Talk:The Lone Gunmen (TV series)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Lone Gunmen logo.jpg

Image:The Lone Gunmen logo.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

September 11 foreshadow? Not

I revised this earlier the first time I saw it. The header currently reads "9/11 Foreshadowing" and then continues "Foreshadowing the September 11th attacks..." and then describes a plot involving flying remote controlled jet liners into the towers. This however does not foreshadow 9/11, although it does foreshadow a number of 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is why I originally changed the title to "9/11 Conspiracy Theory Foreshadowing," as that is more accurate. I'm reverting back to the title that I changed it to earlier, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

--CptBuck (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• That wasn't my intention when I made the edit: I certainly don't subscribe to any of those theories either. I made the change because "9/11 Conspiracy Theory Foreshadowing" seemed to me as though it could be interpreted as "Foreshadowing of the inside job which was really behind 9/11." "9/11 Foreshadowing" seemed to me more like a neutral way of describing the coincidence, but I'll admit it lost the added detail about the way the TLG plot shared details with the "inside job" type of 9/11 conspiracy theory. The intention behind the title is a lot clearer with the change you made to the first sentence of the section, though I wonder if the section title should include the term "coincidence" rather than "foreshadowing," since no one thinks Chris Carter had any foreknowledge. —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I agree with the changes you've made, your title is more concise while still conveying what I intended. Thank You. --CptBuck (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It does foreshadow 9/11. For God's sake, how many other plots have to do with planes being flown into the World Trade Center? --64.180.245.119 (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not even. The WTC was the tallest building in NYC, and the final episodes of Martial Law had a plot to fly planes by remote control into buildings. It wasn't a government plot, but a rational person would have considered this episode to be derivative of that one.

And we need a reliable source making the connection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd want a reliable source for the idea that Martial Law influenced The Lone Gunmen. Certainly, the idea of airplanes crashing into buildings has precedents (the Tom Clancy novel Debt of Honor, real-world incidents like this one, etc.) To my knowledge, The Lone Gunmen episode is the only one which had passenger jets directed at the WTC. Did the Martial Law episode mention or depict the WTC specifically? —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd want a reliable source for the idea that The Lone Gunmen forshadowed 9/11. Apparently, others would, also, as it seems to have been deleted from this article and the 9/11 articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, what kind of a reliable source would you like to see? -- A man without a country (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say a mainstream source that reports that some notable conspiracy theorists made the connection might be adequate. A mainstream source commenting on the "coincidence" would be ideal, even if they went on to say it clearly was coincidence. After all, Alex Jones claims to have predicted 9/11, while, even the current copy of his June 2001 radio show does nothing of the sort. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Turning to the beginning of the talk. The film foreshadowed not only some of conspiracy theories, but the core of the scheme of attack plus some of theories. There are lots of the films concerning conspiracy theories, lots of them with acts of devastation and destruction, but the only one with an attack on WTC with a jetliner. This is the only reason that made me interesting in the series, it's notable, maybe even the most notable feature of the series :) and that's a bad idea to ignore it. May be it is not notable for 9/11 event, but it is notable for the movie. Such foreshadowings often make a favor for a film.

2. Talking about foreshadowing conspiracy theories: I can't see why we should cite a mainstream source telling about conspiracy theorists' connection instead of such theorists themselves.

A man without a country (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreshadowing is acceptable term given the selection of target, primary means of attack, and the general historical timing (well within a handful of years). Yes the secondary methods of how control planes was seized is lacking as is the number of planes and probably the identity of the antagonists. However, the term Foreshadowing does NOT require accurately naming every participant and an exact match to their motives from signed confessions. The truth is that we only have a publicly accepted reconstruction of events endorsed by the US government and Al-Quadea...both of which have known political reasons to endorse the given scenario. (And a real unpublished Ollie North type conspiracy is not impossible. A US based official or group might have played puppet master or guardian angel to the Al-Quadea group from a distance. Bi-partisan cover-up would have been certain had any conspiracy been discovered. With Ollie political heads almost rolled and he had little direct impact on US, yet cover up attempts were made. Heh I am more a believer that conspiracy or not rapidly becomes irrelevant as events submerge into ancient history.) 72.182.13.111 (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Bond

Who is he ? Is is not mentioned in the opening para, put appears as a regular character later. -- Beardo (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A main character who made his first appearance in the second episode. --88.89.87.120 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is a complete white wash!

I notice that the entire section regarding the 911 parallel has been removed and the frame I uploaded from the pilot episode has been deleted. In this episode a jet liner is hijacked by a faction within the United States government and the protagonist's actions foil a plot to fly it into the World Trade Center. The frame in question depicts a plane flying into the World Trade Center (computer generated but realistic looking) dramatizing the events taking place inside the plane as the protagonists disable a malevolent autopilot system installed by the aforementioned faction. Supposedly this was a fair use violation, although I can't see how it would be as it was a single screen shot from a television program and we already have the TV show's logo (which is far less noteworthy) one here even though that's copyrighted as well.

I highly encourage all of you to watch this episode to see for yourselves what I am talking about. I'd also like to see this section re-added to the article and screenshot brought back. Frankly I think the removal is nothing more than vandalism. However, I am not going to waste any more of my time here as it's clear Wikipedia is just far too corrupt. -Chimro (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And you expected what, on a server that’s not yours but controlled by a organized group that distributes a very certain type of propaganda as if it was the (physically impossible) “absolute truth”. Anyone who takes this site seriously, needs a giant reality check, or be put down for extreme gullibility and stupidity. Create your own site. On your own box. Fuck the rest. (Opera Unite has done it right.)

This article is complete bullshit and has removed all the relevant information, please add it back. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS. Information can be added if reliably sourced, can be removed if not. GRAPPLE X 00:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Starring

I may be mistaken, but weren't Stephen Snedden and Zuleikha Robinson series regulars/credited as starring along with the actors playing the Lone Gunmen in the opening credits? If so, shouldn't they be in the "starring" field? --71.150.248.191 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were. I have the DVD set of the first season right here. IMDB also agrees. If you’re one of the sad souls, who still take this site seriously, just edit it yourself, and hope there’s no Wikinazi patrolling. But I recommend blocking Wikipedia in your firewall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.191.166 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge Episode List into this page?

As there's only a single season of The Lone Gunmen, and a table is already created at List of The Lone Gunmen episodes, why not bring that table into this page instead of the static list shown now? I added a link, but it seems natural (to me) to combine these pages into one. Eezip (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it as it is. Even if the series did fly below the radar quite a bit, there's still enough information on it as a season to have a list article for it (statistics like airdates, nielsons, home releases, etc). Plus the pilot is deserving of a full article, which I'll probably get round to eventually, at least in part due to the retrospective controversy of the plot. Collapsing the season#s episode list into the overview would signal a decrease in how notable the series is considered and would hamper future articles, I would imagine. GRAPPLE X 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 January 2012

The pilot show aired on March 4th, 2001. not March 90th, which is not a real date. Please, someone change it.

Piebraket (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Apparently whoever deleted some of the revisions managed to protect the vandalised version of the page. GRAPPLE X 04:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashing of 9/11 and Conspiracy Theories

I recently noticed what has been happening to this article which is basically a complete white wash. I have decided to improve the article with more references and interviews of the show produces and cast. The article should focus around the show being about government conspiracy and not what the X-files was, that is why the ratings were so popular. They were basing it on actual true conspiracy theories and its kind of central to the show and should be this article as well. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a whitewash to conform to the same policies on content which apply to the entire site. Information must be reliably sourced, not just backed up by the editor writing it or with a tacked-on youtube video. As I've said above, anything added which is not reliably sourced (here or on any other article) is fair game to be outright removed. That's not whitewashing. That's responsible writing. GRAPPLE X 02:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made my best attempt to cite the information I have added, but the information regarding the play on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy I can not cite, yet it's very clear that it is a reference to that. The same for the "Octium Inside!" slogan which you can see in the YouTube clips of the part where the plane is about to crash into the World Trade Center, which is also a clear reference to Intel corporation. Those two parts I can not cite, there is nothing to cite but anybody with a brain could connect the dots. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that relying on "anybody with a brain" to "connect the dots" falls square into the realm of original research, which is not permissible for wikipedia content. If something hasn't been covered in reliable sources and is therefore unable to be sourced and referenced, then it fails notability guidelines and isn't worth including—something isn't important if no one else seems to think so, after all. GRAPPLE X 15:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

What! You are completely way off base, the Octium inside details is 100% central to the first and second episode plots! The Octium 4 is used in the first episode to take back control of the plane, and in the second episode, the second episode is completely about them running around to get the Octium chip back, and they end up in the Octium company building. That is 100% relevant to the article. But not even that it is is recurring thing that spans multiple episodes. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. It doesn't matter how plot-important a macguffin is in a show; if no secondary sources can be found to discuss the content, it is not notable enough for inclusion. Source it reliably or it can and will be cut; that's the same rule that applies across every article on the site. GRAPPLE X 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I got your sources now after a little digging, I found the actual spoof websites hosted by Fox which are still active and live! 72.72.240.141 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What you have found is a primary source, which only expands upon the existence in fiction of a fictional item—secondary sources, meaning those removed from the creators of the media being discussed (reviews, analysis, etc) are what is needed to prove notability. It's all in the articles I've been linking here. GRAPPLE X 20:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Listen, ok I actually managed to find another primary source for the information regarding the play on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy as well. The shows characters in the episode All About Yves capture a Men In Black operative and discover several operations dating back to November 11th 1963, which is pretty easy to connect, then they mention the JFK assassination, and state that is the entire reason there newspaper is named what it is. See for your self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxGWqq4gqQs at 9 minutes and 30 seconds. Now however you and GSK continue to remove any and all information from this article that anybody would even care to look up. If people wanted to know more about the show they would obviously want to know about the premise of the plots! 72.72.240.141 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you "listen, ok". Primary sources are not the aim. Secondary sources are what is necessary. Reliable ones. I have linked to these policies already and you've quite frankly ignored them. No youtube links, no in-episode information, no straight-from-Fox websites are going to be useful to you here. Please don't add any more information until you figure out the difference between primary sources (generally to be avoided) and secondary sources (what you need and have yet to provide). Thanks.GRAPPLE X 00:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What? That does not make any sense at all. First of all, I certainly did not present the information in a biased manner, I was about as unbiased as I could be. I simply stated, Fox hosted this website for the fake company, blah blah blah, just like on every other Wikipedia article. The information is also very notable as I said, if one does a google search, you get a ton of results, not to mention it was notable enough for Alex Jones/Infowars and every yutube video to mention the Octium chip. https://www.google.com/#q=lone+gunmen+octium

Secondly, all of the google references are mostly unreliable, which makes the primary sources the best sources of information, but that still shows its notable, there just isnt secondary sources. So what do you do in a case like that? I guess blank the sections, and remove the only information anybody even cares about. If people want some back story on the show they want to come here and find the information like that, they want back story on the show, and most of that was back story on pretty much the series whole first season. Especially the reference for where the character says why the show is named what it is! If you can't reference in episode material for that, that is just ridiculous I guess people will have to look elsewhere other than Wikipedia to find actual useful information like that, especially for something as important as where and why the show has its name! 72.72.240.141 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And to add on to what I just said, if the two of you wanted to be good Wikipedia contributors, you'd help with finding the secondary sources, not just section blanking. I've been digging all day, Wikipedia contributors are supposed to help each other, and you two are just destroying my work, which given enough time I can have properly sourced, but you are not even helping, just vandalizing! 72.72.240.141 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No one accused you of being biased. Site-wide wikipedia policy calls for secondary, not primary, referencing, from reliable sources (generally those with expertise and editorial oversight). That has nothing to do with "bias" and everything to do with being thorough, accurate and verifiable; and as a means of demonstrating that the subject is notable and independently recognised outside of its creators. Fox's sources do nothing to demonstrate that Fox shows are notable—a television critic or news source, however, would demonstrate this. If you can't find reliable secondary sources on a subject, it is not notable and it isn't worth including in an article. Not every subject actually merits article content on the site, which is why we have guidelines on sourcing and notability. That's the be-all and end-all of it. If people want "useful information", either we supply them with reliably-sourced information, or failing that possibility,we leave them to look elsewhere for material which isn't suitable for here. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the only thing bringing people to this Wikipedia article was the conspiracy information and back story information. The information which you just completely blanked, which was already here, you blanked the information I did not even add! Nothing on this article is even informative at all now, if I wanted a poorly detailed episode list I could go to the Youtube playlist, and get an accurate and detailed description of every episode. If the article is going to stay in the state that it is in then, I am all for WP:Deletion in that case, because the article now provides nothing useful at all. Also, I just showed you how notable it is outside of primary sources, if it wasn't then there wouldn't be so many Google results of people talking about it, but by your standards nobody can even prove that. And if you can't look past that for a second, and see why this information is useful to the article, in order to help verify it in the process, then I don't know how you call yourself a Wikipedia contributor. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, as I said earlier none of you seem to understand what "straight from the horses mouth means" http://phrases.org.uk/meanings/336400.html Perhaps Wikipedia policy needs to be changed as well to give some leeway. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and to come back to this again, in-episode context is a good reference, otherwise all of the G.I. Joe articles are improperly sourced. Because each and every one of those articles references the comic book issues directly. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

E-com-con Corporation

After a little digging to provide references to the Octium IV processor and the fictional computer company, I actually found the original sites hosted by Fox Entertainment. The information is getting to be rather large and I am wondering if we should create a whole new article for it? 72.72.240.141 (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this section because most, if not all of it, was self-sourced from what looks like a fan site. If you can find reliable third party coverage, then feel free to re-add it (while not duplicating that fan site look and feel). A separate article for something from a show that lasted only one season is a bit overboard. GSK ✉ ✓ 22:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

At best, only a minor mention is necessary. Anything more and the article becomes needlessly complex. GSK ✉ ✓ 22:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wo wo woo, those are not fan sites, as I said those were the original sites hosted by Fox Television themselves, they are the exact original websites! This can be inferred by imply googling "lone gunmen octium" and you can see plenty of old web posts from 2001 and what not with people discussing it. This is as Grapple_X said, primary source of information, literally straight from the horses mouth! And you did not even bother to read back our earlier conversation from today to discuss with us before you simply came along and blanked the entire section! The information is relevant, and plenty of things like this even get there own articles on Wikipedia. If you felt a section was of low quality then you should help clean it up, not completely blank it, that is against WP:Policy. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, to add to this I still need somewhere to link back to when I add the information to the character pages about the spoof of them hacking the E-com-con corp. website (the one hosted by Fox Television as an easter egg) 72.72.240.141 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire section in question resembles nothing more than what one would find on a fan site. I suggest you read WP:FANSITE since you're clinging to policy so closely. Both myself and another editor have disagreed with your additions, so it's time to stop edit warring. GSK ✉ ✓ 02:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And I suggest you read the character bio's at The Lone Gunmen which contains the same information on John Fitzgerald Byers except unsourced, I did not add that information to that article, I added expanded back story information here with the proper citations. I also suggest the two of you read the three revert rule because the both of you are the ones doing the reverting, and section blanking whiping out entire sections, that I never even added to the article, which is suspiciously odd in and of itself. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible Typo?

In the episode list, Episode 12's original air date is listed as June 1, 2001 whereas Episode 13's is listed as May 11, 2001. This would imply that episode 13 aired before Episode 12. I'm assuming this is a mistake, perhaps whoever wrote it meant June 11, instead of May 11? It is not unusual. Episode count usually refers to the order of production which may differ from the order aired.

This Episode list is not consistent with info on the Website sourced. link http://web.archive.org/web/20140711003100/http://tvtango.com/series/lone_gunmen/episodes TV Tango lists the Episode titled "All About Yves" as being the 12th in the series (original airdate 05/11/2001) and the Episode titled "Cap'n Toby" as being the 13th in the series (original airdate 06/01/2001)... it seems like the Wikipedia page is incorrect. Can someone please confirm the true data and correct the Wikipedia list of Episodes?142.161.234.250 (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)