Talk:The Paradise Syndrome

message: I have removed this section; it appears I am not the first. It is entirely inappropriate and irrelevant in this venue. This is not the place for someone to push their political agenda under the guise of literary analysis. Please do not revert without discussion. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not remove cited material from an article without first discussing it on the article's talk page.  Discuss first, then remove after consensus is achieved.THD3 (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You must excuse me for not knowing standard protocol... it has been many years since I've made an edit here. I believe my latest action was acceptable. Now, please do something about it. The section is entirely unnecessary. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose removal: the analysis should stay, but some tweaking to the presentation could help things. Obviously, there's likely to not be a competing viewpoint to the analysis, if the other view doesn't think the matter worth commenting on—so the section will be inherently non-neutral. Additionally, the episode was subject to scholarly criticism, so that's worth noting in the article. I'm not sure Analysis is necessarily the best heading; Criticism, perhaps? —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it is inherently non-neutral is the very reason it should be removed. It is fit for a rant on someone's personal blog, not on an encyclopedia. Literary analysis is inherently non-neutral in itself as the profession tends to have a cohesive opinion about things; those with differing opinions generally find it hard to graduate. There is not likely to be a competing viewpoint because the other view doesn't hold PHDs in literature - it's a paradox. Also, please refrain from removing the tag until a consensus has been reached - your one comment does not count as a consensus. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose removal.  First, it's not a rant from a blog, it's a book from a notable academic publisher.  I agree that Criticism is a better heading than Analysis.  For the record, I disagree with the author's thesis, but the bottom line is that Wikipedia is not censored. There are numerous Wiki articles that have cited, critical statements about their subject, but a counterpoint from another valid source is warranted.THD3 (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Best to leave the POV tag on until a counterpoint has been added.THD3 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concede if there was a counterpoint, but I still say the section is unnecessary - it's not a matter of censorship, it just doesn't belong in this particular article. Surely there must be some article on the criticism of Star Trek - its general lack of political correctness is widely known. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis section

message: Does anyone know how to fix the article so the contents box is visible?THD3 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents

message: 10/18/2021 I am moving this discussion from my talk page in hopes that other editors may find references not already listed clarifying the location of the exterior shots for this episode. StarHOG (Talk) 14:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jim, thanks for starting a dialogue. The first reference, the LA Magazine article, specifically states that Paradise Syndrome was filmed at Hollywood Reservoir. Yours says Franklin Canyon. I don't know which is correct, but the Franklin Canyon reference doesn't negate the Hollywood Reservoir reference. Until one is proved wrong, they should both stay. As for TSoP at Bronson, yes, that was my mistake, I'll remove that. StarHOG (Talk) 13:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your diligence. If we could find some more references that point to one of the locations, that would help wash-out a single source pointing to a wrong location. I looked at the episode and pictures of both locations - it looks a lot like it was Franklin, not Hollywood. However, this method is flawed, as it constitutes original research on our part. Even if you've visited the reservoir (and it sounds like you have), your first hand knowledge is not accepted as a source in a wikipedia article. Nor is my opinion of the pictures, no matter how right we might be. StarHOG (Talk) 14:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Non, no, I have no allegiance to it. But let's say you didn't know it was wrong from going there. It was the source material for where the location was shot. Then another source gets added saying it was somewhere else. Which one is right? We as editors cannot use our personal experiences (lijke you visiting the reservoir) or knowledge (like me looking at the pictures and episode) to make decisions about what is right and wrong. We need more sources, or a source that says the LA article is flawed. That is my only allegiance, keeping the editing process pure. I have no doubt that the LA article is wrong, but that isn't good enough. StarHOG (Talk) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

text: That sounds fantastic. I can't wait to see the correction and the source material. Remember, I moved this discussion off my Talk page, there is no reason to post messages about this topic there. I also moved your comment down from the section above this, "contents" because I thought you placed it there in error. My apologies if I was mistaken. StarHOG (Talk) 03:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

text: If they really are dailys, then they can't be copyrighted. There is nothing creative about them. It's like a recipe. StarHOG (Talk) 01:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of exterior shots