Talk:Medium (TV series)

Alternative name

I recently noticed that the name of this show is "Ghost In Crime" in South Korea.

Attention Medium fans coming to the discussion page

Please note that the first two lines of the above banner state: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medium (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

Please do not use this as a general forum for the show, rather use this to discuss aspects of the Wikipedia article devoted to the show. I have deleted all previous discussion not relating to the wikipedia article devoted to Medium. --Pisceandreams (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?

Given the controversy that surrounds Allison DuBois' claims, I find it a tad irregular that nothing in the article refers to that at all. I realize that the article does link to the DuBois article, but it seems as though that is a fairly weak connection given that the veracity of her claims is so central to the show. Inother words, if there is significant skepticism about DuBois(there is), then it merits mention in the article. --Johnashby 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Added content from the Dubois site, to bring the article on Medium more into balance. As it was, it was quite credulous toward the premise of the show, which is that DuBois has psychic powers. The addition merely quotes the fact that her connection with law enforcement has been verified as nonexistent. --Johnashby 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: User MathhewFenton, who reverted my edits. I fail to see how it is "irrelevant to the show itself" when the show purports to be a factual acconting of Ms. DuBois' adventures. her claims to have worked with law enforcement are verifiably untrue, and as a result reflect directly on the show itself. To not indicate this in even a small portion of the article is simply dishonest to the reader.

I am going to revert to my changes, because I believe they represent a fundamentally necessary balancing of the POV on this article. If you cannot provide a better explanation as the irrelevance of demonstrating the falsehood of the claims of the show's protagonist, then you have no business reverting changes made in good faith. Johnashby 19:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a wikilink, we don't stray from the articles subject, that is why we have links, also from your above messages it sounds as if you dislike the lady? (please read WP:NPA) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted again. Please see WP:AGF. The edit is factual, and relevant to the premise of the show. The premise of the show is Alison DuBois' life story, slightly fictionalized for television. It is therefore fair to discuss her connection with law enforcement, specifically that it appears to be fabricated. This related directly to the television series since the protagonist is Dubois herself, supposedly retelling the stories from her involvement with the police.

I do not want an edit war here. Please adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines and help to make this information work in the article. My opinion of Ms. DuBois is not stated, nor is it relevant. Assuming that it is the case is, ironically, WP:NPA. Note below:

"Different contributors may not agree on an article. Members of opposing communities reasonably wish to express their views. Synthesising these views into a single article creates a better, more NPOV article for everyone. Remember to accept that we are all part of the same community as we are all Wikipedians."

Johnashby 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the addition, you must therefore get consensus to add it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice this little dispute here. Matthew, that is not how consensus and decision making processes on Wikipedia work. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I am reverting for a third time. If substantial reason for not including this information cannot be made available (which is factual and pertinent), thenit should be included in the article. Other articles about movies or television shows that are based on real people include these caveats all the time regarding how factually accurate the portrayal is. This is no different from that. Johnashby 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You just happened to show up here Ned ;-) ? -- You are welcome to show me an article that includes irrelevant information that is unrelated to the show in general, yes the show is based on her life, yes the information is irrelevant in this article (why I have had to spend _my time_ reverting you..) and of course.. yes there is a wikilink. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Only_make_links_relevant_to_the_context#What_generally_should_be_linked. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A Beautiful Mind (film) for one, with major issues regarding claims made or not made in the film. Also Bones (TV series), with a specific complaint that "Fans of the Brennan books have expressed their dismay that the character in the series only shares the name with the character in the books, and none of their life histories or characteristics match."

It took me only 3 minutes to find those 2 examples. The factual nature of television programs has been challenged on Wikipedia before, and will continue to be done. I believe you have a NPOV issue here, and visiting my talk page to complain was not civil, IMHO. WP:CIVIL I have shown you nothing but respect in spite of your continued refusal to help build this article be both factual and balanced.

One more thing...I edited the article, and posted a discussion item, per WP:BB. At no point was an attempt at discussion made by any other user other than calling my opinion of Ms. DuBois into question. The link to her page is insufficient, given that the show is ostensibly about her life, and the interaction with law enforcement is so central to it. Tit for tat, I begin to suspect you are a fan of the show and may have vested interests here. Johnashby 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ought I to presume my examples held up? Responses up to this point had been very fast, but there have been no objections to my examples. If there are none, I would move to unprotect the article and allow my edit...which I am of course willing to work with others on to ensure it is NPOV and the like. Johnashby 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It is still irrelevant to this article, and just detracts from the subject of this article (the television series and the fictional characters) - You should also read the wikilinks I have provided regarding the real DuBois. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In the case of this series, the fictional character and the real person are one and the same. I fail to see how a distinction is drawn here. I have read the links, and drew my section directly from the law enforcement section of the DuBois article. It is factual, and ought to have a place in this article as well because her relationship with law enforcement is the very heart of the program.

I invite you to write something to balance it, if you can find references that support the POV that the show accurately represents her dealings with law enforcement. Otherwise, the article is too credulous regarding those claims. Johnashby 03:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would I write something when I have told you the content is irrelevant? You must also remember fiction and the real world are different things. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And you must remember that you have yet to produce any evidence for the way you want the article styled. I at least have attempted to do research into the matter. Your contribution to this discussion has amounted to stamping your feet and waiting for me to give up. You win: I have better things to do. Your shrine to the show and DuBois will remain intact. Johnashby 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Yes, I agree with Matthew, the content added is, as stated, irrelevant to this article and is succedded by a wikilink eitherway. --Peregrinefisher 08:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The content is absolutely relevant. If the show is based on her claims, and the claims have been demonstrated to be false, then the article should mention this. Failure to mention this is tantamount to actually covering up the knowledge in order to put a shinier gloss on the program. The links present make no mention nor does it hint at the fact that there is a controversy over these claims.

You can keep your edit, I am done with this article...all you fans of the show can just maintain your glowing review. Admin Radiant, I would like to complain about MatthewFenton's incivility during this exchange...several times he has attacked me personally. I tried multiple times to present eveidence for my edit, and have been met only with personal attacks. At no point did he present any evidence for the way he wants to style this article, as opposed to me who actually went out and found credible WP articles that supported my contention. In the case of this article, the "fanboys" prevailed over an attempt to include pertinent information. Wikipedia is a source of information, not a MySpace page for fans of television shows. Johnashby 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I could support an edit to change "The series is based on the life of Allison DuBois" to "The series often draws on material in autobiographical books by Allison DuBois" as being a lot more correct. The existing phrase was used by the network for publicity and probably as a concession in legal legally obtaining copyrights from the real Allision BuBios. While the statement is literally true, the implied meaning is clearly misleading.

How many people think the show is supposed to be an autobiographical mini-series? I doubt a high percentage of people raised their hands. When the show says based on the life of Allison Dubois -- I think most of us realized that merely meant the general concept of the real Allison Dubois was taken as a starting point. Yes the network hoped to hook some fans of the real person at the beginning. And I bet these fans would be the first to point out how seldom the show follows the real Allison's books in more than the general idea that Allison is a married psychic.

Yes the network bought carte blanche for their writers to steal story ideas from her books. But I am sure they are not required to use complete stories or even major fragments. Those copyrights are the main legal reason for continuing to mention the real Allison DuBois in the show after the first couple shows (indirect copyright acknowledgement). However, simply using the concept and her books as building blocks for the TV show is not a network endorsement of the real Allison Dubois beyond "gee, wouldn't it be interesting IF...". I hope no one thinks that by making Bug Bunny that TV claims rabbits really talk and totally outsmart hunters (but with 6 billion people there probably are a couple).

TV and movies often borrow famous real historical characters as starting points then make shows and films that have little to do with reality -- like say Daniel Boone (TV Series) and Buffalo Bill (movies). Usually these exaggerated and extended series are about colorful people whom it seems there ought to be lots of stories about but about which detail is often lacking for one reason or another. People those Daniel Boone and Matt Dillion stories are (gasp!) generally pure fabrication. Of course unlike Allison DuBois most the historical characters are dead and don't demand to be cited as a source of ideas for copyright purposes. Still the principle is the same: hook to some existing fame and stories as a kickoff point for your show -- but don't limit yourself to what has been done before.

As far as law enforcement connections go, I think it obvious that the first liberty the show took with the concept borrowed from the real Allison Dubois was to formalize a relationship with one particular legal agency. That was convenient for casting regular support characters. But I would like to point out two humorous aspects: (1) the real Allison Dubois has talked to law enforcement about cases (not necessarily by their desire) on an informal irregular basis by several accounts, and (2) IF the show was completely autobiographically correct then her formal employment by law enforcement as a psychic would be concealed from actual public record - even deleted. I don't believe #2 is reality -- just a humorous chicken and egg logic loop.

Personally it sounds more like the writer above is demanding that the article be turned into his personal forum for debunking psychics. It is not like he has something relevant to say about the actual TV series which is clearly heavily fictionalized, no matter what you believe about the starting point concept. Given that the TV show makes no effort to convert believers, his efforts seem driven by irrelevant mean spiritedness (oh a show oriented pun). 69.23.124.142 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for Notable Guest Stars vs. Cast

My first Wikipedia edit! So, I found this section useful because I came here looking for an answer to whether Kathy Baker had been the only actress ever to play Joe DuBois' mom. The cast list includes Jessy Schram, who has only been in two episodes (according to this page) and Bruce Gray, whom I believe has played Joe's dead father many times. But Kathy Baker has only appeared in 2 episodes according to imdb, and she is in the Notable Guest Stars section. Anyway, I was tempted to edit the page to add Mark Sheppard, who is notable to me as portraying Romo Lampkin in Battlestar Galactica, and portrayed the body jumping serial killer nemesis in 3 episodes of Medium (reminiscent of the classic Star Trek episode Wolf in the Fold).

But I noticed a number of edits and undos in the History of this page. So, not wanting to make an unpopular edit, I thought I'd ask you all. Does this community of editors have any ideas for criteria for whom should be listed as a Notable Guest Star or Cast?

Proposal:

• If a character is a DuBois family member (or a past or future version of a DuBois family member), such that it would be weird if the producers cast multiple actors in the same role (which is sometimes unavoidable due to actor availability or death), then they belong in Cast. By this criterion, Jessy Schram and Kathy Baker both belong in cast.
• If an actor has appeared in more than 5 episodes of Medium, has ever won an Emmy, Cable Ace, or Oscar for their work on other TV shows or movies, or if they have an IMDB filmography with more than 50 items, then they belong in Notable Guest Stars. By this criterion, Mark Sheppard, much as I like him, would be excluded from both lists.

How's that sound to the community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.183.230 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Misc

Perhaps it should be mentioned that some episodes of this TV series are pro death penalty.

name spellings people.....

The DuBois's middle daughter is named Bridgette, not Bridget.

captions and credits concur with this.

---

Please sign your posts, lest others not respond to you. If you feel a change to the text is justified, be bold and make the change. I think you might also want to read Editing Help, which will give you additional pointers. Canonblack 12:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Can the person who added the information on foreign airdates specify the years of these dates, and conjugate the verbs in the proper tense (i.e.: past tense) where appropriate? Thanks. Nightscream 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted Patricia Arquette's wedding to Thomas Jane as I don't see the relevance of what goes on with her personal life with the show. --The Shadow Treasurer 03:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page because of the revert war related to this addition. Please discuss and reach an agreement on this talk page. (Radiant) 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I surrender, and will not attempt to edit the page again. You can unprotect the page. Please note my complaint above. Johnashby 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Medium2.JPG

Image:Medium2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Redundant Information

Does anyone else find that parts of the "Episodes" section are redundant? For example: "The show premiered on January 3, 2005, and ran for 16 episodes until May 23, 2005. The second season started on September 19, 2005, and ran for 22 episodes to May 22, 2006." Between the "DVD Releases" and "Broadcast History" sections, this information is clearly provided. Does anyone object to me cleaning up the "Episodes" section? Pisceandreams 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Writers Strike

Since 9 episodes have been produced, does that mean Season 4 will only have 9 episodes? If the writers strike is resolved soon will more episodes be produced? I sure hope our show doesn't get canned!! Jdcrackers (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to say at this point what will happen. The show has the advantage of not starting until January because if the writers' strike ends, there will be time to produce more episodes without a hiatus. If the strike doesn't end, then yes, the 4th season might have only 9 episodes.--Pisceandreams (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

DVD bonus material

I added a column to the DVD release chart devoted to bonus material. Sadly, I don't have the DVDs yet, so I was able to add only the bonus material based on info I could find on-line. If anyone has the DVDs and would like to expand this section, please do so. =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)