will help clear this up. First, what nationality are you? (If American, which state do you live in?). Second, do you have a disability? Little Mookie (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Drmargi's preferred awkward locution is what passes for "political correctness" nowadays. There is no reason for Wikipedia to play along with such distortions of the language. -- Zsero (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A little civility, please? This is just a discussion, which we should be able to have here. Little Mookie, your questions are out of line. No editor has to identify themselves or answer personal questions just to edit an article. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, they're quite relevant. Thanks though. If he has a disability, he's obviously biased, and if he ain't a Yank, then he ain't a native English speaker. Little Mookie (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Please comment on edits, not editors. Those questions don't have to be answered, and your assertions about another editor aren't relevant. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, of course. Dayewalker (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the editor is relevant here. Maybe you should take your own advice from your user page, and walk away from this argument, since you're utterly clueless as to what's going on. Little Mookie (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Mookie. None of your business. Attempting to use personal characteristics is not germane. You argument must stand on its own. Frankly, your hostility suggests you may be the one who needs to walk away. Drmargi (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice laydown! LOL. Little Mookie (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to redirect the discussion to focus on my qualifications or imaginary biases won't serve you well. Back to the subject at hand: can you actually make a substantive contribution to this discussion, or shall we move on without you? Drmargi (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the onus is on you. There's a pretty clear consensus thus far to keep the description in its current state. Sounds like you are the one who needs to bring an actual argument to the table. A pamphlet on political correctness ain't gonna cut it. Little Mookie (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not, in actuality. I'm not the one reverting a long-standing edit. You and Avatar are. And so far, I've seen no argument in favor of the revert more substantive than what Avatar has put forth. I'm still waiting for you to offer anything of substance at all. We haven't even gotten in the ballpark where consensus is concerned, since consensus demands some level of agreement, not a vote. Drmargi (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Lloyd's autistic son" is correct English. If we need to be PC then "Lloyd's son with autism" is still not acceptable as it is not English grammar. "Lloyd's son, who is autistic," is acceptable. However, this also has a problem as it de-emphasizes the disability which is used as a major plot device. Wayne (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's perfectly grammatically correct, and the established form in a number of manuals of style. Can someone come up with a better argument than an erroneous assessment of the grammar and the tired, trite business about it being PC, which is not applicable, given we're not talking politics, but form of reference here? Drmargi (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be PC either. In PC-Land no adjective may be applied to a person to indicate a disability or difference. Thus a person cannot be "autistic" but rather "with autism"; not "disabled" but "with a disability"; not "blind" but "with a sight impairment"; and, yes, not "colored" but "of color". Welcome to Newspeak. 20 years ago I volunteered to help AIDS victims, except that I couldn't call them that in anybody's hearing; they were always and only to be described as "persons with AIDS", or "PWAs". -- Zsero (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Us native speakers of English have a much better grasp on this, kid. Just accept that you're wrong, and move on. Little Mookie (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This actually shows a subtle syntax difference in English. "Lloyd's autistic son" implies Lloyd has more than one son, one of whom is Dylan. Given the infomation so far, this is incorrect. Lloyd's son, who has autism gives two pieces of information about Dylan. LizzieHarrison 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a subtle semantic difference, but an important one. It does both maintain the person-first structure and more accurately represent who Dylan is relative to Lloyd. I don't agree with the point above that it de-emphasizes the child's so-called autism (which is laughably inaccurate in its portrayal); by putting it in a subordinate clause, it draws the reader's attention to that piece of information. Drmargi (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Lloyd's autistic son" implies nothing at all about any other children Lloyd may have, unless the middle word is stressed. -- Zsero (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be insulting by asking if you're a native speaker of English, Drmargi. And I don't feel like I should study your edits to try to find out. I just can understand why someone who first spoke another language would have a problem with how English puts adjectives before the noun. There is no implication that it emphasizes the adjective over the noun, and normally is no inference that it does. Everybody knows that when someone says "the red car", obvously that it's a car is the more signficant' trait. It has more in common with a blue car than it does with a cherry, after all. So when there's such a breakdown in your understanding, I wondered what was really bothering you, whether it be language difference, political correctness, or as Mookie was fishing for; bias. But whatever the case... I think "Lloyd's autistic son" is more natural sounding, but I'll accept "Lloyd's son, who has autism"; it's not as grammatically objectionable and distracting as "Lloyd's son with autism". -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If that form is accepted, it should be "Lloyd's son, who is autistic. Autism isn't something he "has", like a car or a cold or an idea; it's a trait that describes him. -- Zsero (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. You may be right. I'd have no objection to that. -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar, I wasn't insulted by the question, but it was inappropriate. You want to know my grasp of English? It's incumbent upon you to review my writing. If you don't feel you have to study my writing, then you're SOL. Regardless, you and Mookie don't get to invalidate the contributions of any editor on the basis of his/her command of English, country of residency or anything like that, as was pointed out some time earlier by another editor. Avatar, you weren't particularly out of line, just a bit inappropriate. There's no breakdown in my understanding of such simple English, and I provided a source supported the expression as not only correct but the appropriate form. Moreover, I pointed out more than once that the examples you provide are not parallel. It's interesting how you conceptualize my concern, which is founded in none of what you posit, but in accuracy. I'm not concerned with Mookie's continued juvenile attempts to win an argument by raising the question of whether I have a suitable command of standard American English. If it isn't entirely evident by now that I do, and at an advanced level, well, tough.

Now, as for the issue of autism, it's time to call foul. Zsero, autism is not a trait. It's a disorder; to be precise a spectrum disorder. More precisely it is a group of disorders captured under the term autistic spectrum disorder, but commonly referred to as autism, a carry-over from the days when we knew far less about it than we do now, and saw it as one disorder. It's clear at least a couple of you have some reading to do before you can accurately comment on the use of the term itself. Dylan is an oddly grafted together composite of overlapping characteristics from three of the disorders: autism NOS, PDD and Asperger's Sydrome, with a healthy dose of good old fashioned delays in social development pasted together by a writing team who got out a book on autism or used the (error-ridden) article here rather than bother to pick up the phone and call one of a couple of nationally-known autism experts who are at IHE's in the LA area. What Dylan isn't is anything like any kid with ASD that I've ever seen, and a group of us get the best Friday morning laugh at the show's latest errors in their presentation of the disorder. Given the overall level of accuracy of cultural portrayals on the show, it's small wonder they get it as wrong as they do. So use of the term autism in the article is questionable in and of itself. But we'll leave that for another argument on another day. Drmargi (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, it's not incumbent on me to review your writing, because you answered the question, after all. And I didn't say that you didn't have a grasp on English, I just wondered whether you had a grasp on a different language first. You can have a grasp on two languages, which is one more than I do, so trust me I wasn't trying to be demeaning. (And command of the English language certainly is relevent to contributing to English Wikipedia, not that I said you didn't have that command, and certainly never mentioned American English. And I certainly never mentioned country of residency, how outrageous!) Knowing English as a second language is something I thought of that would explain why someone appeared to have a problem with the adjective-then-noun format of English, because it's one of the few languages that does that. Reviewing your writing wouldn't have told me you didn't have a grasp on another language, too... much less which you knew first. And by the way, a disorder is a trait. Race is a trait, too. And sex. Again, I find myself not understanding why you're blowing something so out of proportion, because nothing about "trait" suggests that all traits are superficial, or something. It doesn't, any more than English diminishes a noun by putting an adjective first. You appear to be getting your hackles up because you think calling something a trait diminishes it. In this instance, your advanced command of English isn't keeping you from taking offense to basic syntax and the definition/use of a common word. I think you're offended because you have a special interest in these kinds of disabilities, and have a general problem with the portrayal of Dylan. I can't believe that we're having a conversation this long about something I would marked a minor edit if I paid more attention to that box. -- AvatarMN (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe Drmargi reverted my edit again! There's no consensus yet? You are the only person who has a problem with the word "autistic". You're talking to me about consesnus? You made the edit "who has autism" upon Wayne's suggestion, even though Zsero objected. I made the edit "who is autistic" upon Zsero's suggestion going unchallanged... after you replied (had the chance to challange). You are so amazingly wrong and impossible. Stop it, you're snowballing. There is consensus, you're the only one who doesn't like the word "autistic" and adjective-before-noun syntax. -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I did challenge it. Consensus is agreement, not a vote, and by no measure do we have agreement. I didn't make the "who has autism" edit; another editor did. I just added missing commas. Pay a bit less attention to my motives and a bit more attention to the edit history and what I'm actually saying, and you'd see that. At this point, we have no consensus for anything, so I've taken the statement back to where it originally was until we come to some sort of consensus on what is acceptable. To reiterate, in as clearly as I can, WHO IS AUTISTIC is not acceptable. Avatar, given the lack of civility in your last post, I'd urge you to step back and take a deep breath. Remember: we criticize the edits, not the editor, and your name-calling is highly inappropriate. You need to collect yourself and get a handle on that before you edit again. Drmargi (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't clearly challange the edit, but Zsero saying it was a trait, which would not go into the edit. And to keep saying I said something I didn't say. I'd love to hear how I was incivil, especially where I've name-called. You have now violated WP:3RR and I'm reporting you. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look at the edits, not the edit history. I've done nothing of the sort, and you open yourself up for scrutiny as an edit warrior as well -- are you sure you want that? You've lost track of the point of this discussion, and are trying to win at any cost. WP:POINT? Drmargi (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Drmargi, consensus does not require unanimity. Everyone in this discussion, except you, supports the adjective. The only question is whether to put it before or after the noun; at least three editors prefer before, and nobody has yet expressed any preference for after, though nobody has any strong objection to it either. So the consensus would seem to be for "autistic son", but if you insist we can compromise on "son, who is autistic", which is what AvatarMN changed it to. -- Zsero (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am most sure I want this. I've reverted twice in 24 hours, you've done it three times. That's the rule. I've provided the three diffs of your reverts at the administrator's noticeboard. Today, reverting the same edit three times, made by me twice and Zsero once. [2]-- AvatarMN (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually 3RR means going over three reverts in 24 hours. Drmargi hasn't crossed that bright line yet, so there's no grounds for an automatic block. But he is edit-warring against consensus. -- Zsero (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh... excuse me, I misunderstood 3RR. Well, maybe an admin's attention will help anyway. And Drmargi may be less likely to do another revert as soon as 24 hours expire. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean, Drmargi... your third edit, you edited to not merely revert the latest edit, but to go all the way back to how it was before we even started. Clever trickery. We'll see if the reviewing administrator will allow you to game the system like that. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm neither gaming nor edit warring against consensus because there is no consensus. All we have is you two trying to shout the loudest and that's not, by any means, consensus. Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

While consensus is not a vote, it's not unanimous either. No one else is even arguing your side but you. That's consensus. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone refer to Drmargi as "he"? From the tone I thought the writer was a "she." BTW, the Wikipedia discussion of people-first language says it is not universal and that even some American organizations for the disabled do not support it. PC zealots annoy me.08:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.60.77 (talk)

Let's assume the son wouldn't be suffering from autism. Let's assume he'd have the flu. Would you say "Lloyd's son who has the flu", "Lloyd's son with the flu" or "Lloyd's *flued son". Let's assume he's suffering from cancer. Would you say "Lloyd's son who has cancer", "Lloyd's son with cancer" or "Lloyd's *cancered son". Obviously, the first one is correct ("Lloyd's son who has autism"), the second one is utterly incorrect ("Lloyd's son with autism") and the third one ("Lloyd's autistic son") is incorrect because it incorrectly assumes that autism is a trait, a personal characteristic, which it is not, it is most definitely a disorder. Saying "Lloyd's autistic son" is akin to saying "Lloyd's crazy son" or "Lloyd's lunatic son". It's an inconsiderate epithet, we could as well say "Lloyd's stupid son". It's not a question of political correctness here. We have historically had a bias regarding mental disorders and we've labelled people with that disorder as if that was their ethnicity or something (like saying "Lloyd's American son"). It's not ok to do that in any kind of speech, not only in the PC one. It would not be NPOV to do otherwise. Of course the best expression would be "Lloyd's son, who is suffering from autism", but I think "Lloyd's son who has autism" will suffice.

On a different note, does it matter at all what is someone's native language as long as they can write English well enough? Only people who have apoor command of the English language would "import" structures from their own native languages into English. I get the feeling that you people assume that if someone has another mother tongue they are unable to learn English well at all, or at least they are unable to acquire a command of it as good as an average American's command of English. This is offensive and utterly incorrect. Keep in mind that, for instance, in the Netherlands, about 98% of the citizens have an Advanced or better command of English and the native language of most of them is Dutch. Less than 90% of the Americans have an Advanced or better command of English (which is, I will admit, due to illegal immigration). Anyway, there are people who are not native English-speakers and who have a professional command of English, far better than the command of most native English speakers. For instance a French professor of English, who has studied English linguistics for most of his life would normally have a better command of Enlgish than an English or American or New Zealander truck driver. It is downright ignorant to assume that if one has another mother tongue they would automatically have problems grasping concepts of the English grammar.

And, most importantly, Avatar, you were utterly wrong when you said that "English is one of the few languages that has the adjective-then-noun format". Languages as different as Chinese, German, Turkish, Russian, Tamil, Basque or Japanese use the same structure. Actually I think it's fair to say that MOST languages in the world have the adjective before the noun. Some languages, such as Greek, uses both the attribute-noun and the noun-attribute structure, but prefer the attribute-noun one. French for instance also uses both structures but does, however, prefer the noun-adjective structure. There are a few languages that would always place adjectives AFTER the noun. Spanish, Arabic and Hebrew are prime examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.239.121 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of a problem with your analysis, because "cancered" is not a word, and "autistic" is. As for calling it an epithet akin to "Lloyd's crazy son", that is entirely your POV. I think it's obvious you're being politically correct, because I myself do not see is as a flatly negative attribute, any more than the "American son" example you gave. There are plenty of people who would in fact think "American son" was an epithet, despite any lack of intent or actual inherent nature of the descriptor, so there goes your point. If someone thinks calling someone "autistic" is any more negative than calling them "artistic", that's on them and them alone. And I spent considerable text explaining why I asked whether an English-speaking person was a native speaker, I won't go into it in depth again. As for whether "most" languages put adjective after the noun or only many do... whatever. It hardly negates my point. It's unusual for an English-speaking person to have a problem with adjective-noun order. It going against their original language paradigm is a plausible explanation. Though by no means the only one, and by no means implies they shouldn't edit English Wikipedia. I said neither thing. Ever. NOT EVER. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

“Flued” is not a word. “Crazy”, “lunatic” and “stupid” are insulting, no matter the syntax, “autistic” is not. And labeling people (with “mental disorders” or without) is more about attitude than phrasing sentences. This is pc running amok.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed "flued" is not a word, and that's why I marked it with an asterisk, but it could be a word. It basically isn't a word because people that have the flu aren't really discriminated against by society, so this word was never made up. I DO NOT SEE what could be POV about "Lloyd's son, who is suffering from autism". It's completely neutral, it's gramatically correct, it's intuitive just as much as "Lloyd's autistic son". There's no reason to change it. Unless of course if you're engaging in an editing war just for the purpose of having your way or just for the sport of it. In which case good luck since I'm not going to take part. Write it however it suits you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the noun-adjective point, the truth is that actually FEW languages put adjectives after the noun. It just happens that Spanish and French are two of them and they have a lot of speakers. And your point Avatar was negated by the fact that the guy who stated all this argument is apparently actually a native English speaker. In your favour, however, I'd admit that his choice of words, probably due to a politically correct agenda, was kind of ungrammatical and certainly counterintuitive. But saying "his autistic son" is certainly something that English speakers, native and otherwise, should try to give up. Because this formula actually brands a whole cathegory of people with a characteristic, assuming they're different in a minority kind of way. It's like saying "his gay son". There's definitely nothing wrong with the word "gay" unless the person who hears it thinks it's immoral or anything to that effect. But the homosexuals want to be considered a minority, while people suffering from autism would rather they weren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific sub-ethnicity of DEMETRI (!) Noh

We understood that Demetri Noh is a Korean American, but "Demetri" seems a rather odd name for a Korean. It's not Korean and it's not American either. So I believe that Demetri Noh is actually a Koryo-saram American. The Koryo-saram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koryo-saram) are the ethnic Koreans from the former Soviet Union (nowadays they mainly are in Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakstan and other "stans"). They are genuinely Korean but they were relocated by Stalin from the Russian East Asia (Vladivostok region) to other regions of the Soviet Union and they have undergone Russification. Hence, most of them have Russian birthnames like Vladimir or... Demetri. But they are Korean nonetheless. There are about 600 000 of them. Some of them immigrated to the U.S. and some of them returned home to (South) Korea after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So it is entirely fathomable that Demetri Noh is a Koryo-saram American (which would be a type of Korean American, as the Koryo-saram are a type of Koreans). Because Koreans everywhere mostly have Korean names like... Ki-Moon, Dae-Soo, Myung-bak, Dae-jung, Yul, you know that kind of names. Of course some Korean Americans have adopted American names like Peter, Jimmy, Tommy, David etc. However, Demetri is not a normal American name. It is though a pretty common Russian name. How does a Korean American end up with a Russian name??? Simple: his parents must have been Koryo-saram. Have the producers of the show released any information regarding Demetri Noh's weird first name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.239.121 (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake, this again? In a melting pot like America, people do not sweat what the origin of a name is. They don't necessarily pick names based on what ethnic or national background a name has. Most of the most popular baby names in America and other English-speaking nations, and many other nations, are Hebrew in origin. The actor who plays Demetri Noh is named John. It's a more common name in America than Demetri, but it's Hebrew. Neither the actor nor the character has any Hebrew heritage, in all likelihood. You're calling Demetri a Russian name only because it's popular there is a great example, because the name is Greek in origin. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Come on, man, a little common sense here, please. John might be Hebrew in it's ORIGIN but it's a VERY common name in English. Actually the Hebrew name that we're talking about here is Yochannan. "John", in this form is very very Anglo-Saxon in a cultural way. Just like "Jeremiah" or say "Jason" (which has a Greek origin). But really, they are common names in the cultural Anglosphere. And I can see why a person of Korean descent would choose a name like "John" after he became an American. He wants to fit in. It's a normal name in that society. Neither of these being the case with "Demetri". You're talking here about the names' origin, but that's not really relevant; what's relevant is what's common in a certain society or a certain ethnic group in this society. And I could bet that "Demetri" isn't common with either the Korean Americans who want to still keep being Korean OR the Korean Americans who want to better integrate and become more "American". I really don't know who this name might be popular with... maybe the Russians and the Greeks? And I didn't bring this up because Demetri is a common Russian name, but because I knew about the Koryo-saram. Come on, let's be serious here, why would a Korean American name his kid "Demetri". I mean it would still sound foreign. So if he doesn't choose a Korean name, if he doesn't choose a name that's common in American society, why would he choose Demetri? Isn't it kind of a big coincidence that the existance of the Koryo-saram is kind of a big thing in Korean history (and not in a good way: basically the Russians conquered a part of their country and then Stalin displaced them)? Of course there is always the possibility that the producers wanted someone with a unique name. They could have named him "Giovanni Wu" in that case, but really it doesn't make sense. Why would someone in the real world do that? I mean I do believe that there would be people inclined to do that, but it certainly happens much more in cinema than it would happen in real life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.251.17 (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Why isn't there a section on the critical reception of the show? There's an obvious starting point for discussion right here of course:[3] Trevor GH5 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)