Talk:Kings (American TV series)

Merge

I support merging the Kingdom of Gilboa article into this one. The fact that the show has not even begun is indicative of two things:

Gilboa is anything but notable
the Gilboa article exists primarily as a marketing tool

MatthewBurton (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. /Ninly (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also... The article is obviously copy pasted from a website.^[1] If this were to not get merged, it should be nominated for speedy deletion because of the copyright infringement.

L337*P4wn 07:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and redirected the Kingdom of Gilboa article to this one. Presumably this article should (be rewritten and) have a small section on the fictional kingdom so people (like myself) prompted by the ad campaign to look it up will understand why this is what they're looking for. /Ninly (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for fiction

Just so you all know information on the fiction is easily referenceable http://www.unnreports.com/travel/index.shtml here /rankun 149.150.237.59 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section too positive?

All the reviews in this article are glowing, yet overall the metacritic tally stands at a fairly mediocre 58. http://www.metacritic.com/tv/shows/kings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.20.76 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--the salon.com quote seems a bit lengthy; we get the point. I didn't include negative pre-premiere commentary since that seems equally frivolous, but did include the hard audience numbers and some strategic consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaman2 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the Salon.com quote and added negative and mixed reviews. I disagree with the suggestion that a survey of critical responses is "frivolous"; critical opinion is at least as important as Nielsen ratings (especially in the age of the DVD and DVR). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say a survey of critical responses would be frivolous, and in fact, the metacritic score would have been quite useful. Instead, there was a salon.com quote from a single reviewer, one that did not seem representative of the greater critical response (which was lukewarm, neither strongly positive or strongly negative). I think these outliers (on the upside or the downside) are frivolous, and some of the middle-of-the-road critiques would have been both more reflective of the critic audience (and, as it turned out, of the audience numbers). Also, Neilsen ratings take DVR into account; and the DVD response won't be known for a year (if ever). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaman2 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I think positive + negative reviews together are more useful than just one side. Saw your paragraph with the other side under 'reception', think it was done very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaman2 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Wiki

I see the user Matthew keeps deleting the entry for Kings Wiki without any explanation. Well, he said in the first edit that it's spam, but to me it looks like a good quality, informative and useful link for this article. I'll revert back and wait for explanations, hoping it won't go to 3RR. Cinagua (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't say that I agree that "it looks like a good quality, informative and useful link for [the] article", please provide some evidence that Kings Wiki has a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" (see also #1 and #11). *shrug* Matthew (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You hastened again without waiting my opinion. I see in the Recent Changes page that it is edited daily. As for its usefulness, tell me where do you find at this moment more organized and detailed info about Kingdom of Gilboa than in its article there? Cinagua (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fansite. It says so in the title. Not that this is a reason to exclude linking outright, but can a third party find reason to link to a resource that is so young? - JeffJonez (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical counterparts

I've removed them. Without citable references making these connections, we cannot include them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always find it amazing how the latest trend towards sacrificing useful information on the alter of bureaucracy has already greatly ruined — and is a perpetually ruining force, each and every day — on a great idea. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the Biblical counterpart references in the first place. I'm not going to get into a big war over this, but the obvious source for this info is the Bible, specifically the books of 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel. Persons with a knowledge of those books immediately recognized that "King Silas" was Saul, "Michelle" was Saul's daughter Michal, "Rev. Samuels" was the prophet Samuel, etc. Even people who don't know the Bible that well picked up on the fact that David blew up a "Goliath" tank. Since the Bible is perhaps the most widely-read book ever, it is simply ridiculous to delete this info as unsourced material. I don't know what criteria was used to come to this determination, Arcayne, but your reasoning seems short-signed and less than logical.
ABCxyz (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While on the whole I agree that most of the parallels are obvious and unarguable to anyone with a passing familiarity with the Biblical source material (and sources could easily be found for Saul↔Silas and Jonathan↔Jack — heck, some of the reviews made the comparisons, and could be used as sources), at least one of the parallels seems questionable to me. How is William Cross Joab? (He doesn't appear to be related to David, for one thing; Joab was David's nephew.) Where does that one come from? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added sources for about half the characters. I also found two blogs from Christian pastors who identified the other character equivalents (except for Joab, who I think I'll remove for now pending an explanation from whoever added him). However, blogs aren't generally reliable sources — they might be able to squeak by as self-published sources if these particular ministers have been published on a relevant subject (say, the Old Testament, or Hollywood adaptations of Biblical stories). I'm leaving them off for now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we cannot utilize our own personal interpretations and comparisons in the article. Pointing to the article and saying 'see? They're in there' is the very definition of synthesis, and as anyone should know, we do not do that. Ever.

What we have citations for are Silas as Saul and David as ...well, David. We do not have citations for any of the others, and attributing them to a citation that doesn't make those claims (like the citing of Michelle Benjamin, etc when the citation does not say that) sets the wrong precedent. We do not write Wikipedia with a nod to people with a knowledge of the Bible. any more than we service the knowledge of those with a superior knowledge of Star Trek or the Force. We are not citable, which is why citation is used to compose and support our articles.

Towards that end, I would like to suggest in changing the format of the Cast section, to whit, doing away with an infobox altogether, and using a cast list as those present in other FA quality articles (as seen in my further edit). Additionally, if there is citation noting the biblical comparisons, we can add those - when we have specific and explicit citations stating such. Not a moment before then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed this sentence in the JTA article:

We meet King Silas Benjamin (King Saul of the tribe of Benjamin, first king of Israel), David Shepherd (David, the shepherd), the king’s son Jack (Jonathan), the king's daughter Michelle (Michal), and the Rev. Ephraim Samuels (the Prophet Samuel).

I was very careful not to footnote the equivalents for Queen Rose, General Abner or Helen, because I didn't find those comparisons in the most reliable sources. We can debate whether those equivalents should be listed or not, and whether the information is best presented as a list or a table, but please don't claim that I misattributed sourcing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; it was not my intention to suggest that you were doing so, Josiah. As well, I did miss the very short sentence in the middle of the article identifying the biblical equivalents for Saul, David, Samuel, Michal and Jonathan - my bad. Does that mean we are to extrapolate from there and provide the remaining Biblical counterparts because some editors know their Bible? Clearly, the answer is a resounding no. Does that mean we can hypothesize that the remaining characters will be counterparted at some future point, and are simply 'getting ahead of the curve?' Again, the answer is no. We are an encyclopedia, not a book of prophecy, and we are not fortune-tellers.

The resulting problem with the textbox method is that, while we have citations that allow for the cited connections of a few characters, we do not have it for others. This leaves gaps in the textbox that would encourage (as we have seen in the past) to add their own pov, and creates more problems than it resolves. The format I substituted follows that of at least six other FA media articles, and should be considered as a conforming template/guideline to follow here (rather the point of an encyclopedia). That format allows for developmental information about the character to be added - information that ill-fits the confines of a textbox. Such information would be the creator's cited interview that notes how he chose Silas instead of retaining Saul because it sounded "too Jewish".

I can see that the format change was reverted out again. As it was possibly a vandalism revert by an anon IP SPA, I've added it back in with the cited info offered above. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much care about the format. (And if you're suggesting that the IP was me, it wasn't — I saw the IP's edit and decided to leave it pending an outcome to this discussion.)

That said, is it really such crystal-ballery to say that General Abner is the equivalent of Saul's general Abner? The USA Today review refers to Rev. Samuels and Gen. Abner as "biblically influenced characters" — since both have essentially the same name as their biblical counterparts, I don't see how it's an original synthesis to say that Abner=Abner. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I in no way suggested that the IP was you (and maybe offer a wee bit more good faith, please - that;'s the second time you've accused me of something I didn't do).

And yes - absolutely, 100%, uh-huh, and yeppers - it is "crystal-ballery" to connect a character named Abner with the biblical feller of the same name in the absence of citation, not to mention synthesis. It is you making that connection, and not a citable source. You, as an editor, do not get to do that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that in a drama explicitly modeled on the Biblical story of Saul and David, a military character named Abner could be anything but a reference to the Biblical Abner, who features prominently in that story. This is not synthesis, it's simple logic. Furthermore, the USA Today citation is saying in as many words that Reverend Samuels is a reference to the prophet Samuel and that Abner is a reference to the Biblical Abner. How can you read the phrase "biblically influenced characters" otherwise? I'm honestly puzzled as to what other interpretation you could draw from that cited sentence.

However, I'm willing to recognize that it is possible that what seems transparent, logical and obvious to me may seem like complex synthesis to other editors. To get a better sense of whether I'm being unreasonable, I'll ask for further opinions at the no original research noticeboard. OK?

Incidentally, I do recognize the danger of original synthesis in this article. I've just reverted someone's attempt to add a column of "corresponding Biblical passages" to the episode table. Now that is original synthesis. Saying that Abner is a reference to Abner is, in my opinion, not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a line at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Minor issue at Kings (U.S. TV series), inviting people to chime in here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, Josiah, and am glad that you decided to ask over at the OR noticeboard; I had been prepared to ask for something along those lines myself. I've responded there, as many of the points you utilize here are also presented there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Incidentally, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your tone earlier — I got needlessly annoyed by the comment you made based on the missed sentence in the JTA article. I'll try to be less tetchy. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Li'l Abner

I am not sure this edit works, either. The same problem exists, since it isn't explicitly named in the article. I mean, Li'l Abner and - more on target (since he was a general as well) - Abner Doubleday share the same names. Connecting either one of those fellows because they share a name wouldn't be true to the cited material. Let's just wait for better citation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But neither Li'l Abner nor Abner Doubleday were commander-in-chief of an army belonging to a king modeled after Saul, in a drama based on the lives of . :) My revised wording doesn't actually draw any conclusions: it just points out fact A (character named Abner in Kings) and fact B (character named Abner in Bible) and allows readers to draw their own conclusions. We're not making the connection; we're inviting the reader to do so.

I'm not trying to be obstinate here, really. (If I were, I'd still be fighting for Queen Rose as Ahinoam, on the grounds that she's the wife of Silas/Saul and mother of Jack/Jonathan — who else would she be? — but I've let that go.) I think we've both made our points; let's see if we can get any other opinions from the noticeboard. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are being obstinate, Josiah. At most, you are more strongly advocating a point of view that needs better citation. I don't mind waiting longer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisal: "Plot"

Seeing the Plot section is written as a comprehensive summary of the pilot, with the rest of the series as an afterthought, I have rewritten the section and placed it in my user page. I invite other editors to examine the proposed edit, compare it to the current version, and reply to this discussion with their opinion. DerekMBarnes (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a definite improvement over the current text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is. Most excellent distillation, Derek. Can we swap it in right away? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DerekMBarnes (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research

Someone undid the addition that contradicted the quote from the creator of the series about the story of David never having been retold, citing it as original research. However, that addition linked to another Wikipedia page which listed various retellings of the story. That addition was not original research and should remain, rather than having the creator's quote (or marketing lie) perpetuate false information. 24.245.42.233 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://royalkingdomofgilboa.com/

[1] ttp://royalkingdomofgilboa.com/

[1]