Talk:Copper (TV series)

Page missing something

What characters are villians or quasi-villians in this series? Confederate spies? New York City/Five Points Confederate sympathizers who put money before patriotism? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of villains, but most have been settled with in one or two episodes, and mostly killed too (e.g., the two men who abused Annie). Robert is obviously playing the Confederates, and foiling their plot is probably going to be the finale. (The title is "A Vast and Fiendish Plot".) That was a real event: Confederate Army of Manhattan Barsoomian (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Does the show estabish dates?

I disgree with Drmargi.(see history) The show does establish dates, especially on the BCC America, the show's own website, go follow the link. Episode 8 actually declares its election day, in 1864 the first tuesday after the first monday was nov 8th. Even then for arguments sake, why not editing out the perceived mistakes, leave the rest as it is. This way you don't discourage people from actually contributing as I was trying to do. Svanriesen (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Granted, the show establishes one episode takes place on Election Day, 1864 and one on Thanksgiving Day, 1864, the second celebration of that holiday. But where are the other dates from? You provide no sources, and they're evenly spaced a week apart, which suggests they were your original research based on the assumption the episodes take place a week apart because they are broadcast a week apart. There's no foundation for that assumption, and regardless, you provide no evidence that allows a reader to verify the dates you provide. Moreover, once an edit is challenged, the practice is to discuss and refrain from any further edits until the disagreement is reconciled. I removed the whole thing because I found the summary incomplete; it discussed the events of the first minutes of the episode and nothing further. (BTW, in American English, it is customary to capitalize proper nouns such as Monday, Tuesday and November.) I'm sorry if you feel that discouraged you from editing, but bear in mind that every new editor is warned that their work is subject to revision; what's more, this is an encyclopedia, and there is no place for unsourced, unverifiable and speculative content. On the other hand, if the website has dates, provide a link to the page on the website that provides each date and you're good to go! --Drmargi (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Dates aren't explicitly mentioned in the show that I can recall. However, Svanriesen is correct, at BBCAmerica's season 1 guide, it does state dates for each episode, which seem to be consistent with real events mentioned, and should be a WP:RS. Barsoomian (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just go to the External links heading and follow the link to the official site (it's on the page),just follow Barsoomian's link. Granted I should have completed the summary before posting, as I was making the summary while watching at the same time. Revision is okay. As I do some revision myself. Svanriesen (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked up the episode summaries, and the dates are there, so that's fine. But you need to link each page online, not expect the reader to know where to go. Use the mark-up next to the date, and that's all it takes. Look elsewhere in the article, and you'll see plenty of examples. --Drmargi (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it okay to link actors directly to their imdb?

I was just wondering. Svanriesen (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really. IMDB is fan-submitted and not reliable, so we rarely use it. There's no need for external links. If the characters become notable enough, they'll have articles eventually, and can be linked.--Drmargi (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of argument. Isn't wikipedia itself sort of fan-submitted, with the added notion that when enough people accept it's true then it's true (peer review,(not exactly the true definition)) or when silence becomes acceptance. I think its reliability is in the eye of the beholder. What constitutes reliability? Peer review? Galileo would disagree. (just being philosophical) Svanriesen (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats far too philosophical for the day I have had. But, whatever is on a wikipedia page is a general consensus of a group of editors based on reliable sources. Because it's external and we as Wikipedia editors have no say in what is put on that site. I do believe that as and when they get a Wiki page of their own, a link is provided to their respective IMDB page if appropriate. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 20:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The argument of it being an external source that cannot be influenced or argued directly by wikipedians is a good one. Svanriesen (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I for one understand what you mean...Please elaborate.. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 21:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I mean the need for being careful when using such sources. Svanriesen (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. That is why forums and blogs aren't used and other similar sites to Wikipedia, IMDB, aren't used to reference statements/claims in articles. Because they can be edited by individuals. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 22:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to your post above, the issue is one of fact checking and accuracy. IMDB is a fan-submitted website for entertainment purposes with no system of fact-checking. This is an encyclopedia with minimum standards of reliability of sources and verifiability of content. I could go in the IMDB and change the description of Copper to say it's about miners in New Mexico, and in a couple of days, they'd post that, unchallenged. It would remain there until such time as someone noticed it's wrong and puts in a change, then waits for it to be changed. Worse, once something's in, it's difficult to get it out of the IMDB; there are errors in the IMDB that have stayed for years because they refuse to make changes. Consequently there is broad consensus on Wikipedia that the IMDB, along with TV.com, is not a reliable source. --Drmargi (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

First of course search to see if there's a WP article if not then you might add a reference (not a direct link) using Template:IMDb name,

e.g.: Kiara Glasco <ref>{{IMDb name|4825013|Kiara Glasco}}</ref>, which displays as Kiara Glasco The reliability of IMDB is discussed at WP:IMDB. Barsoomian (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Title section

the title section needs to be changed completely, as it bears unverified, and likely false, information.

The reference given does mention what badges were made out of, but not that the term "copper" came from that.

http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/cop.asp

there at the snopes page, citing two etymological sources, it states that "cop" comes from the term to take or seize, which became slang for police seizure of persons or property, which eventually morphed into the term "copper" in reference to police.

this section either needs removed or fixed. Just thought I would put this out there before I eventually change it myself if no one else does.

N432138 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your change for a couple reasons. First, you need to recognize the show is on hiatus right now, but will return in six weeks. You need to give the discussion time to play out given the article will get much more active once the first episode details are announced. There's no hurry.

Second, the current content is also reliably sourced, so the issue is not that it's wrong and you're right, but rather, which source is reliable. Snopes is an iffy source at best, and I have issues with their discussion: "cop" the way they describe it is a British-English expression, but not an American-English one. That brings their argument into question, as does Snopes' use of the Oxford English Dictionary, a dictionary of British English.

The trouble with expressions like this is their origins get lost in time. We may need to present both explanations, or leave it out altogether in the end. This is too important an aspect of the article to rush. Let's give it some time. --Drmargi (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime then, the section should be removed entirely, because even the source cited has no such information on the word "copper" as slang for police, it only has pictures and info on police badges and the time periods they belong to. as it stands now, it simply offers opinion, not fact. N432138 (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

While we're talking and trying to find the right way to approach this, we leave it alone. In the meantime, I checked the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of American English. It notes origins in the mid-1800s, and that the term is slang for police officer, later shortened to cop, but no specific origins. It also defines the use of cop in the legal sense somewhat differently, making clear Snopes has blurred the American English and British English usage of the word. That's a big error a reliable source would know not to make. --Drmargi (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for verifiable fact here. if snopes did blur lines in this case, then they aren't the only ones. I cited more than snopes, anyways. Regardless, the information presented is not verifiable as accurate and should be stated as opinion, not as fact - That Is My Point. I added a "citation needed" on the comment in question, that should suffice and be the end of it for now. If it can be verified, fine, if not, then the citation needed tag can stay or it can be changed to indicate that it is an opinion or a common misconception or old wives tale, what-have-you.N432138 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Try not to take an adversarial stance on this; I'm not sure which is right, or if either is, frankly, so I'm not taking sides. I'm just trying to get some sort of consensus when we've got conflicting sources. As I said before, this is not an issue of right and wrong information; the term is too old for this, but of verifiability and reliability of sources. --Drmargi (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not being adversarial at all, just trying to point out that the cite used in this case did not back up the claim made regarding the term. that's pretty clear. anytime i come across info that's not correctly cited, i try and fix it so that it is. kinda the point of wikipedia. but if we're waiting for a consensus of people to say that it was right in the first place, there's no point, because before I pointed it out, that consensus already existed because the section was unchallenged. But like I said, i've marked it with a "citation needed" tag on the appropriate spot, so others reading it will be aware that it is not verified and won't assume its true just because someone else assumes its true.N432138 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Spare us the amateur etymology and the hilarious misunderstanding that the OED is only British English usage. It isn't. Read the OED's intro. Its many sources include U.S. dictionaries, experts and citations. (And the British/American slang distinction is false here anyhow with all of the UK immigration influencing American slang in the 1800s.) It's the product of unparalleled etymological files from all English-language sources. The OED is clear that "cop" as in police officer comes from the slang "to cop" = to capture, catch, obtain, steal; which in turn likely comes from the verb "cap" = to arrest, to seize. Also clear is that the "copper star" is the made-up idiocy it plainly looks like, a just-so story for kindergarten-level brains, with no etymological research or citations to support it. Read the OED and fix it instead of rolling around in your fake rules of "consensus," and how it trumps the world's greatest English dictionary, and other total misunderstandings of evidence.71.234.44.10 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The title section still gives what clearly seems to be false information, and links to an irrelevant source. Here is another source for a more plausible explanation of where "copper" comes from. It even mentions that it does not come from police officers wearing copper buttons or badges. My suggestion is correct or remove. Kronocide (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC) http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2209/why-are-the-police-called-cops-pigs-or-the-fuzz

If there was ever going to be a "consensus" on allowing the information to remain or to eliminate it, I think by this point it is clear that the vote is 3 to 1 to remove the "copper comes from copper star" line, like I had suggested months ago. If it remains, it proves that the self-appointed wiki admins that monitor this don't care about presenting facts like a real encyclopedia, they only want to protect their own edits and those of their friends. It was beyond clear from the get go that the source cited states no such information as what the article currently shows in regards to the origin of the term "copper." That alone is enough reason to eliminate that part of the sentence. But for some unfathomable reason it remains, with no verification whatsoever. And any edit to change it is automatically reverted for ego's sake alone, not in accordance with Wiki policy. It's just ludicrous.

To put it in the simplest of terms so there is no mistake, here's the problem: The article cited shows information on types of police badges and when they were in use - that's all. The article does not state that the term copper comes from copper star. That is the issue at hand and nothing else. That statement is pure speculation and not in accordance with Wiki policies. Period.

I fail to understand why we have to prove a negative here. It should be removed until that particular author can provide a source backing up his content. Isn't that the way this is supposed to work?! As a matter of fact, there is no real reason to have this section at all, it's superfluous.N432138 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Title Section removed altogether. Section was unnecessary and adds nothing substantial to the article. I suspect it will be reverted to protect someone's feelings, although I have no idea why. N432138 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

UK transmission

Am I alone in finding it odd that this series doesn't appear to have been shown in Britain? I know it was produced specifically for an American audience, but that hasn't prevented vast amounts of other US programming turning up on UK screens. If there is any info on this in reliable sources it would make an interesting addition to the article. --Ef80 (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Turned up on the Alibi channel in the UK in September 2019.2A00:23C6:1692:3D01:9D8D:6618:1601:8BA8 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)