Jump to content

Talk:The Prisoner/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Untitled

Please consider joining the project! HowardBerry 19:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


McGoohan's pseudonyms

It says that McGoohan wrote several episodes under pseudonyms. What pseudonyms did he use ? -- Beardo 06:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Paddy Fitz and Joseph Serf. 23skidoo 13:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Also Archibald Schwartz (Once Upon A Time).theunmutual
In what context? He is credited on screen as writer and director under his own name. I've never heard of this pseudonym for PMG. What's your source? 23skidoo 03:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You're correct in that it isn't on screen, but it is a very well known fact that the episode was written under the name Archibald Schwartz. Three main sources: In the 1984 TV documentary "Six into One: The Prisoner file", McGoohan relates his reasoning whereby he wrote the episode under that pseudonym to avoid derision from the cast and crew because of the odd dialogue. Propsman Mickey O Toole, who McGoohan specifically mentions in his anecdote, confirmed this in an interview several years ago which is online at the following link (towards the bottom of the page) http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/interviewsotoole.htm. This is also confirmed on page 101 of Rob Fairclough's Official Prisoner Companion book, User:theunmutual|theunmutual]]

He directed as Joseph Serf, first (as far as I know, anyway) reported by Tom Soter in a "Prisoner" article in Starlog magazine's October 1988 issue. Where he got it, I don't know, but most since then have reported it as flatly as he did. These two are the only McGoohan pseudonyms specifically identified, despite early reports using the word "several." Ted Watson 19:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just took my first look at this article in quite a long time and was surprised to find the following sentence in the section "Origins":
He also wrote and directed several episodes, often under various pseudonyms, such as Archibald Schwartz.
Knowing that I had taken such a statement down—back in July 2007, to be specific—I started to prepare a Talk page statement to defend reverting it again, including the diff page of my prior revert, and the apologetic response of the person who had put it up. In looking for the latter, I found this, and strangely enough I have no memory of the unmutual's portion of it (I should have said then what I am about to say now). So I'll post the defense here, and link it from my edit summary. The only way it is accurate to say that someone literally wrote—that is, did the actual writing as opposed to receiving the publicized credit—under a pseudonym is if the person/company to receive the work does not know the writer's real identity, which is obviously not the case here. The most that is true in this instance is that McGoohan considered taking the writing credit for Once Upon a Time under the name Archibald Schwartz but ultimately his own name went on it. Similarly, I took a direct quote attributed to writer Ron Fortier concerning the NOW Comics series that he co-developed and initially wrote, The Green Hornet, off that article. He allegedly said that their making the modern version of the character Kato female led to the comic being cancelled. It did not matter if it could be positively proved that Fortier had actually said that, because the comics themselves conclusively prove that it was simply not the fact of the matter, and therefore should not be in the encyclopedia. Here, even if you show me the video of McGoohan making this statement, it remains somewhat inaccurate, and the way it is presented in the article is highly misleading. Hence, I'm taking it out. Ted Watson (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good defence to me, just to say that it wasn't I who added the statement into the article. theunmutual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.194.249 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Unmutual. I did not track down the edit putting the name back into the article, and certainly did not mean to imply that I had any idea who did it. I still do not know why, when I posted a comment here last April 29, I did not say most of the things I said this April. My bad. Ted Watson (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just read the above, and I'm not sure about part of the argument put forward by Ted, where he says "The only way it is accurate to say that someone literally wrote—that is, did the actual writing as opposed to receiving the publicized credit—under a pseudonym is if the person/company to receive the work does not know the writer's real identity". I understand that it's the specific phrasing and context of 'wrote under' that Ted is refering to, but it still seems to me to be a quite straight forward way of saying you wrote something which you used a pseudonym for instead of your real name, in fact in the 1977 interview, 'The Prisoner Puzzle' (available on youtube), McGoohan himself says "I wrote under a couple of other names, Archibald Swartz was one and Paddy Fitz was another".Number36 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That interview statement is what really started this. Actually, it has since occurred to me that it would be accurate to say he wrote under that pseudonym if going into that script he intended to be credited with that name instead of his own but (somebody) decided otherwise after he finished it. That the name Archibald Schwartz appears in no Prisoner episode's credits, McGoohan's videotaped statement notwithstanding, means that there should be no statement in the artticle flatly saying he "used" it and no more. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry my fault, I came from just having seen the interview (though it's a different interview than the one described a the start of the discussion and I thought it may have offered something new) and assumed that McGoohan and the interviewer were correct when they stated that his name was only on a couple of episodes, and that Archibald Schwatz was one of the names he used. I didn't realise the name hadn't actually appeared on the finished credits. But from the interview it's clear he used the pseudonym on the scripts during the filming, and his stated reasons for doing so, i.e. the odd dialogue, concern over how they would be received by the actors/crew etc) as well as the story of how Mickey O'Toole raised concern over how they were written and expressed doubt about Archibald Swartz's abilities, to McGoohan's apparent amusement :)
Perhaps we could just describe what actually happened, with a note that the finished credit went to McGoohan. Incidentally I take it, since the interview where this was discussed came from the U.S. that there's no chance that the American version had different or altered credits, it seems pretty unlikely to me, but it would explain the comments in the interview.Number36 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Number 6 and the Salute

Would it be a stretch to point out that creating a circle with the thumb and forefinger with the remaining fingers outstretched resembles a 6? It may also be a stretch but a Penny Farthing resembles a 6 on its side. Perhaps these points warrent mention in the article?--RedKnight 22:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Never noticed that. Interesting point. However, to include it in the article, you would need a published source to back it up. David L Rattigan 09:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say the the salute does resemble a 6 regardless of extraneous documentation and a six on its side resembles a Penny Farthing. I am one who believes that the finale which reveals 6 to be 1 (hmmm... "six of one" is mentioned at least a couple of time during the series as well) was never an afterthought and all such observations have merrit regardless of who discovers them. Someone has to be first to make these statements and observations so why could I not be the first? Not my document, though -- Your call. (Personally I find 'The sign of the fish' more of a stretch, regardless of the origin of the statement. I feel the salute looks nothing like it.) --RedKnight 22:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very pleased to see that my observation was added to the page, although I do wonder why is was so readily dismissed without having a reference source to back it up. Again, as observations go, I believe that it is a sound one as did whomever added to the text. Thank you for the recognition of what I strongly feel a to be a worthy point.--RedKnight (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The science fiction book The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson describes a very similar-looking salute and says it resembles the number 23 (two fingers down, 3 up); it's off-topic to explain why 23 is significant, but according to the book - as well as authors such as William S. Burroughs - there is an enigma involving the number. Whether or not McGoohan was aware of this is unknown, although 2 x 3 = 6. Having said all this, just like the 6 comparison above, there would need to be a source directly linking it to The Prisoner for it to really qualify. As far as the Prisoner reference works I have are concerned (along with the Prisoner Video Companion documentary), the salute was chosen because it represented an ancient Christian symbol, the sign of the fish. 23skidoo 12:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Not relevant to the article, except perhaps as part of the "In popular culture" section, but the Be Seeing You salute is also used by Mister Bester of the Psi Corps is Babylon 5.
Bagheera 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Pop culture influence?

This show is strikingly similar to the Adult Swim series 12 oz. Mouse. Yakwhacker 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the other way around? 12 Oz. Mouse is similar to The Prisoner? Not that it actually matters of course - but it is semantically correct this way.
Cheers
Bagheera 01:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The Prisoner is an allegorical 60s spy show. 12 Oz. Mouse is a nonsensical cartoon with proudly low-quality animation and character design. However, both shows are experimental, and cultishly adored, and feature "figuring out things" scenes. But tonally, plot-wise, and thematically, they couldn't be further apart.

If you want to compare apples to apples, I'd venture that The Prisoner is like James Bond on assignment in the Twilight Zone. 12 Oz. Mouse is a stoner epic, a mildly entertaining "Adult Swim" dadaist TV prank run amok, and won't be remembered very widely in a few years Ted 3000 23:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My imagination immediately lumps together The Prisoner and the feature file The Truman Show. Is there grounds for listing the latter in the "Spinoffs and continuations" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grygiu (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no obvious connection. Lacking it being obvious, it is original research. — Val42 (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It's quite often claimed that The Truman Show recalls The Prisoner - in fact several critics have said so in reviews of the film: see for example http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:161628, http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Island/3102/secret.htm and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/trumanshowosullivan.htm . Various people have also claimed precise Prisoner references in The Truman Show: see for example the comment at the bottom of http://www.theunmutual.co.uk/comparestruman.htm . If nothing else, reporting such claims with citations would seem not to be original research. (I should add the qualifications that not everyone who sees a resemblance between Truman and The Prisoner has gone on to claim that there was an influence from one to the other, and that The Truman Show has been compared to several other things as well, notably The Secret Cinema.) But even if one accepts that The Truman Show was influenced by The Prisoner, and has explicit Prisoner references (and speaking personally I think that both are reasonably obvious) that wouldn't be enough to make it a Prisoner spinoff or continuation - that's the sort of connection for a "works influenced by" or "in pop culture" section instead. --RW Dutton (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply to Douglsdnico comments

Your comments are valid, however when attempting to gain some smiting of insight in to the series, one must remember that it was made in a era that had a totally different social structure than to day.

I think one of the major attractions of “The Prisoner” is the speculative and vague nature of the program that allows individuals to fill in the gaps with there imagination.

It true there is no mention of his nationality or for that matter that Peter Smith was his definite name, however one can make a educated guess based on what is known and it is implied that The Prisoner was English.

I accept your comments, but where was it ever implied that he was definitely English? I do have the DVD box set but have only watched it through once. You have to take into account Wiki's rules of 'no original research', speculation doesn't work in articles, though it's VERY difficult in a show such as The Prisoner as there were very few hard facts. The time period even is difficult, though one of the few times we see a current piece of military hardware that can pin it down is a Meteor two seater aircraft. Look at the debates as to the location of The Village, ranging from the Mediterranean to the UK mainland. Considering one view that the whole Prisoner program could be just an elaborate mindgame, there are very few hard facts, unfortunately Wiki doesn't look too well on this, as I have done this myself in some Space:1999 articles. Douglasnicol 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
All we know about his upbringing is that he played cricket as a boy (picture shown in Arrival) and that he has an accent that is definitely not American. --Kneague 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the name "Peter Smith" used in "Many Happy Returns": After giving that name to Mrs. Butterworth, he asks to see the registration log for his/her car and the lease for his/her flat. He is surprised to find that both are new documents with her name first, i.e., no previous owners/tenants identified. If he hadn't used "Peter Smith" for those two purposes, what possible reason could he have for asking to see the records? Logically, he must have used Smith for those legal documents, and its difficult to see how he would use an alias on them, even allowing for the fact that he was an intelligence agent, as they both seem to be part of his own personal life (he told Mrs. B. of the car, "I built it with my own hands", so unless that was a lie, it at least was not provided by his government). On the other hand, he does say "Peter Smith" as if it were the most obvious alias in the (English-speaking) world, but that would be "John Smith," wouldn't it? Did he say "Peter" because the other would have been part of the truth (John Drake)? Ted Watson 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
A possible answer may be found in "Do Not Forsake Me" where we learn that Number 6 uses a number of aliases. Presumably "Peter Smith" is one of them. In fact if you watch "Many Happy Returns" again you'll see Number 6 hesitate before giving the name, almost as if he was trying to remember it. Perhaps he was trying to remember which alias he used for the car and the apartment (it makes sense for him to use the same for both). As to the nationality question, that's actually consistent with John Drake who is said to be American in the first season of Danger Man, becomes British thereafter (stated in dialogue), and identifies himself as Irish in one episode. Similar ambiguity exists for Number 6 (one of his aliases in Do Not Forsake Me is Duval or something like that). And we do know he has strong ties with France per "A, B and C". All we know for certain is that he is based in London. 23skidoo 13:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The "number of aliases" revealed in Do Not Forsake... is two, and each is restricted to one country: "...in France, Duval, in Germany, Schmidt...." (if that's not verbatim, it's close enough). I also deny your interpretation of The Prisoner's delivery of "Peter Smith," and refer you to my earlier description. Also, perhaps you'll take notice of the evidence I cited indicating the apartment and especially the car were part of his personal, private life, and not his government work, which admittedly seems to contradict the idea that he's used an alias for both. Finally, I deny that, despite many commonalities, the half-hour Danger Man and the one-hour series of the same name, aka Secret Agent, share the same leading character. Same character name and same actor, absolutely, but two different characters, the first American and the other British. Ted Watson 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd be interested to see if you can provide any source to back up your contention that there were two different John Drakes. I've been involved in Prisoner/Danger Man fandom for more than 20 years now and that's the first time I've ever heard this particular claim made. 23skidoo (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


thenewno2

Resolved

There has been an ongoing dispute regarding inclusion of the following information in the trivia section: "The Prisoner also inspired the naming of the band thenewno2, featuring George Harrison's son, Dhani Harrison." To bring everyone up to speed I will start with the edit history first: An anonymous editor inputs this fact here then it was reverted here then it was put back in as in here but it was reverted again diff and again diff and again diff and again diff and again diff and finally here. I will not repeat the edit summaries as they are visible in the diffs provided. I also include the talk page messages to date copying and pasting them here:

The Prisoner

"The Prisoner also inspired the naming of the band thenewno2, featuring George Harrison's son, Dhani Harrison." I followed the links. Nowhere did I see authority for this proposition, therefore, as an uncited allegation, it remains deleted until it can be supported by evidence, and as an editor wishing to include it, the onus remains on you to provide authority. I've no doubt that it may be true; but policy requires that it be substantiated. Over to you. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply:

The Prisoner

Thank you for your message. Now we have two editors that don't support your opinion and despite that you keep deleting a fact despite your own admission it might be true. So the natural question to ask is why don't you just tag it using a myriad of tags such as a fact tag instead of removing the fact like you did? Dr.K. (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions

The questions arising from all this are very simple:

  1. Why don't we just tag the information with a {{fact}} tag? After all Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Another editor sees the citation needed tag then finds the citation and everyone is happy. If we remove the sentence altogether how would this collaboration work if the editors don't see it so that they can help the project by providing the needed citation?
  2. Quote from the first message: I've no doubt that it may be true; but policy requires that it be substantiated. So here we have a fact added that one of the disputing editors acknowledges that it may be true. Yet he wants to delete it without giving other editors the chance to collaborate by finding a suitable citation for it. Does that make sense?
  3. The trivia section of the article is full of uncited facts. Why do we have to discriminate against this particular fact? Why don't we just remove every uncited fact from the article?
  4. Why stop here? Why don't we just erase every uncited fact from Wikipedia as a whole?
  5. Why even bother having any citation needed tags?
  6. Where in policy is it stated that erasing a fact is preferable to tagging it with a {{fact}} tag? Dr.K. (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Very gracious of you. I can understand the frustration involved fighting vandals and it does take its toll. It is completely understandable, no apology necessary. The kind gesture is nonetheless appreciated. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Powys novels again

Okay, now an anonymous user has updated this section again, deleting Lance Parkins book and giving a release date for Miss Freedom (they also added this info to Andrew Cartmels page). Actually the edit states that 'it was' released on Feb 15th, despite this being the Feb 1st. However the problem is, unless I'm blind, there's nothing to collaborate this on the actual Powys site, which hasn't been updated for a long time as far as I can tell, and still claims Miss Freedom is the third book, after Lance Parkins, and will be released 'Fall 2006' (which it wasn't). So is this a case of someone just making detailed random stuff up, or perhaps someone attached to Powys, with a very odd way of releasing information about their up-coming releases? Either way, as I understand it, unless there's some external source it shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. The only thing I found by googling, that indicates a possibility that there might be more information, is that The Six of One site has it listed as being released in 2008 on a list of Prisoner related books and when they came out, and has what appears to be a tiny thumb of the cover, which isn't displayed anywhere on the official site or anywhere else that I've seen, however that site doesn't give any sort of source for that release date, and it could just as well be that they got it from here, or simply up-dated to reflect that the book didn't come out in 2006 or 2007, for all I know. Everything else I found on google was from ages ago and referenced the earlier release dates.Number36 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tricky one this, not least because again, it's late here. Sourcing of some stuff, particularly non-canon, is always going to be a problem with this article. General policy is that information should be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. However, per discussion in the thread above this one, unsourced information can be added but may be tagged with a {{citation needed}} tag, and after a suitable time can be deleted if it remains unsubstantiated. However, that relies on vigilant editors who are prepared to monitor the article and take the time to source dubious claims. My inclination is to revert the anon edit and insist on a citation in the absence of alternative information, on the basis that it is all too easy to insert rumour and rubbish into Wikipedia and the onus should lie upon the inserting/changing/deleting editor to provide good reason for the edit. But then, perhaps that's just my lawyer's mind at work. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In this case, given the rationales provided by both editors above, and in the absence of reliable sources after a detailed search by one of the editors, I agree that the best thing to do is to remove it. Dr.K. (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew it didn't seem right. I added citation needed tags as suggested, in the hope that if it is genuine information, the person who contributed it might come back and back it up with an external reference. How long do you think is appropriate to leave it before I revert it to the earlier info (which comes from the official site)?. I also just noticed that the ISBN that has been given for Miss Freedom is listed on the Powys site as the ISBN for Lance Parkins book, The Other.Number36 (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would give it a month. I've seen tags in articles since July 2007 or older but they are obviously neglected. Taking this route is more involved since you must follow up but it gives plausible facts a better chance of being verified in a collaborative way, under the supervision of a willing editor. You will not be alone. I'll check it up in a month's time as well. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The Prisoner pages at the Powys site have now been updated and confirm the above novels release as described (I've also talked to people on the Doctor Who Forum (Formally known as Outpost Gallifrey) who attended the convention where it was released, which would be OR I know but the Powys update makes that moot), also I have added The Other back to the list as the update has it now listed as the third novel (whereas before it was the second and Miss Freedom was the third), however as far as I can see there isn't anything about those later books listed there (I seem to recall there was at one stage though), so I've added fact tags to those novels. I didn't put a year for The Others release as it hasn't been updated on the Powys site and still reflects the earlier scheduled release date. From what I've heard over at DWF the Powys site may be having a more complete update sometime soon.Number36 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Great work. Thanks for the update. Dr.K. (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Impact

The article states: "its surreal setting had a far-reaching effect upon science fiction-fantasy-genre television and also popular culture in general". Now I should lay my cards on the table and confess that The Prisoner is one of my top five television drama series, however I don't think the Prisoner is as influential as this sentence makes it out to be. I think people thought 'this is brilliant', but in terms of its influence on television production it was an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It is not featured in the 100 Greatest British Television Programmes list prepared by the BFI in 2000. The place I see its influence most often is in spoofs and homages of the type seen in The Tube (TV series). Any comments? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you mention it.... Although I am a fan too, I'd have to agree. If anyone can find a reference to a subsequent program which supports this influence reliably, that would be fine; the quote, though is for "its surreal setting", which is vague anyway, but the argument remains, in general terms. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Carrazé and Oswald's Prisoner book (the English-language edition is ISBN 978-0863695575) contains an essay by Jacques Sternberg (I'm pretty sure it's this guy) entitled "The Prisoner, Pioneer Without Heirs" which makes this point. He says "Like many avowedly revolutionary workds, by rejecting the conventional, The Prisoner seems to have inspired no other work of the same kind. It has not changed the television serial [...] Being ahead of one's time does not always lead to being taken up later or caught up with. More often than not it lease to being suppressed." (Quotes from the English translation.)--RW Dutton (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The 1995-1996 series Nowhere Man was like an American version of The Prisoner - wasn't it? (I've only just started watching The Prisoner, so I'm just assuming.) Eligius (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think references've been made elsewhere to the similarity of Nowhere Man (another show that died after 1 season) & The Prisoner. I was in high school when The Prisoner first ran in the States, & altho I didn't see it then, I can remember a good deal of discussion among my classmates about the show. I always wondered what I was missing: now I know. My brother told me about Nowhere Man, altho he couldn't see it because his cable service had no UPN channel; I recorded episodes & sent them to him. Later, we got the DVD set. These days, I enjoy alternating betw. watching Danger Man (Secret Agent), Nowhere Man, & The Prisoner on DVD: really excellent diversions from S.O.P. TV. 98.233.253.148 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Issue 10 (the Spring '96 issue) of Six of One's In the Village magazine contains excerpts from an interview with Nowhere Man's creator, director and leading actor. (Unfortunately it doesn't say who conducted the interview or where it was originally published.) The creator and producer, Larry Hertzog, is quoted as saying "I think that more than The Fugitive and The Incredible Hulk it would be better to say it's The Prisoner and The Twilight Zone." and, later, that "since I really did love those shows I would like to walk to the edge of [the surreal]" in Nowhere Man.--RW Dutton (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Number Six (Battlestar Galactica version)

Why the 'citation needed' note? Simply clicking on the 'Number Six' link in the same sentence takes you to the #6(BSG) Wiki page which has the reference right there in the second paragraph. --Frunobulax (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Because other Wikipedia articles can't be used as references. — Val42 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
True. Ref added.Number36 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference is in the article; its not the article itself. Frunobulax (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Verifying this is just a click away. Anyway the latest revert about number 6 of Battlestar Galactica concerns an edit that was redundant and uncited. The proper edit is still in the article and uses the same citation as the number six article, just to be on the safe side I guess. Dr.K. (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Serial dramas category

I removed the Serial Dramas category because, strictly speaking, this series was not a serial (perhaps someone mistook it for Cell Block H?). Serials primarily feature episodes leading from one to the next, but except for the two-part finale that wasn't the case in The Prisoner and as we all know there's debate even over what order the episodes should take. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New version cast question

Near the bottom of the section, "Return of The Prisoner" we find, "Also set to star ...[is] Jamie Campbell Bower as Number 11-12." What does this mean? Is he playing a character with a strangely hyphenated number? Is he playing two consecutively numbered characters (maybe identical twins; maybe clones; maybe heavy make-up to distinguish between them)? The linked-in source doesn't make the situation any clearer than that quote does, so I strongly suggest that someone in a position to do so keep an eye out for some clarification of this. Thank you. Ted Watson (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the videos here [1], specifically the one titled 'Jaimie interviews Sir Ian pt 1' the text that comes up with his name has "Jaimie Campbell-Bower" with "11-12" underneath it, and and he says "I play 11-12" (pronounced eleven-twelve), and later Ian McKellen says when talking about how there is more than one story going on, "equally you could say that the story of the prisoner is the story of the relationship between these two <& indicates himself and Jaimie Campbell Bower> and how it develops." and that's all I've got for now, all seems to indicate that it is just a single character with an oddly hyphenated number to me though.Number36 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, but "...more than one story going on..." says he might be playing two different characters, one in each story. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my phrasing, the actual quote that I'm paraphrasing there is "It's a good script because there are lots of stories going on at the same time aren't there. I mean you would think that Six, that the latest arrival in the Village, and that, the rebel, would be the one story that we'd be following very closely, but equally you could say that the story of 'the prisoner' is the story of the relationship between these two <& indicates himself and Jaimie Campbell Bower> and how it develops."
Just the way they only refer to Jamie Campbell-Bower's character in the singular, referring to 'these two' as himself and J C-B's character for example, and also the way J C-B refers to himself as playing eleven-twelve -very quickly as one word (spoken in the same way you might say the year 1112 AD), rather than 11 and 12 which would a much more natural way to express playing two separate characters, and also it's how the name of his character has been reported in articles and how he was credited in the text bar of the interview.Number36 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, just found an article that confirms, from scenes the press has seen, that the character is called 'll-12' and interestingly also gives the information that 11-12 is Two's estranged son, which I suspected from a comment on Ian McKellen's blog. Which I will add to the article.[2] Number36 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Gambling away the movie rights?

From this week's Popbitch (January 15th 2009):

'celtiagirl writes: "Patrick McGoohan never got to make the film he wanted of The Prisoner. He was a keen poker player, and at one game in Vegas found himself holding three of a kind. Quietly confident, as everyone upped the ante, he chucked the rights to The Prisoner into the pot. Alas, someone else at the table had a straight flush. No-one expected the winning exec to actually take McGoohan's meal ticket off him. But to the disgust of the other players, he did just that."'

Obviously, this is uncited and not fit for inclusion in the article, but is anyone else aware of this story? Dom Kaos (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening sequence dialogue

I edited out the bit about Gordon's Number 2 voicing the Wyngarde opening sequence, as this is a soundtrack glitch in the Network DVD set and not something which appears in the episode per se, either in transmission, any airing, or any other DVD/Video set. 86.131.40.116 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)theunmutual, 26/1/09

Totally wrong. I (an American) have never seen anything but transmissions, and it has always been there, since my own off-air tapes made in the mid-1980s anyway. Therefore, I am putting it back in. If you want to say that most DVD versions have corrected it, fine by me, but it's not just one DVD set's glitch, and it stays in. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Like a fanzine

I've put back the tags. This thing reads like it was taken from some fan concordance. It's way too long and full of lists of trivial material of little interest to general readers. It's by no means the "nature" of the topic to have all this stuff. I'll have a go at cutting, but there's more than I can do. Fijagdh (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started this exercise, since I decided towards the end of last year that it needed doing. Don't quite follow the {{quotefarm}} concern though, the exchange between No 6 & No 2 over the opening credits is somewhat iconic; we could move it to Wikiquote, but that means it's not immediately readable. --Rodhullandemu 18:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Kosho

I'd guess, looking at it, that this has been merged from a separate article, but the way it is now, it is, IMO, given undue prominence. It only features briefly in two episodes, according to its text., and its general significance is moot. I'm not sure where it belongs, but I doubt that here is the correct place for it. Comments? Rodhullandemu 00:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is unduly proninent and lengthy, for what really is a recreational activity of the prisoner. I am not sure where it belongs in its current form either. But it should be shortened if it has to stay in this article. Dr.K. logos 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The Village (The Prisoner) has its own article. It might well fit in there. --Ted Watson (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a chance to look at this again. The section is not only unduly prominent in relation to the article as a whole, but completely unsourced, so I've removed it for the time being. I'm not sure it belongs in The Village (The Prisoner) either because it's not something that seems important in that context. Even White & Ali (1988) only mention Kosho in passing, and perhaps it is better mentioned in It's Your Funeral and Hammer Into Anvil. Looking at those articles, however, they do need some work if only to establish notability- I did have an idea of a The Prisoner portal some months ago, but seem to have got sidetracked since then. Rodhullandemu 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The article was created in 2005, possibly long before we required either notability or reliable sources, and was PRODDED in March this year. Looking at deleted versions, it's never had sources, so is original research as it stands, particularly the Kanji interpretation. Rodhullandemu 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on keep or remove seems better hosted here than on various editors' talk pages. Curious why Six of One is considered objectionable? RomaC (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably to do with some of the dodgier practices it has been involved with, such as secret taping of members etc. I'm not the biggest fan of 6o1 but it should probably be listed, although I'd also include a few other places to balance it. srushe (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me start this with a link to the prior discussion on Ckatz's talk page: User talk:Ckatz#Prisoner Ext. Links; I daresay his opener on mine, as I correctly claim it lacks anything of relevant substance, doesn't need to be linked in here.
I agreed with Ckatz's removal of Six of One's page on the grounds that what's there is a combination of offering very superficial information already in the article and inviting the user to join the organisation (which has indeed fallen into disrepute, but never mind that). This falls outside the guidelines of acceptable external links, but not the way that Ghughesarch said on Talk: Ckatz. His claims fall under the following:
"The Unmutual," "Theories" and "The Prisoner Online" do not appear to fit under any of the 16 "Links normally to be avoided" guidelines on WP:EL, except for #11 quoted by Masem on Talk: Ckatz, which is problematical: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is intended to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies [links in the original]." However, this last clause makes no sense to me: Why single out "biographies"? Furthermore, follow that last link, and you will find near the top, "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." That's it. There is nowhere on that page the slightest hint of notability's application to qualification of an external link (or anything else outside that quote's terms), nor any special definition of the word for biographies (relevant only if the other had been present). None. Similarly, the page the link for "recognized authorities" leads to is about "verifiability" of statements being placed within a Wiki article, and also gives no hint whatsoever of applicability to external links. Nor should they. All that matters is that the information is of interest to someone who read our article and that the sites do not fall afoul of any of the other terms of acceptability. These meet the first and do not do the second. If we follow these regs as written (despite their linked-in support failing to support them), there is hardly an external link we would still have (at least on any pop culture-type article), including IMDb pages! These cannot be argued against, as Wikipedia's programming includes a format for ease of posting links to that site's pages. If that does not constitute an administrative consensus to their acceptability as external links, I can't imagine what would. Perhaps the "External links" section heading should contain a standard hatnote (or whatever you want to call it) to the effect that Wikipedia does not guarantee anything about outside sites, as the IMDb used to do on their main page until recently. (I admit that the EL list on The Green Hornet needs trimming; for bringing me to that realization, I am grateful to this dispute.) Finally, these three sites do not fit the Wiki-definitions of blogs, personal web pages or fansites found in the regulatory pages that those links lead to. "Unmutual" and "...Online" display news, mostly about the new TV and film versions currently in the works, and "Theories" is just what it sounds like, a collection of articles of interest attempting to explain various points of the series.
Bottom line: The links within the only seemingly (at first glance) applicable regulation for supposedly supporting and/or clarifying information instead lead to patently irrelevant discussions, leaving said reg invalid. I see no legitimate grounds for denying these three sites a presence on the "External links" list for The Prisoner. I will leave the article as is, pending the outcome of this discussion. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I intend to restore a link to Six of One. Here for convenience is the relevant earlier discussion from Talk:Ckatz :
Under WP:EL, "Links normally to be avoided": "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." --MASEM (t) 23:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever one thinks about its current status, Six of One's history makes it a notable organisation - Patrick McGoohan himself accepted the position of honorary president in 1977 and held it until his death this year, and the organisation has been featured, mentioned or approached for comment numerous times by national media in the UK and elsewhere. Six of One also conducted or supported a large amount of important Prisoner research, including Steven Ricks' video documentaries and various convention interviews and panels for Prisoner cast and crew. Less easy for me to back up with citations, but nonetheless probably still true, is that Six of One had a pioneering and important position in the history of TV fan culture (Roger Goodman, co-founder: "in 1978 it was second only to the Trekkies in membership numbers for a tv series fan base and had more members than the Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament"). Accordingly I am restoring a Six of One link. --03:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)RW Dutton (talk)
As Masem point out above, fansites need to be written by a recognized authority, meaning, as a minimum, sufficient notability for biographies. Until Six of One has its own WP entry, it's not notable, so I'm removing the link to the fansite page which provides no information that isn't available in better-referenced form elsewhere. Ghughesarch (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Let us begin by restricting our attention to the question of whether Six of One is notable, since this was the specific reason given for removing the link. A casual search through Google News reveals significant coverage of Six of One in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Among the Reliable sources listed there are:
This list of sources indicates national/regional media coverage over 20 years in three countries and two languages. By the notability guidelines, the list on its own is enough to establish a presumption that 6o1 is notable. By contrast, neither the notability guidelines nor good judgement support the idea that 6o1 is made unnotable by the fact that it presently has no WP entry. Being notable confers suitability for a WP entry; lacking or possessing a WP entry does not remove or confer notability.
So, is there now consensus on the specific point that Six of One is notable? --RW Dutton (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
RWDutton: Let us begin by restricting our attention to the question of whether Six of One is notable, since this was the specific reason given for removing the link.
Let's not, since Ckatz gave no specific reason whatsoever (unless you count saying "We are not a directory service," which I obviously did not, and I still do not it find at all satisfactory) when he deleted the link in the first place, and it certainly was not my stated (in an earlier posting on this thread) reason for going along with that deletion.
I will quote two relevant items from WP:EL's list of "Links normally to be avoided" guidelines:
  • 1. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I see no information here that is not in our article beyond that which is about the organization per se (although the assumption that any article with an External links section seemingly by definition does not have "Featured" status puzzles me).
  • 5. "Links to web pages that exist primarily to sell products or services...." In this case, that is memberships in the organization.
The Six of One page fails both of these. Hence, I did not restore it when I did three others that Ckatz had deleted at the same time. Can we now drop SoO and try to get some justification for deleting those other three, or an admission that there is none so we can restore them? --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You are free to urge the replacement of the other links but not the Six of One link in the subthread you started above. In this subthread I am urging (first) the replacement of the Six of One link. The detailed justification which had been given for removing the Six of One link was that a) it failed WP:ELNO #11 because b) Six of One is non-notable. There are indeed other possible justifications for omitting the Six of One link. After we (hopefully) reach consensus that Six of One is notable and thus that the original justification was wrong, then we can consider any other, different justifications that anyone wishes to give. I think it's best to take things in stages here.
Therefore, just now: do you agree, not to the general position that a 6o1 link should be restored, but to the specific sub-point that 6o1 is notable? Does everyone else now agree that Six of One is notable? [unsigned comment posted by User: RW Dutton]
In its present form, Six of One is not notable, therefore linking to its present website is not acceptable, for the reasons rehearsed above. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Believe that Six of One is notable, they do seem a dedicated "appreciation society," and the main guy in The Prisoner accepted the honorary presidency that is in itself notable isn't it? On the other side, they do not seem to provide a lot of information on their website. But maybe they're old-school, you got to contact them etc. I don't know that Fred Flintstone has endorsed it but "A Flintstones World" sits unchallenged in the Flintstones article's External links. Support 6o1 inclusion. RomaC (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>The test here is whether "6 of One" would provide a resource which would be "unnecessary if the article were a featured article"- this, to me, is putting the cart before the horse. I have several publications from 6 of One which contain detail unavailable elsewhere, and certainly, since they are committed, appear to have made every attempt to investigate the detail required by the article if it were featured; and paradoxically, if we cited their works, I think this could be a featured article if we only include their information (painstakingly gathered over the last 40+ years), and avoid the fancruft. On the other hand, unmutual.co.uk, as far as I am aware is a "splinter group", but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their factual information, as opposed to their opinions. We should *not* be playing politics between opposing factions here. Simple as that. Be seeing you. Rodhullandemu 00:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RW Dutton: "The detailed justification which had been given removing the Six of One link was that a) it failed WP:ELNO #11 because b) Six of One is non-notable."
I previously categorically denied that any such thing was said and that my own stated reasons for going along with the deletion were quite different. I stand by that, and ignoring it and pretending reality is something else will not make it so. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to the question at hand whether Six of One is notable as it earns disqualification under other regs. One other thing: why did Dutton leave MY postings off when he reproduced "the relevant earlier discussion from Talk:Ckatz"?
Most of RomaC's comment goes along with my statement that actual enforcement of the regs as given would result in almost every external link (at least in the pop-culture oriented articles, with which I am most familiar) would have to go, and there is too wide a consensus that there's nothing wrong with many of them, especially the IMDb and AllMovie pages having labor-saving formats in Wiki's programming for posting them. Concerning McGoohan's acceptance of SoO's honorary presidency, he did so long before my nephew's wife was born, and the organization has deservedly fallen into disrepute in the last decade or so. It is their current page which is under debate now. And, yes, it is the page that the link leads to, not the organization itself, which is under discussion here.
Rodhullandemu deals with reg #1, but I say #5 is the one that really does in SoO here. The primary purpose of that page is to get people to buy memberships in their organization, which is squarely in conflict with #5, quoted by me previously; just scroll up a bit.
I say that the deletion of SoO's link is beyond reasonable dispute and strongly request that the discussion move over to the other three. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
So I'll deal with 6 of One wrt. ELNO#5. Paradoxically, www.sixofone.org.uk is a commercial organisation, but it links to www.sixofone.co.uk, which claims to be the non-profit website, and although they have a "Merchandise" tab, it's by no means clear that their principal purpose is commercial, despite the ".co.uk"; hence I don't regard the debate on that website as that clear. Rodhullandemu 21:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The clear primary purpose of the web page that the link in dispute led to is to sell memberships in the organization. Period. And the word "commercial" is not to be found in the reg. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Depends which link you are referring to. I mentioned two. If one link is objectionable, per policy, why cannot the other one be linked when there is a clear distinction between the two? Shouldn't we be trying to reach some sort of consensus here? Rodhullandemu 22:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Six of One link that was on the page and that Ckatz removed from it. That's the only SoO link that is and can be under discussion here. And I'm really beginning to wonder about your definition of "consensus." --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you are addressing me here, my definition of consensus is "the result of constructive discussion to try to reach an agreement on how best to improve this encyclopedia". That activity necessitates some give and take, and discussion of alternatives which may not hitherto have been considered. If that is not a reasonable definition of "consensus", either you are or I am in the wrong place. Rodhullandemu 20:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"That activity necessitates some give and take...." No, not necessarily, not in a world where adhering to facts & common sense and settling a dispute on its own merits out-weigh being concerned about hurting somebody's feelings and never insisting that someone admit their position is wrong, no matter how wrong it is. However, that was what I suspected you meant, i.e., you expected me to compromise my well-taken position just so you could avoid giving up entirely on yours. Doesn't deserve to happen here and it isn't going to. "Consensus" is everybody agreeing to the correct solution, when one exists, as this is "how best to improve the encyclopedia," and one does exist here. You say there is another SoO link, but the fact of the matter here is that we are talking about the ONE that was on this article and was removed by Ckatz, which I have clearly demonstrated falls afoul of Wiki regs for External links. If you include the other one in your next post here, we can all take a look at the page and decide if it in fact is acceptable, but as yet it is not on the proverbial table. Deal with the topic that is actually under discussion, which is the group of four links that Ckatz removed from the page. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression that you are somewhat unused to negotiating consensus here; "hurting someone's feelings" doesn't enter into the equation, since WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL tend to militate against that. I'm NOT intending you "compromise your position", "well-taken" or not; I'm suggesting you widen the perspective to take into account issues other than the group of four links that Ckatz removed from the page. - limiting discussion thus is myopic and unlikely, in my view, to result in a full and frank discussion relating to improving this article. Whereas I've already mentioned the relevant websites, for the avoidance of doubt, here it is, open to review and up for grabs. Now, I would prefer to exercise due diligence in improving this article, which is the whole purpose of a Talk page- I don't think it helpful to artificially limit that debate to "what is on the table", when, in any article, no one person has full access to all potentially relevant information- however, when such information is promulgated, it deserves to be given due consideration and not cast aside as "not being on the table". I'll reiterate- I have a number of publications from "Six of One" that do not necessarily depend on their content being on their website- however, if it is, that satisfies those too lazy to take a personal trip to the British Library, which, by law, has copies of them for public inspection. ISBN+website = AGF reference. Rodhullandemu 22:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pure rubbish. Like it or not, Rod, the topic under discussion here IS those links deleted by Ckatz, not the External links section in general, nor anything else about the article; it is that specific, most talk page thread topics in my experience are that specific, and there's nothing wrong with that, nor is it the least bit "artificially limit"ing. Indeed, I get the feeling that you are trying to change the subject because you don't want an agreement that Ckatz was wrong to remove those links (or perhaps that he can be wrong about anything) to be reached. You are both administrators here, after all. Furthermore, the fact that you have "mentioned the websites" is absolutely unhelpful, unless you are arrogant enough to think that your blank assertion is supposed to be beyond being questioned, which your phrasing here strongly suggests. ("Whereas I've already mentioned the relevant websites, for the avoidance of doubt, here it is [←as link], open to review and up for grabs." That certainly sounds as if you feel that you are demeaning yourself by providing supportive evidence of your statement.)

As for civility, this is an encyclopedia project, and anybody who thinks that in that context civility is far more important than getting the facts as accurate as possible, is (to use your words from earlier) "in the wrong place." Those two regs you linked in are literally irrational, lacking in rationality. So is "no personal attacks," or at least the extremely strict way it has generally been enforced. I have explained this to several people, all undoubtedly administrators, who simply disappeared from the discussion which they had inserted themselves into to accuse me of violating one or more of them. No further comment made or action taken against me, even though I usually used the word "irrational." There's no sane way to interpret that but that they saw my point, agreed with it, and dropped their complaint, and it is just a matter of time before I've convinced enough of them so that those regs will be rewritten into more reasonable forms for the good of the encyclopedia. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, obviously I disagree. When sources are up for discussion, as is improving the article, nothing should be excluded from consideration, in my view. I'll set out my stall here, for once and for all: The Prisoner is a notable television program from 1967 whose influence persists until the present day. It has been the subject of academic analysis and more than a few Ph.D. theses. The only reason people have "dropped out" of this debate is that perhaps they feel they have better things to do than argue the toss with people who just aren't tuned in. That isn't uncommon here on Wikipedia, in my experience. Sad though it is, most of us have other things to do. I'll give an example: in December last year, episodes of The Prisoner were being reshown on UK television; and looking at our coverage, I considered it deficient, and contemplated working towards not only a portal, but even a Featured Portal. That would have meant getting most, if not all, of the related articles, to Good Article status. However, my time here is limited, and was diverted to other things. That project is still on my vast "TODO" list, but if you want to join in to make this happen, please feel free so to do. Until then, what is wrong with this source, or any of the published analyses of this topic? Rodhullandemu 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This thread was launched for the specific purpose of deciding the dispute over Ckatz's removal of four items from the External links list, and for absolutely nothing else. Until and unless that is settled nothing else is relevant to this particular thread. Once it is, debating the acceptability of other links is fine and dandy, but not before. Disagreeing with that is not a reality-based option. You have attempted to justify dropping the actual topic here with talk about the general good of the article, but that has no bearing as to what is and is not relevant to this one thread. I have no idea what "...arguing the toss with people who just aren't tuned in" means at all, but it is obvious that you aren't tuned in to the actual topic of this thread or to the actual content of my statements. I said absolutely nothing about people dropping out of "this debate" (emphasis mine), nor anything sanely open to such interpretation (don't get me wrong—now that you mention it, I fully concede that you and I do indeed appear to be alone here now, but I say that it is your fault for not letting the actual question be dealt with). If you are as opposed to discussion of the actual issue at hand as you fully appear to be, then I submit that, to again echo your own earlier comment, it is you who are "in the wrong place" and I highly recommend that you get out. Start a new thread on this page about your "other" Six of One link, certainly, but it is not relevant in this one, at least not at this time. Any further postings to this thread from you that do not discuss the actual topic here as it exists at that time (to allow for future evolution, of course) will be deleted without comment. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, deal. You do what you like with the external links, and I'll come back and sort it out when my projected workload permits. That should be, at current estimates, in October: 2010. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Given the brevity and the point of the above (especially the brevity), I'll not remove it but deal with it.
"Ownership"? Totally inapplicable. I described the situation in such fundamental and direct-to-the-point terms that I left you with no room to argue that the topic of this thread was anything but what it is and that your attempts to justify talking about something else on this thread were anything but invalid (as they implied I was saying your point shouldn't be discussed at all, when I was certainly saying no such thing), and since (for whatever reason) you are incapable of admitting to any or all of that, you post a pile of you-know-what and fly off in a huff. You'll do anything but deal with the reality of the situation. Just so long as you and your obstructive and disruptive behavior are gone from here. (Note to other administrators: I am dealing with the reality of his behavior. It is his fault, not mine, that that reality is not nice, not pleasant, etc. He absolutely WAS obstructive—he blocked the actual topic of this thread from being discussed: "obstruct"—and disruptive—the obstructiveness caused everyone else to leave this discussion: "disrupt"—so fault him for doing it instead of me for pointing out the fact that he did it. His behavior was detrimental to the encyclopedia and should not be tolerated at all. To echo Thomas Jefferson, "It's true whether I say so or not; I might as well say so.")
Now, does anybody want to discuss those four external links deleted by Ckatz? --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Original reception and growth of cult popularity.

I think it is worth mentioning that during and after its original screening on ITV it was generally regarded as a complete turkey. No-one knew what the hell it was supposed to be about. I think also that fact that its original showing was in black and white considerably detracted from its aesthetic value.

It was only when the series was repeated in the 1970s by some ITV regions as a late-night regional filler (now being shown in colour) that its cult status began to grow. It was repeated in such a late slot in the London ITV region in 1971 and 1977. (86.159.239.102 (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Map

Is it possible for someone to place a map of the island in the article. Also more explination of number 1.--Cooly123 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

No map exists to be put up, partially because there is no guarantee that The Village is on an island unto itself (just the aerial shot at the climax of "Many Happy Returns" the legitimacy of which is open to debate), and partially because The Village has its own article. As for Number One, again very little information exists to be put into the article. Ambiguity was the name of the game here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:09, 2 January

2010 (UTC)

  • There is a map in Dave Rogers Dangerman/The Prisoner book which looks like the one in the TV series and I have one bigger than A3 size made for one of the 6 of 1 groups. It is big but the print is so small it would not reproduce to be readable.REVUpminster (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about, the one in the store.--Cooly123 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Given how strict Wikipedia has become with regards to using copyrighted material, I can't imagine the map would be allowed here anyway. We might be able to get away with a screen capture from the scene in Arrival where Number 6 unfolds the map in the shop. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste the time and effort for here. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cancellation?

The section "Origin and production" ends with a paragraph reading in its entirety: "There is debate as to whether the series ended by mutual agreement or cancellation." This is followed by footnote link number 10, which leads to the following text: "In a 1977 interview McGoohan said, 'I thought the concept of the thing would sustain for only seven, but then Lew Grade wanted to make his sale to CBS, I believe, and he said he couldn't make a deal unless he had more, and he wanted 26, and I couldn't conceive of 26 stories, because it would be spreading it very thin, but we did manage, over a weekend, with my writers, to cook up ten more outlines, and eventually we did 17, but it should be seven...' According to The Prisoner: The Official Companion to the Classic TV Series by Robert Fairclough, the series was indeed cancelled, forcing McGoohan to write the concluding episode, 'Fall Out', in only a few days." In the 1977 interview McGoohan contradicts this: '...it got very close to the last episode and I hadn't written it yet. And I had to sit down this terrible day and write the last episode..."

First of all, shouldn't all this—in general theory—be in the main text itself, as the rest of that currently brief paragraph? Since it constitutes synthesis and/or original research (only the quotes themselves are cited, not the conclusions drawn from them), its inclusion is dubious anyway. Furthermore, it does not support the initial passage, but rather than documenting that such described debate exists it merely presents supposed evidence that could be cited in such a debate. Worst of all, it even fails to do that! I do not see how the last quote from McGoohan contradicts the one from Fairclough; don't see that at all. That "terrible day" when McGoohan "had to...write" the finish could well have come because Grade pulled the proverbial plug, a finale had been previously promised by the star, and he was contractually obligated to come up with it now. Maybe more from one, the other, or both would demonstrate contradiction, but as the quotes stand, it just isn't there. Besides, the published script collection includes two Prisoner teleplays that were never filmed and two more story synopses not scripted, which contradicts the first McGoohan quote, unless somebody wants to challenge the authenticity of that material. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  • From what I understand it was meant to be 7 episodes then the Americans wanted more after the first six had been filmed but not broadcast. More episodes produced causing a second location shoot at Portmerion. Then they suddenly cancelled the series after it began being broadcast and Mcgoohan wrote the last episode which caused the Leo Mckern shaving scene because he had a beard when filming what was to become episode 16 (originaly 6) and the last, episode 17 some months later when he was clean shaven.REVUpminster (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The first thirteen episodes filmed (identifiable by George Markstein's credit as script editor) were done straight through, not just six to start. The later Portmeirion location shoot(s) (it remains debated whether there was one or two) was second unit type stuff—no sound recording, no major actors other than McGoohan, albeit a double for John Sharpe ("Change of Mind"'s #2) and maybe one or two others. All accounts that I'm aware of have the first thirteen episodes "in the can" after a full year, and then a decision to make just four more instead of another thirteen (which at least would explain the two unfilmed scripts and two unscripted synopses). "Once Upon a Time" according to this was supposed to be #13 out of 26, but the fact that not just the script in the recent collection but the extract in the White & Ali book on the series back in 1988 ends the way we see it (Bald Supervisor: "What Do you desire?" / Prisoner: "Number One." / Supervisor: "I'll take you."), which would have been a reshoot to make it the sixteenth episode, works against that. The McKern barbering scene really proves only two things, how much time passed between shooting "Once Upon a Time"" and "Fall Out", and how little preparation time the latter was given, neither of which has ever been disputed from any claimed production history's perspective. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Portmeirion, North Wales

RomaC, That sentence certainly needed simplified. I've been to Portmeirion but I've never heard of that village with the 'hard to pronounce' name. And you are right to remove the justification for the location because nobody has ever doubted that it was filmed in Portmeirion in North Wales. We didn't have to wait till the 17th episode to find that out. As for mentioning the hotel, do remember that many scenes took place out on the sands beyond. I try to keep the sentences simple and easy to read. I thought that the original sentence was a bit top heavy. David Tombe (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, I made more edits so the sentence is shorter now than it was hope this is ok with involved editors. Agreed I don't think we have to make long mention of the 17th episode location credit when we can just as easily tack on a source (NYT) saying that location establishment filming was done on the hotel grounds. As a Prisoner fan but not quite a fanatic, I was interested to find out where the series was filmed, would like to visit Portmeirion one day. Cheers RomaC (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I put the location credit there, in quotes and identified as such, because people kept taking out the basic info claiming that it was wrong (some even saying that the place is not a hotel!). Once I did that, they left it alone. That David Tombe has "never heard of that village" doesn't offset the fact that the people who made the program included it in the credit. In all that I've read about this series (which is huge) nobody, absolutely not one single soul, has ever disputed the accuracy or legitimacy of that credit; I wouldn't have been surprised if someone had claimed that it was some sort of joke or something by McGoohan, David Tomblin, or whoever, but nobody ever has. No-effing-body! Also, David Tombe's "We didn't have to wait till the 17th episode to find that [i.e.,the location] out" is invalid, as the original viewing audiences (pluralized for various countries) certainly did, but of course outside Western Europe, possibly even merely beyond the British Isles, the credit didn't mean anything to most of them. I'll wait for a response here before I restore it in the interests of accuracy, but you'll have quite a job to talk me out of it. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Oops! I didn't notice that RomaC had already put it back. Sorry! --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbrittreid, I think that you have misunderstood my position. I wasn't disputing anything. I know exactly where the village with the 'hard to pronounce' name is on the map. Portmeirion sits about halfway between that village and Porthmadog. I sat and watched that series in black and white on 405 lines over the winter of 1967/68 and everybody was fully aware of the fact that the location was Portmeirion in North Wales before the final episode. The only point that I was making here is that an encyclopaedia article needs to be concise and easy reading in these respects, and I was suggesting that Portmeirion, North Wales gave all the information that anybody really needs to know in order to track the location down. I was merely saying that the original sentence was top heavy and I wanted to emphasize Portmeirion itself over the head of the village with the 'hard to pronounce' name, because the TV series took place actually in Portmeirion and not in nearby the village with the 'hard to pronounce' name. But I'm not going to make an issue of it. As for whether or not it's a hotel, it may well be a hotel. I visited the place back in 1987 and I don't recall it being a hotel, but it may well have been a hotel and I didn't notice. David Tombe (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been there circa 1985 and it was a hotel and McGoohan used to holiday there after discovering it when filming the 30 min Danger Man exteriors and the owner Clough-Ellis did not want it's location revealed publicly until the last episode of The Prisoner. It's discovery probably comes down to a location scout working on the TV series. REVUpminster (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the location must have been leaked to the general public prior to the showing of the final series. How could it have been kept secret? David Tombe (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And yes, that is an important point in its own right, whether the information leaked or not, and so I have added a special sentence to emphasize it. David Tombe (talk) 09:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

REVUpminister, Your comments have made me think more about the matter, and you may have triggered off a distant memory. I do now vaguely remember something about people being surprised to find out that the location was North Wales and not Italy. Memory can play tricks, and it's quite possible that once I got it into my head that it was in Portmeirion, North Wales, that I quickly forgot that I hadn't been aware of that fact while watching the series the first time round in 1967/68. Maybe the secret didn't leak out as I had earlier claimed, although it must have leaked ot to at least some degree. At any rate, I have now put in a special sentence to cater for this interesting piece of information. David Tombe (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone seems to think that the link to the Unmutual doesn't merit a place, since it was deleted with no comment. Though it's undeniably amateur and a fansite, it's nevertheless one of the very few sites with useful information and commentary on the series, much salvaged from defunct websites and more formal publications that cannot be found anywhere else. And while reviewing this I noticed that The Prisoner at FOX Portugal was only about the remake, so I deleted that link. Barsoomian (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Unmutual fails WP:ELNO #11 - there is no evidence of the site being an authority. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read the site, it's clear that it is an "authority", despite the amateurish layout. Not because it is officially sanctioned (though it seems to have the good will of many involved with the original show) , but many of the articles there are unique and informative. WP:ELNO says "NORMALLY" to be avoided. That means that it is not an absolute prohibition, one can use one's judgement. Having reviewed the site, I will say that it has much more relevant information than any "authoritative" site. However, since inflexible bureaucratic types seem determined to remove any such content, and I don't want to be fighting them forever, I will simply add the link to the Unmutual News archive which are all "verifiable". Barsoomian (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. An example of an allowable "fan site" (the exception) is like Memory Alpha or Lostpedia, sites that have been around a long time, sites that have a extremely large user base, and so forth. There is no evidence that the Unmutual has either aspect, and thus is inappropriate, despite how verifiable their information may be. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And you're missing my point. The news archive is completely verifiable by any criterion. The Unmutual site has been around for 6 years at its current domain, and earlier on a Tripod site. Of course the fan bases for Trek and Lost are huge, ridiculous to compare that with this show of one series broadcast over 40 years ago. Anyway, the news articles are verifiable, these are mostly "official" news releases and articles from the press. You cannot get more verifiable. Barsoomian (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, just because a site hosts news articles doesn't mean it passes. It is still a fan site. And in some cases, I see they are copying the articles to their server completely, which is edging copyvio problems. There's no problem using the links of the news stories as passed through the site to fill out this article, but it both inappropriate and unnecessary to link that here. This is standard practice for fan sites, period. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
(I came here because of a post at WP:ELN) I have to agree with Masem here. That site does not meet the extremely narrow exception for fan sites of extremely high and long-lasting value. I'm perfectly willing to agree that the site Barsoomian wants to add is the "best" Prisoner fansite. However, almost every series, band, movie, etc., has a "best" fansite; nonetheless, we don't allow links to those. It is very likely that no Prisoner fan site could ever rise to the level required by WP:ELNO, simply because, as you point out, the show doesn't have a large enough fan base. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh wonderful. Now I've been labelled a "user trying to force an inappropriate link". Thanks for that characterisation. Now you've called your gang here to back you up no hope of any flexibility. Congratulations, article successfully sterilized. Barsoomian (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

While I do believe that Masem probably would have been better off using a different title on WP:ELN, my analysis is based strictly on the guidelines found in WP:ELNO. Please note he's not calling a gang--it is standard procedure when 2 editors disagree about an external link and they're getting nowhere, to bring the discussion to WP:ELN--that is, in fact, the whole purpose of that noticeboard. There are other noticeboards for other topics like reliable sources, original research, etc. The people that watch the noticeboards tend to work very closely with the policy/guidelines in question. We're not a "gang"; for instance, as far as I can remember, I've never interacted with Masem before (although I may have without knowing it--I don't always watch the names of other contributors).Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And my analysis was based strictly on what would produce the best article about "The Prisoner". Of course the people who watch WP:ELN will see enforcing WP:ELNO as the primary, and really only, issue they're interested in. So call it a posse, rather than a gang. I've been in the situation before when someone posts an "Alert" on one of these noticeboards and editors descend on an article to lay down the law. Result: Bến Tre. Barsoomian (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia articles. Our purpose is not to provide any and all information related to a topic. Similarly, our responsibility is not to provide links to interesting, even useful websites that may be of interest to people reading about the topic. WP:NOT is policy, whether or not you think that makes the "best possible" article. WP:ELNO helps us interpret WP:NOT in the context of external links. And your assertion that the link would make it a "better article" is your opinion, unfounded by that policy and guideline. In my opinion (which happens, in this case to coincide with policy/guidelines), external links in general decrease the quality of articles, except for very special circumstances. If readers want general information about a topic, they can search for it in Google, et. al. If they want encyclopedic information, they can look here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't misunderstand. I disagree. And I understand that you and others summoned by Masem's call to arms have the numbers, so you win. Barsoomian (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia wins, so you win too. WP:ELNO don't allow fan sites of any sort: good, bad, or otherwise. Since it's a press release, can you reference the press release without referencing the fan site? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"WP:ELNO don't allow fan sites of any sort": no, it discourages them, not prohibits. Those who tend to delete, who haunt WP:ELN looking for problems they can "solve" by deleting, use it as a blunt weapon.Barsoomian (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd certainly dispute Masem's statement (in the discussion on WP:ELN) that the site in question fails "most of WP:ELNO". At most, it fails item 11 in a long list of criteria, as it isn't the site of a "recognised authority" on the subject - though what would count as such an authority in the specific context of The Prisoner I'm at a loss to know. My own view is that the link is acceptable in this context, (the discussion is about the whole content of the site, which is a very useful compendium of articles about The Prisoner, and not just about one press release) and also to the Portmeirion article, however as the consensus seems to be that it fails WP standards and another user has removed it from Portmeirion too, I've removed from Portmeirion three other fanlinks which have essentially the same problem.Ghughesarch (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Can the press release be referenced without using the fan site? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
As I noted above, the issue isn't about a press release, but about the value of The Unmutual site as a whole to the subject.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
After reviewing the site, although it's rather neat, it's not notable enough be used as a source in-and-of-itself. And, as has been pointed out, a lot of the articles are actually from other sources which should be cited directly. DonQuixote (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't being suggested as as a "Source" but an "External link". It doesn't need to be "notable" to be used as that, in my opinion. Not even allowing it as an "External link" makes it harder for future editors to find the articles it includes that everyone seems to agree are themselves worthy of citing. I'm not enough of Prisoner fan to spend the time doing it myself, but I thought, and still think, it is a useful resource that is being excluded for pettifogging reasons. Barsoomian (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If you can show that it's a notable website that should be included in the external links, thn go ahead and do so. DonQuixote (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've already made my case. The WP:ELN squad will revert me immediately. So it would be completely futile.Barsoomian (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To be completely honest, your argument is a little weak. You need enough to convince other people that the above site is notable enough to be included in external links. DonQuixote (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't. Barsoomian (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Then...no one else will believe that the site is notable. DonQuixote (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll never convince the WP:ELN crew no matter what I say, they reduce it to "fan site= delete", and there aren't enough people following this actually interested in the content of the article to outweigh them. I've already spent hours and been patronised and implied to be a spammer for simply trying to improve an article by inserting one helpful link; I'm very, very sick of this and won't respond to you again.Barsoomian (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2010
(UTC)

Hello! As webmaster of the site in question, feel free to ask any questions regarding it's "notability" (whatever that means). The website has got an average of over 10000 "hits" per week since it's .co.uk launch in 2003. It is the largest (with over 2000 pages) Prisoner website on the net, and AFAIAA the most visited. It is to my knowledge the only Prisoner website which has members of the original cast and crew as its regular contributors, other "recognised authorities" who write/contribute the items published by the site include Robert Fairclough, Steven Ricks, Howard Foy, David Jones, and just about every other recognised authority on the series. It is the only website to have held officially sanctioned "Prisoner" events in Portmeirion within the last 10 years. Whether these things makes it notable I have no idea. In answer to 2 incorrect points above, the website is not a "splinter group" - it is a website (not sure how some pixels in cyberspace can be a group of people so that was a very odd comment), and nothing is reproduced from elsewhere (such as PR etc) unless the site is requested to do so.

Whether it is notable I have no idea, and I do not know what the official definition of "fan site" is (it is I suppose a site for fans to read, but so is the BBC).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.206.201 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Six of One notable enough for Wiki?

Can I put a word in about Six of One? I think they were notable as they had a shop in Portmerion in The Prisoner House (now closed). They produced books. I have one by Max Hora "The Prisoner of Portmerion", 1985, which could be used as a reference for it's info. Whether the site has fallen into disrepute, I would not like to say but often with fansites/fanclubs as old as this one people move on.REVUpminster (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the current state of the 6o1 site does not impress me but I believe it is hard to deny that they have a notable history, and yes if you hook up with them you can explore this iconic TV series in some (extreme? obsessive?) depth. That is what inclines me to support inclusion of 6o1 in the external links section -- but I'm not fanatic about this . . .RomaC (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked at the site and it is very commercial, but it did link through to a comprehensive episode guide which made the search worthwhile. None of the books I remember they produced were advertisedREVUpminster (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We have to be clear here between [[3]], which despite its name looks to me like a commercial site. This site], on the other hand, looks to me like the more analytical source. However, that aside, I have the original "6 of One" publications by Max Hora and Roger Langley at my disposal, as well as the Ali/White book. Let's be quite clear here: we are not talking about some transient, shallow, fancruft. Although opinions may vary within the "Prisoner universe", at least we have a corpus of opinion that is committed to intelligent discussion of the topic at hand. Furthermore, somewhere (if I can put my hand on it), I have a set of lecture notes from a Canadian Professor of Sociology who used "The Prisoner" as a paradigm of (then) modern society. All in all, I think we must listen to those who have actually taken the time to consider this programme in its context, and deal with their comments appropriately. That, obviously, does not include ignoring those have made themselves closest to the issues, particularly McGoohan himself. Meanwhile although "6o1" are fans, they are not uncritical fans- they are on a par with trainspotters, but are actually better sources that those less interested and informed. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a big difference between the organization itself and its website(s), and the latter is what's being linked in. What SoO did in decades gone by does not outweigh the reputation it has carried for a good ten years. --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been rendered moot. The page that Rodhullandemu supports apparently no longer exists, as the link redirects to the other Six of One site, which he agrees "seems commercial." In fact, his links show the same address on the task bar. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Having created the village in a 3d medium, created, funded and paid for by myself and my tenants I am a bit irritated to find my link has also been removed from this page - if Six of One is to be restored - I would like The Village Second Life and Unmutual restored to this page.----


One interesting thing about the 6of1 site that no one is commenting on, is the fact that they propose alternative ordering of the episodes, which I would propose as an interesting topic in itself. They claim that McGoohan's original ordering of the episodes is different from that broadcast originally and propose other orderings based on this. I wonder if anyone can substantiate any of this, and if in fact Mcgoohan proposed other orderings of the episodes than those originally broadcast, I feel that this would be content worthy of including in our encyclopedia page, as it affects possible future interpretations of the series...Bob Doubles (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Allegory for what?

I think it would be more helpful if you tell the readers what The Prisoner is an allegory for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning April 16, 1966

Concerning April 16, 1966

Hello

I am posting material here concerning an edit to 'The Prisoner: Origins and Productions' section. This concerns the placement of the date of April, 16 1966 as the date that Patrick McGoohan 'pitched' to Lew Grade the summation of The Prisoner TV show (detailed in the 'Troyer interview', cited in the body of the article (7).

I will look forward to your input.

Sincerely

A Contributor

Hello CKatz

I have made an editorial contribution of a verifiable date (April 16, 1966) concerning the production period of The Prisoner (TV 1967) and have included the source as the "Daily Express' article by the reporter Martin Jackson. This has been removed. In that this is a verifiable source that adds new information to the body of the article (The Prisoner: Origins and Production) I would like to know upon what basis this has been removed. If you need, as an editor, to verify this for yourself you can do so at the digital archive UK Press Online.

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Sincerely

A Contributor

Hello Fellow Contributor/Editor

Here is an example of how the edit was presented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Prisoner&diff=432227037&oldid=432207552

I look forward to your comments.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In the article, titled 'Danger Man To Quit', Jackson states: 'Now McGoohan has put up a new TV idea to ATV’s managing director Lew Grade. He (McGoohan) said: “It is another adventure series but a very different sort of character. It promises to be very exciting. Mr. Grade said: Mr. McGoohan is coming to see me tomorrow to discuss the details. We hope to start work on the new series in October.'

I don't know why Ckatz removed it, but I removed it for a variety of reasons. For one, I don't see anything in that quotation that verifies that this information is connected to The Prisoner; that's worrisome. Second, The Daily Express is a tabloid journal, thus meaning it isn't necessarily a reliable source (we could check this on WP:RSN if needed). Third, the information is extremely vague; it simply says, if accurate, that McGoohan was planning a new television show, and a small amount about the "style" of the show; to me, that means it's not very important information. Finally, if we do decide that information from that interview is worth including, it needs to be rewritten--we don't call people "Mr."; it's unclear what part is a direct quotation, and we need a full citation (specifically, a page number). To be honest, I'd actually like to see the complete article before including, although I know that's not really an easy request with such an old article. But, I'd like to hear what others have to say. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have concerns that this user is editing largely out of the desire to promote fan questions over the creators of the series. Based on this IP's initial edits, there is a focus on raising questions as to whether or not a certain individual did create the idea, and an attempt to use sources to argue that point. --Ckatzchatspy 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

The addition of a historical (and verifiable) date about the origins and the production of The Prisoner is the sole intention of the edit, the article currently has no such date, it would be a self apparent valuable addition. Martin Jackson was a recognized Fleet Street show business reporter at the time of the reporting, the ability the confirm the date is not in question.

I have given the means through the UK Press Online (official digital archive for the Daily Express) to confirm or access more of the news item for any editor who wishes to do so.

The suggestion of removing the "Mr." from a verifiable journalistic quote would amount to vandalizing the quote and diminish the ability to authenticate it. The page number is included in one of the edits as "pg.12" (see below). The quotes are in the exact sequence they occur in the news item.

'Suspicion' of an editor does not alter the veracity of a verifiable date that would add clarity to the content of the article.

Here is my suggestion to add the edit to the body of the article:

These events occurred on April 16, 1966. [8]

[8]Daily Express' April 16, 1966, pg. 12 written by reporter Martin Jackson in the article, titled 'Danger Man To Quit', Jackson states: "Now McGoohan has put up a new TV idea to ATV’s managing director Lew Grade. He (McGoohan) said: “It is another adventure series but a very different sort of character. It promises to be very exciting. Mr. Grade said: Mr. McGoohan is coming to see me tomorrow to discuss the details. We hope to start work on the new series in October."

The above is a reconstruction of how I had once presented the edit in the article, this can be confirmed through the edit history of "The Prisoner": "Origins and Production" section. This would then be a simple matter of restoring the edit as presented.

Thank you for your observations. I hope this moves the process of adding this valuable date to the body of the article forward.

I look forward to your prompt replies.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First, on the "Mr.", that's my mistake; I didn't realize that it was part of the quote; as such, if used, you are correct that it should not be changed. Regarding the article, I can't read it at ukpressonline--that page isn't available to people who don't pay for a subscription. That's fine, but we need more context from you then, since you can see it. Can you please explain or quote what information from that article explains that this quotation is related to The Prisoner? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Qwyrxian

The news item (by reporter Martin Jackson) is essentially about Patrick McGoohan retiring from the TV show 'Danger Man' as stated in the title 'Danger Man To Quit'. The material above the quote sequence, we are discussing, mentions the shows popularity,that the show was a "spy series", McGoohan's salary, that the show "had a very good run." This is all summarized by the comment: 'After four years as John Drake actor Patrick McGoohan said last night: “It’s time we turned it up.” The material, after the quotes, is about the closing of the 'Danger Man' production, mentioning such matters as the episode numbers, sales to America and filming of final episodes, all comments attributed to Lew Grade.

There is only one program that Patrick McGoohan was known to have pitched to Lew Grade at the time of his retirement from 'Danger Man' and that was 'The Prisoner' as corroborated by the quotes from the Warner Troyer interview contained in the wikipedia article as footnote number [7] in the Origins and Production section.

The wikipedia article lacks a date for the events described, which the news item entitled 'Danger Man To Quit' would supply.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for noting the issue of removing "Mr.".

I would point out again that anyone can view the news article at ukpressonline for confirmation as the 'subscription' is actually a '48 hour pass' at a nominal cost of about $12.00 US (approximately). 66.235.14.67 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem that I think we have is that if the article does not mentioned "The Prisoner" by name, we are engaging in original research to assume this article is talking about the show. I mean, its very intuitive that with the timing and what actually happened is that Patrick left Danger Man and directly went to Prisoner with no intervening roles but that's not explicitly stated, and approaches WP:SNYTH. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Masem here. I know, it's weird, because in "real life", the assumption that McGoohan was talking about the show that later became "The Prisoner" is reasonable and almost certainly true. Wikipedia, however, does not allow such an analysis, as it's a form of original research (SYNTH, which Masem linked, is a part of that). Because technically, for all we know, Masem McGoohan actually pitched 17 different shows during this period, and the one he talked about in the interview isn't the one he was actually able to produce later. So, unless we can verify that he's actually talking about "The Prisoner", I don't think this can be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I *wished* I pitched 17 different shows during that period... :) --MASEM (t) 01:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
At first I was like--what? Are you claiming to McGoohan? I thought he was dead? Then I went back and read what I wrote.... Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Martin Jackson, reporter for the Daily Express, considered a reliable source by wikipedia standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.234.26 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the Daily Express (and particularly the Daily Express as it was 45 years ago) should not be considered any less of a RS than any other newspaper. However, although the new series being referred to quite clearly must (from the context) be The Prisoner, it's OR to say so. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I actually searched the archives of WP:RSN about that; apparently, it can be considered reliable, particularly for entertainment information, although with "hard" news, we'd be better off with another source. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is, even if this source is 100% reliable, it does not mention The Prisoner show by name. It still remains synthesis to say McGoohan left Danger Man at the time given by this article to work on The Prisoner. We can use the article to say the McGoohan left Danger Man for another show, because that's a fact, and we can say that McGoohan was working on the Prisoner on such-a-such a date, but we just cannot say that he left Danger Man for the Prisoner based on this source alone. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
However, that information can't be added here; we would have to add it to Patrick McGoohan. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello editors

Yes, Qwyrxian, with the Daily Express and Martin Jackson as reliable sources we can now add an edit to the Origins and Productions section.

With the date of April 16, 1966 confirmed as the point in time that McGoohan had decided, along with Lew Grade to "turn up" Danger Man for "another show", not necessarily The Prisoner. It could possibly include the part where he presents such a concept to Lew Grade as proof of that.

I will work up a suggested edit from the news item and post it here for talk and proper formatting. The entire point is that we now have an opportunity as editors to put a date (April 16,1966) on the events in the article in proper context.

The information could be placed here and in Patrick McGoohan as the event of Danger Man coming to an end is mentioned in the body of the article,that deserves a date. I will try to work up an edit for both.

Sincerely

A Contributor

PS I posted the request for a reliable source check so we could move forward with this edit. I was at a different computer.

66.235.14.67 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're missing the points made above. This is still speculative, as evidenced by the fact that you proposed writing "It could possibly include the part...". We cannot speculate, and I would ask again why you are going to such great lengths to try to get this in. Based on some of your earlier posts, you appear to be a fan who is trying to build a case against George Markstein as co-creator for the series. Again, we cannot do that here; we can only report relevant facts. --Ckatzchatspy 05:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
And, again, you need to take this to Talk:Patrick McGoohan. Since that reference never mentions The Prisoner, and we have no evidence to think it has anything to do with The Prisoner, it cannot be here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTCH

Hello

I suggest you wait for my edit first before stating the relevance to either article.

Thank you for your patience.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Here is my suggested edit, the place in the article (in brackets) and the foot note:

[Shortly after the filming of the fourth series of Danger Man in colour had begun, McGoohan told Lew Grade of ITC Entertainment that he intended to quit.]

On April 16, 1966 Patrick McGoohan announced his intention to quit ‘Danger Man’. [ ]

[ ] Daily Express, April 16, 1966, pg.12 “Danger Man To Quit” by Martin Jackson: “Danger Man, one of television’s most successful spy series, is to end for good. After four years as special agent John Drake, actor Patrick McGoohan said last night: "It’s time we turned it up.”

I look forward to your suggestions.

Sincerely

A Contributor

PS The date is a relevant fact. 66.235.14.67 (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz

Don't confuse an editor's learning curve about wikipedia standards as "going to great lengths'. Streamlining an edit to fit the body of the article is what has been occurring. I would point out that even wikipedia experienced editors can make an honest mistake that can lengthen the talk. Pointing out to Qwyrxian that removing "Mr." would vandalize a news quote put us both on the same page and a focus on talk that has been constructive.The focus here is about the date April 16, 1966, not speculation on older edits that have been removed.

I hope this addresses your issue.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"A Contributor": I still think you don't understand. That date has no connection to The Prisoner. The article, as you say, does not assert one. Thus, the information should not be in this article. It really is that simple. Unless you can provide a different source that clearly states this was The Prisoner being discussed, we cannot include that here. No way that you edit it or rephrase the sentence can possibly change that. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Thank you for the insights and suggestions. They are very helpful to the the process of making the news item useful. I will take this to 'Patrick McGoohan' talk to see if the materials have application there, per suggestions.

What is understandable is that McGoohan quit "Danger Man" as part of his actions to produce The Prisoner and the news item reveals the date that he made that statement to quit to the press. That is why the edit would have been placed where suggested. However from what can be inferred from the OR rule there is a wonderful almost wave particle like effect here and it can not be acknowledged without the words 'The Prisoner' in the news item. The end result is Origins and Productions ends up with no date for the events even though one is knowable, weird, as one editor pointed out, but rather wonderful at the same time.

Thank you again.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Prisoner/Archive_3&oldid=1137240742"