Talk:Touch (American TV series)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Touch premiered in Canada and the United States as a result of the time, ah!

Touch premiered in Canada and the United States as a result of the time, ah!Qa003qa003 (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three Little Birds deletion

-- Drmargi, please explain further your deletion today of the Three Little Birds release sentence. Are you saying I have to wait until the link is available to confirm the source on iTunes? I don't want to advertise but Tim Kring did say in an interview that he and Kiefer want to pursue the inclusion of music in the show. RKDia (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that until you have a reliable source, such as a print interview or press release, the release information cannot be included in the article. Please review WP:RS for details about sourcing. --Drmargi (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I'll read it. I understand more now having looked at some other show pages where songs are involved. It was Karen David herself who told me and it's on the Fox TV facebook page and the Vice President of Fox TV has confirmed it. RKDia (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting that. But we have a policy that statements such as what you've added have to be verifiable, and so far, yours isn't. In time, it will be and we'll add it to the article! Let me know if I can help. --Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye out for any official release material from Fox/Sky, I've asked Karen but she doesn't know of any, she just finished recording it a few days ago to coincide with the official launch of the series in March but Fox suddenly said it's out on Feb 28th, with a video to follow. Any help will be most welcome, thank you. RKDia (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 'making of' video released by Fox TV on Youtube. I've contacted Live Wikipedia editing-related help and they viewed the video and said it would be ok to use as a source, although primary one. So I set up a 'Production' section, yes? --RKDia (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China Mainland Can Watch FOX Asia？？

Not believe that other Wikipedians misunderstood! News Corporation to enter the mainland only Star TV Qa003qa003 (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is marginal, hence, your point is missed. Perhaps MORE information, overall, would give proper context for your statement?Wzrd1 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added sections deleted by other authors

I re-added PREVIOUS summaries of the plot of upcoming episodes. Whilst it IS unreferenced currently, it reflects upon Wikipedia's tradition of reporting of current series. Besides, it ATTRACTS viewers, as viewers NOT highly interested may well see the "teaser" reference and seek the program, which IS rather worthwhile (THAT is OR and indeed, opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You and I BOTH re-edited upcoming episodes! Either Wikipedia has ONE standard or seventy seven or something. The HISTORY of Wikipedia is that of forwardness and adjusting if said forward evidence supports a different view. NOT one of a new item lacks reference, hence they're deleted! PER the MANY history pages I've viewed over the few years! I WOULD champion a forward of a "Currently not referenced, as not on the air" view.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who the you in you and I are (unless we're in Taxi Driver territory), but you were reverted for violating WP:COPY. Please be sure to write episode summaries in your own words rather than using, or in this case restoring, copyrighted material. --Drmargi (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this copyrighted material? If so, thanks for the catch, as it was removed previously without comment on the talk page.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original revert and the revert of your re-add both clearly identified the summaries as copyvios. --Drmargi (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page, thanks for correcting any copyrighted information errors. I have no wish to expose Wikipedia to legal issues. I only sought to retain episode information. Had the reversion been mentioned in this talk page, I'd NOT have re-added said information. Wzrd1 (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're good now. But the information you want is in the edit summary; the talk page is for discussing the article and resolving issues related to it. Copyright violations are a mundane problem, easily covered in an edit summary. --Drmargi (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading the episode #4, #5, #6 thumbnail-sketches; and we have watched episode #4. Looking at the Article this morning I see they are missing and now understand why, after reading here this section. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC) PS: I think episode summaries should appear here after they are shown on TV.[reply]

They don't belong here. They belong in the article, and you're free to write one at any time as long as it's original work. The issue was that the advance summaries that were removed were copyrighted material plagiarized from their original source, which is unacceptable per WP:COPY, whether it be before or after an episode is broadcast. --Drmargi (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant 'here in the Article'; also, look at what others have done over at List_of_Nikita_characters — linked from Nikita. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it?

Am I the only person who has noticed that this wiki entry actually never tells you what the show is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.185.53 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, but lack the skill with prose to create a scenario/plot line for the page.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. So much, so rich, so entertaining. It is about theoretical physics/mathematics/metaphysics, plus dad-son relationships. Why always the connection to troubled third-world countries? Watch the openings of each episode. In the fourth episode the Dad pursues finding out about his wife who died on 9/11 in Twin Towers. Yes, a summary of show thesis is needed. .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orbs? Season 1, Episode 2

@ 29:40 - 29:46...3 orbs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.24.33 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Supernatural'?

The article describes the series as 'supernatural thriller television series', but I don't see anything supernatural about it. Autistic savants are known to have amazing - even incomprehensible - powers of perception/observation/calculation.

I think it might qualify as 'sci-fi', or 'mystery' or some other word but I see nothing supernatural about it. 82.32.11.95 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you evaluate that on the premise that the son is an autistic savant, you're starting from the wrong place. The producers have been clear in multiple interviews that he is not autistic, and although he demonstrates a ritualistic obsession with numbers (ritualistic behavior being one of four characteristics of autism), his use of them to communicate and his willingness to interact with others eliminates autism. This is an emotionally disturbed electively mute child who communicates through numbers. And the show isn't supernatural in that sense, I agree. But the "six degrees" element is more than coincidence, and arguably takes the show into that realm. --Drmargi (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, in my view, is that what has been called 'supernatural' is misnamed, such as slaying vampires. "Touch" is truer to what the genre should be. Look at the WP page mute to appreciate some among us, apparently, (never met a mute). Further in my view, it is premature to say who is 'disturbed', the mute youth or the world around him. I would say rather that he is immature. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mute issue is tangental to the point above, but there is a well-documented psychological disorder known as elective mutism, which is what Jake has; the show made that clear in the pilot. Although the show inaccurately portrays how he would be treated in such a case (a speech-language pathologist, not a social worker being the needed therapist), the term is still accurate. You can get into a philosophical discussion about where the disturbance lies on a show message board, but it has no place in this article, nor does speculation about who is/isn't disturbed. On the other hand, describing Jake as having autism is WP:OR based on far too many assumptions and inaccurate media portrayals of autism. The same is true of calling him immature -- that's your judgment and thus WP:OR. (BTW, your link goes to a disambig. page, and the article on muteness is little more than a stub.) --Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the muteness article is small, it is very informative, linking to ten other articles. There seems to be little interest to expand that article, a few years old. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the producers say that he's not autistic then fair enough, although I'd like to know their reasoning for him disliking physical contact and obsession with numbers as well as him seldom looking at people's eyes. Mute autistics do try to communicate BTW, many are known to write or type, as well as some really off-the-wall attempts at communication because it isn't for the lack of trying, but the ease of verbal communication or direct gestures that comes so naturally to us isn't the same in an autistic's brain - I'd be very interested to know what other kind of disorders can present in such a way. 82.32.11.95 (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the four characteristics of autism? He only exhibits one, the ritualistic behavior, as do most people with OCD and any number of other emotional disorders. Moreover, there's nothing to suggest he doesn't like physical contact, just that he hasn't allowed others to touch him. Dislike or resistance to contact is not exclusively characteristic of autism. Moreover, not only did he hug his father, but he initiated the hug, a reciprocal social interaction which is not characteristic of autism. Most telling is he uses the numbers to help others, which suggests empathy, a social emotion absent in children with autism. Sounds like you've been reading Bicklen's theories of autism that accompany his widely disproven facilitated communication strategies. --Drmargi (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have Aspergers and have worked for the National Autistic Society as well as having helped experts conduct research - I was often used as a 'go between' because I could relate to the fully autistic people. While there are traits similar to OCD, people with OCD are usually distraught at having to perform these rituals, whereas he seems absorbed in it because familiar behaviour is what makes autistics comfortable. So I think if it's not autism, it's not OCD either (hence my wondering what other things it could be). It's got nothing to do with Bicklen, in fact here is a very interesting video about an autistic girl that communicates via typing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNZVV4Ciccg

He definitely doesn't like physical contact because he has screamed on the 2 occasions that someone else has held him, the hug could be seen as a breakthrough I suppose (possibly because inside he was overjoyed that his dad finally understood him), and because he initiated it he felt in control.

It's a common misconception that people on the autistic spectrum don't care about other people's well being. The case is far more often that they don't realise others' troubles or can't imagine being in someone else's shoes, but certain things like pain, hunger, death are blaringly obvious even to an autistic and because the higher functioning ones tend to be highly rational and they often support or advocate charitable causes, not through empathy but because rationally they know it is the 'right' thing to do, as I think Jake does.

On a side note, autistic girls are often more empathic than neurotypicals.

But as it's been said, the producers say he isn't autistic, although if it was a real life situation I think that's what he'd be diagnosed with (unless someone else can offer up suggestions for what else it could be which I'm quite interested in). 82.32.11.95 (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We had wondered if Jake were also deaf; but at the end of Episode 5, he is listening to a bedtime tape his Mother made. It is the climax of the whole episode, with his Dad coming to greater understanding of their family relationships. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To all the people talking about Jake's emotional characteristics, I believe you've missed the point, he doesn't have a problem with emotions, he has no place for them. He exists on a higher plane where there are no human emotions, having any would just hinder his task. Danny Glover's character explained this and as a cultivator of a high-level Buddhist system (Falun Dafa) I know that to reach a higher realm you must break away from the 'seven emotions and six desires.' RKDia (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Drmargi, having watched more of the epsiodes and given that entertainment media have described him as autistic, I was wondering if you could give an example/link of the creators saying that he's not autistic? I'm not at this point saying that he is or that you're wrong but I think (from what I've seen on the web) that it's implied that he is autistic within unless there is proof otherwise, so more out of curiosity about the series' creation really. :) 82.32.11.95 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the show identified him as autistic? If not, entertainment media labels are speculation or stereotypes. I'l try to find the interviews I saw when I have time. --Drmargi (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I found an article where they say that he's not autistic. This is kind of a flaw in the programme IMO because he exhibits all of the symptoms; I find it kind of frustrating that they have said that he isn't, because in real life he would surely be given that diagnosis. Unless of course they actually say what his medical problems are... if you find a source for that I'd be very interested, simply because I enjoy and want to make more sense of the show. 82.32.11.95 (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate title for the pilot episode

Amazon, iTunes, and TV Guide list the Pilot episode as "Tales of the Red Thread". I added the title to the episodes section (with a reference), but someone keeps reverting it. -- CollisionCourse (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor, who really should have started this discussion instead of yet another revert, felt that believing iTunes wasn't sufficient in contrast to the number of sourced he felt only identified the episode as the pilot. Use of TV Guide rather than iTunes as your source might strengthen you case, although those titles come from the production company and the network, not thin air. --Drmargi (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]