Talk:The 4400

message: The following section of text was titled "Allusions to Scientology":
: The 4400 Center run by Jordan Collier seems intended to resemble the real-world Church of Scientology. The 4400 Center promises supernatural abilities to those who follow its training through for-pay courses, much as the Church of Scientology promises. At least one 4400 Center attendee has had his psychological medication confiscated, much as the Church of Scientology is opposed to psychology and its medications. The 4400 Center includes technological devices strapped onto its members during courses, similar to Scientology's E-Meters. The 4400 Center targets celebrities for inclusion and promotes them through the program faster than non-celebrity members; the Church of Scientology draws celebrities with its "Celebrity Centers". One former member of the 4400 Center accused it of making him take endless for-pay classes until he was bankrupted, at which point he was ejected from the program; Scientology has had similar accusations pointed at it. Also, similar to Scientology's Thetan levels, the 4400 Center has different Key levels to achieve.
Like "Allusions to Judeo-Christian texts", this appears to be original research; at the very least the claims here should be sourced. I have moved the section here until that is done. --82.18.13.80 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Allusions to Scientology'' all removed

message: The article a Anglo-American co-production has recently had citations and edits reflecting that reverted by two editors known to each other seemingly colluding. One editor is following my edits around Wikipedia reverting at will, they've been reported and I have corrected their malicious edits and reported it to staff. If anyone other than users DrMargi and AussieLegend (seem to have some sort of NPOV agenda) have any issue with 4400 not being a Anglo-American co production (as reflected by the citations) please leave your comments. 11:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it has been 12 months and no-one else has disagreed, the legitimate sources, both eminent authors confirm the show was a US-UK co-production along with numerous others citations, so I will re-add the UK tag. If drmargi and AussieLegend still have an issue irrespective of the source material we can take it further, regards. Twobells (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The burden is on you to gain consensus for the change.  You didn't have that consensus a year ago, and you don't have it now.  That you have what you describe as "eminent" (whatever that might be) authors doesn't mean that they are reliable sources; it's up to the community to make that determination.  You can't disregard the editors (at least three) who did revert you, claim "well, no one else objects so it's going back" and restart this edit war, particularly by trying to cherry-pick academic sources on tangentially related topics as a justification.  Let's be clear:  this is disruptive editing, and you MUST GAIN CONSENSUS before you restore your edit.  You don't have that.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: DrMargi, no-one is edit-warring, I waited a year for any other comments by editors who did not want the clearly uncontentious sources to be added, found further source material to back up the edits then added them, it was you who keeps reverting irrespective of the material, when you reverted I then added a second citation for your benefit, regards.Twobells (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Exactly that.  If you are reverted, that means an editor objects to your edit.  You claim no one objected, yet you were reverted over and over again, the status quo on the article was with the edit you want out, and when you attempted to force it back in with a self-serving rationale, I immediately reverted, thus renewing my objection.  The burden is now on you to gain consensus.  You can crow about the reliability of your sources all you care to, but the community must support that contention, and I do not.  --Drmargi (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But, you are not the community DrMargi and I do not think you are being fair by suggesting I am 'crowing' about the sources, I am trying to be as polite as possible and show you that your contention that the show is not a US-UK co-production is wrong as reflected by many sources. Also, why must you continue to attempt to suppress these facts as supported by the citations? Why are you trying to prevent the addition of clearly uncontentious, reliably sourced material? I don't want you to get upset and I am trying to understand what exactly the problem is with this?Twobells (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am, however, a member of it with an equal voice you're attempting to discount.  That's clear in the phrasing of your opening statement.  I'm not attempting to suppress anything.  I disagree with your edit, its nationalistic POV, and the reliability of your sources.  I have reverted accordingly.  That you must depend on such thin evidence should suggest to you that you're on thin ice; this program and others like it produced with some collaboration from a production company based in another country are still American productions.  The same is said of British productions co-produced by BBC America or PBS.  American entities maybe involved, but consensus on a number of articles is that it does not make them British-American productions.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I want you to explain here why these sources are 'unreliable' please and no, the consensus on other US-UK co-productions is actually that they are international co-productions for the most part with no country name in the lede and the countries involved is to be placed in the infobox. Also, how on earth are American authors confirming a show is an Anglo-American co-production 'nationalistic'? 'Thin Ice'? The reliable sources are numerous and strong, the entire industry knows that there are multiple international co-productions between the US and UK of which BSG and the 440 are two, is the Guardian 'thin ice'? is Variety 'thin ice'? Are numerous professors and doctors of Media studies all gliding on 'thin ice'?  Also, how can an editor be 'nationalistic' for adding the country of origin for a television show? I've seen some perverted angles but that takes the biscuit. I won't edit the article country of origin any more if you would please explain why you think these sources are 'unreliable', thanks. Twobells (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-UK Co-Production 

message: Formal request has been received to merge the articles Promicin, Promise City (The 4400), Haspel Corporation, The 4400 Center and Highland Beach (The 4400) into The 4400; dated: May 2018. Proposer's Rationale: These articles are about entities and locations from the show and are mostly plot, trivial stuff, and have barely any reliable references. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the original author of the Promicin and Haspel Corporation articles, created nearly a dozen years ago. You have no objection from me. They are indeed trivial and would be better suited inside the main show's page. Go for it. travisl (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Please be advised that the official website link directs to a page that no longer exists. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:7F11:700:AC6D:CD60:70A4:18C6 (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links