Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Free images

I was able to visit the set a few weeks back and snapped a few pictures. They are available on the commons (commons:Jericho (TV series)) so feel free to add them to any articles as appropriate. I'll upload a few more in the coming days. As many of the pictures contain spoilers, I'll wait until the finale airs to upload the rest. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually we should probably hold off on using any images until this is resolved. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether the pictures are able to be used or not, thank you for sharing them. What was the occasion of your visit to the set? You must be the envy of many a "Jericho" fan. 209.247.22.62 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A neighbor works as a crew member on the set and he was nice enough to invite my family. I have about 200 images in all, so hopefully the people at the commons will clear them. If not, I may just upload them to flickr or something. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and I agree: if they can't be used here, they would be terrific on flickr, or any of the other photo servers. I also agree with your decision to not post anything containing spoilers. That can come after the season finale. Hope we get a second season, I really enjoy the show. 209.244.189.27 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I got the go ahead at the commons to upload the rest. They will hopefully all be uploaded by the end of the weekend. I have tried to provide a brief description for all of the images, but if something needs to be clarified, please let me know. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't uploaded all of my images and at the pace I am going, I probably won't for another couple of weeks. I did replace a few of the fair use images with free ones. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gamer, your panorama of the Jericho main street is a real asset to the article on the town. That is a stellar addition. 209.244.189.27 08:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratings, again

The front page continues to state that the show reached a new low of 2.2 in early April. It does not state what "2.2" means (I happen to know, but I'd bet most readers don't) and this number has been superseded by even lower ratings in subsequent weeks. There is also the question of whether or not this is copyrighted information, since these are Nielsen ratings, and speak to a specific demographic. For these reasons, I have removed the data, but reverts continue. It seems to me that the simple mention of "lackluster ratings prompting concern" is quite enough and makes the point without the reference to arcane and outdated numbers that mean nothing to the average reader. Feel free to debate or discuss. Many thanks - 209.247.22.62 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it reads just fine without the numbers, but you initially also removed the time and source, prompting my revert of your first edit. Don't really see a problem with it as it stands. MrZaius^talk 07:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

could you add that it's 9.5 million viewers "aged 18-49"?--70.70.6.119 02:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because unfortunately, that's not true. It averaged 9.5 million viewers across all age groups. 209.244.189.26 05:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Errors Section

I was watching Episode 5 tonight and I realized that when one of the people tried to use the internet they tried to use the IP Address. She typed in 802.XXX.XXX.6XX (Can't recall the exact numbers). Problem with this is, in subnetting an IP Address can only go as high as 255.255.255.255, although the use able numbers is even lower than that. I was just wondering if an error/mistake section would be a good idea for the page. Cdscottie 1:32, 29 April 2007

I'm pretty sure that was similar to using phone numbers with start with 555 - they use a fake number to prevent people from really trying to call, or in this case, to prevent people trying to access a non-existent address. -- Chuq (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it is an interesting fact that could even be added to the episode guide/facts list. Cdscottie

Actually, I just noticed it is already mentioned in "Federal Response". -- Chuq (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys but I have to play devils advocate on this one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. The point is not to put up every... single... piece... of... possible... information. That sort of thing is for dedicated fan pages and forums. Something minor like this needs to be left out, unless somehow it directly comes into play in the show (like the show explains why it's differant). I know people like to add things like that to pages, but something being a fact alone isn't supposed to be enough to warrant it space. It should have some pertinence to the show, or should be an obvious unintentional AND IMPORTANT error. Flubs should be for fan sites not an encyclopedia. I am aware that other people and pages do it, I am aware that it's almost becoming common. That still doesn't make it right and something we should actively seek to do, and it contributes to why pages often get such poor reviews or turned down when they're put up for a rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.188.75 (talk • contribs)

I completely agree. (see also my comments on Talk:List of The Chaser's War On Everything episodes and the associated AfD). I was stating that it doesn't need to be im the main article, and already exists in the episode article. -- Chuq (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Flag

Shouldn't this be removed as speculation until broadcast in an episode? (Trailers are not always accurate.) -- Chuq (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, Chuq. The section specifies that this is from the "teaser" for the episode, and I suspect that the network wouldn't show that flag without intending to use it in the episode. At this point the flag has appeared, and the only speculative part is whether it will actually be in the show. The flag has, however, been a subject of keen interest and extreme discussion on many of the "Jericho" boards and I suggest we leave it in for now. Rebuilding of the fractured US government has been described as the key storyline/plot of a possible second season, and nothing illustrates it better than that particular image. 209.247.22.62 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I went in and altered the language for the section to try to make the inclusion of the flag image more palatable and its status more clear (or perhaps less clear). Boy, it's hard to do that without using weasel words. 209.247.22.62 06:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Morse code in the "List of episodes"

Cloud02 has added the weekly Morse code text to the table at List of Jericho episodes. Please take a look and see what you think. Personally, I would like to retain it for several reasons. First off, it doesn't make the table any bigger and fills up some dead space in the "Title" column. Perhaps more importantly, however, it allows readers to see how the text is related from week to week. (For example, it is a lot easier to see the connection between "IT BEGINS WITH", "6 AND ENDS WITH", and "BLOODSHED" in this table than from flipping between articles.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Article needs a TON of work to clean it up

Now that the season is over it's time to clean it up:

• The whole plot points section Needs to be moved to it's own article and a brief summary left in it's place.
• EVERY THING in Episode observations needs to be moved to it's respective episodes article.
• Mapping observations either needs it's own article or merged with the plot article from above.

Those are the three biggest things that need to be done right now. Once completed we can start with the fine tooth comb. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a huge amount of cleanup - however it doesn't make sense that "plot points" be moved to a separate article. The plot is an integral part of the show. It could be condensed and have items moved to the relevant episode articles. -- Chuq (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The original research needs to be cited or eliminated (the Mapping observations section is one example). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be eliminated from that particular section? I did quite a bit of cleanup of the article recently, including among other things, double checking and sourcing all the city locations, and developing a complex template to display the cities in an easily updatable format. -- Chuq (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire mapping observations section is original research. I haven't had a chance to review the article for other instances, so the original research may just be limited to that section. Claims like that need citations from a reliable source. "In the episode "The Day Before", Jake Green is seen passing a highway sign listing mileages to Jericho, Wichita, and Kansas City. This would be inconsistent with Jericho lying near I-70, as a mileage sign in this area would be more likely to list Salina and not Wichita, which is bisected by I-35. In dialogue and on the "official" map, however, Jericho has been depicted as being proximate to I-70." The source is really just someone looking on a map and coming to their own conclusion (the italicized part), which violates our no original research policy. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Chuq that section is way to long for the main article. Now that the season is over a summary should be left in its place with the existing content being moved to its own season recap article. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be cut down, but to the relevant episode articles, or now that I think about it, to a season article (such as Lost (season 1), 24 (season 1)). The core of the plot itself - that is, parts of relevance to the entire show - should be in the main article. -- Chuq (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. Most of it should go to episode articles and a season recap article (ala Lost) should take the rest of that content. Then on the main page a brief two to three paragraph summary should replace it.  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Chuq, if I'm interpreting the above note correctly, it's not your map that is problematic. Instead, it is most of the material labelled "observations", which consists primarily of speculative material. There's also a lot of stuff prefaced with "most likely" (and similar terms) that should either be sourced or removed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we are in agreement then! -- Chuq (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Some of the "episode observations" and most of the "mapping observations," all those which relate to the location of Jericho, would seem to be better placed on the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) page. The location of Jericho is an endless subject of debate/discussion among aficionados of the show, and I think it's a legitimate point of interest, but I think it belongs in the article about the town itself, not here. By the way, I have watched enough episodes to tell you that clues conflict, but I'd be happy to have a crack at collecting the "facts" we've been given in the series. Your thoughts? 209.244.187.8 08:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically done

I've basically finished most of the work. I starte Jericho (season 1) and moved all the plot points section over there. I moved the mapping observations to the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) article. Finally I deleted the episode observations section as it was info that will be detailed in the episode articles already and recapped in the season 1 article. What I haven't done yet and will probably leave for someone else, is to put a brief summary of the first season where I carved out the plot points. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Argash, I went back and grabbed the "episode observations" concerning the location of Jericho from episode three, and added them to the Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) page. It's not on the individual episode page, it seemed worthy of inclusion in the town article, and I didn't want it to go unnoticed. 209.244.189.26 08:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad you caught that. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  17:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian TV commercials

I'm not sure where to put this but this week there have been some tv commercials advertising the new series of jericho on channel 10 australia on the 25th of may, a search of ten's epg is http://www.ten.com.au/ten/search-results.html?search-text=Jericho which states that it is scheduled at that date.The commercials state that they will be new epesodes in a new series not repeats. With last season the program was shown within a day or two i would expect it to start soon. Feel free to clean this up i'm new to this. --dns 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a new series, it is the second half of the first series. If they claim it is a second series, they are treating their viewers as if they are idiots! -- Chuq (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok it was my mistake, i assumed that as they where shown at the same time and went on their Christmas break the season was over not broken up being an outside observer does cause confusion occasionally, no harm done. --dns 06:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jericho Image

Shouldn't the image used in the TV box be this one instead of the screen capture from the episodes showing the title? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloud02 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Why would that be used? Does that remotely resemble an intertitle? Matthew 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since that picture is the one that CBS started their advertising with. Eg. see here Cloud02 13:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Err... that's not a very good rationale. The standard infobox image for a television series is its intertitle. Matthew 13:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

General consensus as always said use the title card unless a specific promotional poster for the current season that includes the title of the show is available. So for example Lost (TV series) currently shows the season 3 promo poster while Heroes (TV series) shows the title card. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually only seen Lost doing the "promo" thing. That reminds me... I should go fix that! Matthew 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cancellation

The article referenced with the cancellation only states "..has apparently nuked Jericho" and ".. there had been speculation that CBS would exercise some patience with Jericho." This seems to indicate it is still up in the air? -- Chuq (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

CBS cancels Jericho. Bendono 04:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's the article I'm talking about. Eye catching headline, but within the article itself, the words "apparently" and "speculation" don't really make it sound like it is confirmed. -- Chuq (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll find out officially tomorrow (Wednesday) morning. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope it makes it. Yes, the plotline is something of a leftwing wetdream -- a reversal of "Red Dawn" -- and the premis makes no sense at all, but it liked the characters and understood their predicament. I can't help but feel that the show would have been more popular if it wasn't so insulting at times. The food shortages made no sense (yeah, in Kansas! land of sky-high silos!), and there is no way the M1- Abrams could fire a mortar round through its barrel. Jeesh! But I still liked it and watched it every week. Besides, the actors need the work.Scott Adler 10:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The show is total cornball but I love it. A bunch of folks are calling CBS (212 975 3247) to let them know we don't want to see it go!

According to CNN - Jericho is officially cancelled. http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/16/tv.newseason.ap/index.html

Do we really need to mention the online petition thinghy? It's 99,99999% certain it won't change a thing.--Kamikaze 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree...there are online petitions for about everything under the sun and they are all pointless. 168.28.240.250 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the fact that over 13,000 people put their names to something within a few hours is at least worth of mention, regardless if it changes anything. Here at Wikipedia, our job is not to influence, but to inform. -baskinmyglory 3:05 PM (PST) May 15th, 2007.

It is not notable, it is not out of the ordinary, and it is not really verifiable. How reputable is the pollster? How do we know what the actual count is? Are there duplicate/triplicate entries? (Remember Stephen Colbert and the Hungarian bridge contest.) Why is this petition any different than petitions for any other cancelled show? If the petition has an effect, then it becomes notable. Until then, it isn't. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but could this then become a seperate entry for the sole reason that it has become a phenomena? Even in the case of Stephen Colbert, the editing process itself became an entry. baskinmyglory

Mentioning that 13,000 people have signed a petition and then citing the petition is basically original research, which isn't allowed. If the BBC or something picks up the story, then it might be worth mentioning as that would make such an event notable. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the number is now 26,000 and growing. 204.52.215.107 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I only see 23K right now... anyway, how on Earth is anyone supposed to verify the petition? What assurance is there that fans aren't voting multiple times using different e-mail addresses? And, once again, how is this unique to Jericho? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the number (well, now closer to 24000 than 23000, but the point remains). I'm pretty sure the petition is being signed by at least a few thousand folks, and I'm also sure that someone is voting multiple times. Nonetheless, it strikes me as one of petitiononline's larger petitions. 204.52.215.107 09:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

23,915 204.52.215.107 09:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

23,930 204.52.215.107 09:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

23,940 204.52.215.107 10:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

23,957 204.52.215.107 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

23,973 204.52.215.107 10:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not an altogether bad signature rate over a few minutes... it was growing even more rapidly last night. 204.52.215.107 10:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It just hit 24000. 204.52.215.107 10:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

24123 204.52.215.107 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we really need a running update. It isn't the number of signatures, it is the effect on the show. -- Chuq (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like to keep running counts anyhow.... it just broke 25,000. 204.52.215.107 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if it has no effect, it is still a relevant phenomenon because it relates to the show, and it obviously has become notable as a phenomenon in its own right, because a large number of people are obviously involved in the signing of that petition. 204.52.215.107 12:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I have this site here : http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1236653 , which points out the existence of such a movement. I think it would be within wiki guidelines to post just a sentence noting that such a movement exists. --Fshy, who doesn't feel like signing in.

And the Cbs answer:

Dear Jericho Fans

We here at CBS have listened to your complaints in relation to the cancelation of the television Show Jericho.

At CBS we never cancel a show without a great deal of communication between our public groups and you the fans.

It was believed that Jericho had lost a significant amount of fans since the original pilot of the show.

We always feel that a show must carry its audience regardless of breaks or temporary periods within the transmission season.

With this in mind it was decided to cancel the show JERICHO.

We understand that many of you are upset with our decision to cancel the Show JERICHO.

CBS retain the full viewing rights to Jericho, and it is possible that a a finale episode could be put into planning for the 2009/2010 season.

A future decision will be made on this in the fall of 2008.

Despite this cancelation we would like to advise you the viewer that CBS offers many great Shows such as CSI-Miami as well as others.

If you have any further enquiries please do not hesitate to contact my office where we can provide you with more details.

A future press release in relation to this decision will be announced tomorrow to All press outlets.

It is still possible to view all episodes of Jericho on the the innertube.

--Kamikaze 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Feh, that's not going to satisfy the critics. That's an excuse to shore up the current decision. My prediction is that there'll be a fair deal of flak coming over this Heidi-Game cancellation over the next few days. 204.52.215.107 12:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, that "CBS response" was dated May 16 and can be found here. 204.52.215.107 12:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The petition is now above 28,000 and still growing....204.52.215.107 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Major media is beginning to get wind of the "Save Jericho" effort. If it gets picked up by a few more sources then by definition it becomes news worthy and then it is no longer original research. I'll keep watching to see when the other news outlets report on this. Dwcarless 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/215216

USA Today: http://blogs.usatoday.com/popcandy/ Dwcarless 13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Serious coverage about a campaign is needed - a blurb in an entertainment column and a blog mention don't really qualify. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Define "serious". Toronto Star and USA today seem pretty well known. KSL (Salt Lake City/Ogden is not exactly your underwear blogger either: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1236653

I hope we are not seeing a Dan Rather moment here, demanding old media only and discounting new media. Dwcarless 18:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not about "old media" vs. "new media" - it is about how the information is presented. Blogs, opinion pieces, entertainment columns etc. are not the same as an actual story written by a real reporter. (It doesn't matter about the medium - a serious online-only news report can easily be more valid than a fluff piece in the New York Times enetertainment section.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here we go again. You have defined "serious" as an "actual" story written by a "real" reporter. Again -- this is pure Dan Rather. Please define what an "actual" story and a "real" reporter is, and please make sure you do so under wikipedia's guidelines. Dwcarless 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with it - examples: News of the World is "old media" but stories in it are not used as reliable sources. Whirlpool (website) are "new media" but stories on it ARE reliable sources. -- Chuq (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nina Tassler, President of CBS Entertainment has acknowledged the "Save Jericho Effort" and are even talking about doing something to provide closure to the story. Below is a statement from CBS Entertainment:

"To the fans of Jericho: We have read your emails over the past few days and have been touched by the depth and passion with which you have expressed your disappointment. Please know that canceling a television series is a very difficult decision. Hundreds of people at the Network, the production company and the incredibly-talented creative team worked very hard to build and serve the community for this show -- both on-air and online. It is a show we loved too. Thank you for supporting Jericho with such passion. We truly appreciate the commitment you made to the series and we are humbled by your disappointment. In the coming weeks, we hope to develop a way to provide closure to the compelling drama that was the Jericho story. Sincerely, Nina Tassler, President of CBS Entertainment" http://jerichoboard.cbs.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=cbsmbjericho&tid=5195 Combine this with increasing media awareness of the protest and 48,690 signatures on the petition, it seems to me that at some point the effort itself will need to recognized as relevent.

A simple mention of the petition is there. But eventually the campaign by fans sending peanuts to CBS offices will have to be mentioned - the first batches were received on Friday as people were posting FED-EX receipts on the CBS message boards. Peanuts are bulky, so CBS could have a big problem on their hands if enough people do it. People are also starting to use companies like www.nutsonline.com to ship nuts and one person reported the company may be interested in providing a discount and advertising a special deal on their website. Planters Nuts has also been contacted - though they require an official proposal be drawn up. This is similar to the Tabasco sauce campaign that gave ROSWELL another season after it was cancelled. Of course we will have to wait for official news coverage to begin. Alot depends on exactly how many tons of nuts are actually sent. Its rare that show provokes this sort of response. The show did have around 8 million viewers US viewers (plus millions more in 26 countries) when it was axed. Anoymous May 20, 2007 15:30

Petition spam

I have removed the text about the petition, as well as the linkspam to the petition site. Honestly, this is not notable, and it is no different than countless other shows that have been cancelled. Efforts to draw comparisons between Jericho and Star Trek, insinuations about CBS' president, and other attempts at justifying the text don't change that fact. *If* multiple reputable news organizations give extensive coverage to the story, and *if* it has some effect, then it might be worth considering. Right now, however, it is only relevant to the disgruntled fans - and not encyclopedic content. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that there are thousands of disgruntled fans is a fact that is worth talking about and letting other people know about. And isn't that the purpose of an encyclopedia, to spread knowledge? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum, and it is not our role to "let others know about" a petition drive. This show is neither different from, or more notable than, any other cancelled show with disgruntled fans. There is also no way of verifying the petition claim - how do we prove that there are in fact X number of unique signatures? Simply put, there has to be some recognition of the drive in reputable news organizations, or (more importantly) some effect on the series as a result of it. Otherwise, it is merely the co-opting of a Wikipedia article as a part of a fan campaign to restore the show. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz. Revert anytime a petition is readded. It doesn't belong in the body of the article unless it is picked up by the press. It doesn't belong under external links as the whole idea of external links is to provide more detailed information not covered by the article. The linking to these petitions is just spam. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We could add a few words about fan reaction, though.--Kamikaze 19:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, if that can be backed up by a reliable source. -- MisterHand 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Googling "Save Jericho" comes up with 11,800 hits. Does that count as a "reliable source"? Tea&magpies 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we need things like news articles and the like. See WP:RS and WP:NOR for a better understanding. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. WP:NOR seems to suggest that in some cases (for example, when writing about current events), one may need to rely on primary sources. And that is okay so long as one "only make[s] descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person . . ." To state that there has been a fan reaction seems to me an easily verifiable descriptive claim about a current event. But maybe I'm not understanding the policy. Tea&magpies 03:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz. I'd love to see CBS change its mind and I wish the petition the best of luck, but wikipedia is not the place to 'spread the knowledge' of a campaign. That's advocacy. That petition is not unique or noteworthy. There's thousands of them. In fact, there's a new one after almost every network show is cancelled. As mentioned above, its original research. Until something happends to make this worthy of mention, such as mention by a major news source or specific response by CBS, all reference should be removed 71.7.242.116 20:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and have added a slight mention of the petition which does not link to any website or petition The petition is noteworthy and has over 30,000 signatures. There is a link to a petition for the cancelled video game Stargate SG-1: The Alliance which has been on the wikipedia for over a year and never removed. --Ted-m 02:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

30,000 signatures that could just as easily be 30 angry viewers with too much time on their hands. This source is not credible. 24.222.54.66 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed. Again, there is no way of even validating the petition's accuracy. (As for the Stargate note, it shouldn't be there either - but the fact that one error exists doesn't justify adding another. Sorry.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)The problem is that is unsourced. If the petition is so big, then a media source should be easy to find. Without a proper media source (newspaper, etc, see WP:RS), this info is all original research. I've nuked the Stargate one.--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have requested temporary semi-protection for the article. The hope is to allow established editors to sort this out, while avoiding the need to endlessly clean up after anons whose only edits are to add petition links. (The last thing I think anyone wants is for editors to accidentally run afoul of 3RR while honestly trying to resolve an issue.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent move, Ckatz! This will *hopefully* allow us to sort out this mess without either well-intentioned n00bs or pathetic trolls mudding up the waters any more than we currently are :) Geoffrey Mitchell 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get that the petition is supposed to be in the media before it can be posted on the Wiki. So, in response, I did a news search. Do these websites count: Sound The Sirens and The Monroe Times?

BTW, It's now up in the high 43000s in the petition. ((unsigned|88.107.140.195}}

Unlikely - one's a blog, and the other is an opinion piece. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Rats...

Bloggers can be real reporters. Blogging is occasionally the art of reporting, and if one sees the evidence in favor of a revolt, one is bound to conclude that there are numerous sources from numerous reporters telling of a notable event. We report what's in the Bible, don't we? We report what some old historian said about someone else, don't we? And then there's the Bogdanov Affair, in which THAT notable event happened partially in Wikipedia itself and thus ought to be reported from primary sources. One reason why people don't trust Wikipedia is that it doesn't tell all of the truth due to an ironbound policy of not being a primary or secondary source. Yes, some of us do know about the Siegenthaler libel , but that was a lie about ONE person coming from ONE (or very few) source(s). In this case, that plainly isn't the case. We have many producers and a multiplying assortment of sources. I doubt that one or very few people can be creating this many posts and signatures on the boards and petitions, and I see there was a running count of signatures on the petition. So far:

• at least a few blogs are commenting
• an opinion piece is commenting
• there is an ENORMOUS message board protest going on on at least two boards, one on CBS and one on TNT, as well as some commentary on other boards
• there is more than one Save Jericho petition out there, on more than one source
• the petitions and commentary have been picked up by some Digg members on Digg
• there is an intense debate going on in the article and here, as you can see, involving multiple IPs.

That is sufficient to establish notability, in my honest opinion, because it enables one to use triangulation among sources to pick out a story. Just because the MASS MEDIA hasn't picked it up doesn't make it any less encyclopedic! — Rickyrab | Talk 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexa ranks jerichoboard.cbs.com and it was more heavily traveled than the notable 4chan board. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Crap, Alexa ranks part of a website's hits along with the rest of the website (I found it counting jerichoboard.cbs.com along with www.cbs.com.) I'll look elsewhere to see if I can get more info. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I see that www.cbs.com rose in anticipation of the schedule announcement just prior to May 15th, and plummeted on the 16th (no data available for the 17th or 18th). petitiononline.com, meanwhile, dipped during this time period and began an uptick on the 16th (although bear in mind that other factors may be causing this move). — Rickyrab | Talk 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the outrage over the inclusion of petitions in this article has outweighed outrage over the cancellation itself. How long until we see an online petition for the inclusion of online petitions in this article? -- MisterHand 20:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for the discussion of the article, not for the discussion of people's opinions of the show itself or its cancellation. So, of course, we are discussing the inclusion of petitions, etc., in the article itself. With that said, maybe I should recuse myself from editing this article any further, given the nonsense that surrounded the Bogdanov affair and the fact that participants in that affair harmed Wikipedia's impartiality in editing. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why I got involved in this discussion about editing was because I am kind of an inclusionist on this type of issue. There is a fundamental problem with Wikipedia's ideas of WP:RS - in short, it overly relies on corporate sources and large organizations to provide it with news, when, in fact, discussions can sneak "under the radar" of the major news companies (or other phenomena, for that matter). There is also a heavy reliance on officialdom (to wit: the debate over the planethood or non-planethood of Pluto). I also admittedly like Jericho and want to further the universe of that television show, which was the reason I am considering recusing myself - I wonder how much of a conflict of interest there is, and I wonder if there are better channels than Wikipedia that can help the causes of expanding the fictional universes of Jericho and other good cancelled shows (such as V, Quantum Leap, and Star Trek:Enterprise). — Rickyrab | Talk 00:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Over a hundred thousand petitions... that means that assuming a bot is posting a petition everyday, and even if EVERY person is signing it twice with two email accounts, that literally THOUSANDS of individuals have signed the petition. Talk20:57, 01 June 2007 (UTC)

A hundred thousand isn't much online. The Pro-Pedophilia Protest on livejournal.com has gathered 40+ thousand "signatures" in like 4 days. This petition is rather weak in comparison. Kyaa the Catlord 07:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unverifiable signatures account for nothing. No producers look at PetitionsOnline when they want to decide if they want to renew a series or not. I could sign it 20 times a day, with 20 different names and 20 different e-mail accounts on 20 different free e-mail providers. And I don't think they have been very impressed about the glorious nuts either. What you can do is purchase Jericho material- like buy 20 episodes on iTunes every day. I'm afraid that's the only thing that could make a difference. » byeee 10:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the posts being made here these last few days are completely irrelevant. If it's factual and can be verified, then it might have a place in the article. Unverifiable individual research, personal bias and opinions do not have a place in the article. Unless the campaign to save the show succeeds, I don't see the petition as being notable; every show that gets cancelled has a petition to bring it back. In the mean time, I will be the second person to remind everyone that Wikipedia isn't a message board. CBS, however, furnishes a perfectly lovely one for you to debate the ins and outs of the cancellation. Trusilver 23:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Been watching the recent changes for this via RSS and I came here thinking I'd protect the page, but it was already done. Just wanted to register my approval.

To those of you who keep trying to get your stuff into this article: Wikipedia isn't your website. Please follow Wikipedia policies. If you don't like those policies, there are policies to change them: get involved and work to refine those policies. Strangers showing up and insisting "this must be in the article" just don't really carry any weight compared to those who have been here for years and are more familiar with the mission of this site.

I'm a Jericho fan, too, and I hope it gets saved somehow. But Wikipedia does not exist to save Jericho. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to save Jericho, but it does exist to report the effort to save Jericho it if that effort is news worthy. So far USA Today http://blogs.usatoday.com/popcandy/, Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/215216, and KSL news http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1236653 have deemd it news worthy. What is YOUR threshold? Dwcarless 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

User:Rickyrab has twice added an "NPOV" tag to the article, based on the petition issue. I think this is a misuse of the template, but I'd like to know what others think before removing it again. My feeling is that editor concerns based on Wikipedia policy are being misinterpreted as a bias against the "Save Jericho" campaign. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to fall under WP:Undue weight (a subsection of WP:NPOV. -- MisterHand 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

He's also attempting to add "concern" templates. Which I've removed. There's no concerns, as policy and guidelines are clear. Matthew 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What policy and guidelines? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The first policy that comes to mind is no original research, which is followed shortly by WP:SOAPBOX. I don't think anyone is trying to prevent mentioning of the "Save Jericho" campaign, but rather enforcing Wikipolicy due to the lack of reliable sources covering the campaign. While not the best example of using reliable sources in the article, Firefly's Browncoats got a mention in the series's article and they have their own article. Although the lack of a source seems more due to editors not adding it than any being out there. It took me only a couple of minutes to find mention of the Variety ad.[1] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently someone is unwilling to allow ANY informaiton regarding fan efforts to get a second season for Jericho, unless it comes from an Old Media souce and is written by someone with a journalism degree. Oddly, I don't racall that restriction being in wikipedia guidelines, however. Dwcarless 21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be a WP:RS. that's the threshold for inclusion. Self-published articles (blogs) do not generally count. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There are plenty of non-blog sources. Take a mild search about Jericho in google news, and you'll see at least two news articles there. I can post links if you want, but you guys seem to dislike this. Mark you, I don't see the need to sling around "SAVE JERICHO!" slogans around wiki, but it merits a sentence or two of mention to note that such a movement exists. My only point. --Fshy

Ah, here is one: http://www.kbsd6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6537960. It ought to merit a sentence or two of mention. --Fshy

Ditto with USA Today, Toronto Star, KLS news, and KWCH news http://blogs.usatoday.com/popcandy/, http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/215216, http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1236653, http://www.kbsd6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6537960. These all fall under WP:RS and quite well. All are well recognized, credible and verifiable sources. Dwcarless 23:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs generally don't count, except under specific circumstances. You also have to look at the item itself. Just mentioning a campaign doesn't automatically qualify the source.

The other aspect that people just are not considering is the severe disruption this causes to the article. It's not just a question of adding a mention. It is then constantly having to clean up the mess - yes, *mess* - as every editor/Jericho fan with a bone to pick about the cancellation comes along and adds petition links, blog links, links to their "Save Jericho" sites, comments about CBS employees (I've already had to clean up some of that elsewhere), and the like. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs ought to count, as they are sources of information that might be checked up against other information. Some parts of the Bible are arguably about as valid and well-researched as a blog, and the same could be said of the Quran and the Book of Mormon. The Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon are all sources, eh? — Rickyrab | Talk 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether blogs ought to count or not; wiki guidelines say not to. However, two of the three links we gave you are not blogs, so I am unaware why you keep ignoring our posts about such --Fshy

The guidelines say that sometimes, in specific circumstances, blogs can count. See below. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that adding petition info to this article is what would make it POV and biased. This is basically about communicating a 'cause'. Claiming that exclusion of spam by an advocacy group is POV is abusive and violates the spirit of what the policy is intended to do. Again, the 'save jericho movement' is not notable or unique. Just because a few thousand people allegedly signed something doesn't make it so pervasive an issue that it warrants mention here. Just because a couple of blogs and opinion editorials refer to it doesn't make it news. I hope to god the whole thing picks up steam and leads to a second season, but lets not diminish the quality of the article but throwing in unreliable and unverifiable stories from a small group of advocates at a time when emotions are running high. 71.7.242.116 03:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, there *is* a 'save Jericho movement'. It seems to me that you are banning the mention of it because it might be a good or bad thing or an ambiguous thing to put into the wiki. there are ways of wording things though, that make them unbiased. you DON'T HAVE TO SAY that "Jericho is a great show and people are petitioning to get it back". what you can say, is that "there is a petition". it is not a biased statement, it is just a fact.

CONCEDE, DAMN YOU! 88.107.204.51 15:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It would carry more weight for me if either of you bothered to register. It is free you know. Val42 15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Registering really doesn't carry any more "weight" when you get down to it. I'm registered, and it doesn't help my opinions any with those trying to control the content around here. That aside, adding the petition links and simply stating that there is a petition is simply stating a fact about the show, not making any sort of NPOV violation. If whoever added the link had said "If you want to see the show saved, go here, sign the petition, then fire off a letter to Les Moonvies telling him he's a jerk!", then NPOV would have been shot to hell. Not in this case, and continuing to claim as such is in itself showing a lack of NPOV. Geoffrey Mitchell 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, two things. One, not everyone lives on this site, and two, I do have one. Just can't log in for the moment until I sort something out. So, until then, consider me a user. I cannot bother to waste my time arguing with you which non-blog news article constitutes a legitimate article in your mind, so this will be the last time I attempt to. For the last time, we don't want SAVE JERICHO!!! plastered over this site. A small subsection with a sentence or two mentioning the existence of such a movement is independent of a POV, and CBS has acknowledged their presence, as have many of the news sources we gave you. That constitutes a reliable source. Make up your mind either way, I don't care, but I will enjoy watching you add in the section after the fact. Till then, cheerio! --Fshy

I didn't say anything about anybody else's opinion on registering or not. For me, since there is no financial or personal information burden, I consider the opinion of someone who is registered to have greater weight than someone who doesn't bother to register.

Second, I didn't mention it before, but I do think that the link to the petition is relevant. It is a current issue related to this article. But we need to make sure that we make no advocacy about it. Val42 18:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What WP:RS and WP:NOR Say

Note: this is taking from a combination of sections and/or pages related to WP:RS and WP:NOR

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

However:

No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases).

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

There is a problem with that last point: one can reasonably doubt who wrote such documents as ancient histories, and yet we still use the sources of antiquity because they are the only options. Furthermore, the unknown status of the authors should not, in and of themselves, be reason to discredit sources, but it does make them suspect to comparison and greater scrutiny in light of the fact that more than one source may be the product of one person. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are guidelines. They are not ironbound rules set in stone. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the proper place to debate philosophy of wikipedia policies. If you want to change the policies then there are appropriate channels to do so. As mentioned above, please refer to WP:SOAPBOX. Implying this article is critically lacking in information because the agenda of an advocacy group is excluded is very POV. 71.7.242.116 03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, exclusion of valid information regarding an article based on the agenda of an advocacy group is also very against NPOV, when you look at the situation from a more rational, detatched position. From what I've seen, those on an OR or NPOV crusade tend to go way overboard with their zealousness, and actually cause far more harm than good for an article's credibility and usefulness. Geoffrey Mitchell 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the above opinion. There is a long argument about OR in the archives for this page, my primary contribution to which was to state my opinion that drawing logical conclusions from evidence presented in the series was not OR, but careful observation of the "facts" or the series canon. Needless to say, not everyone agreed. 209.244.189.26 05:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan protest, CBS's reaction, and mainstream media attention.

The fan protest has broken into the Old Media finally. Nina Tassler, President of CBS Entertainment, addresses it here: http://jerichoboard.cbs.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=CBSMBJericho&tid=5195

and Michael Ausiello of the The Ausiello Report at TVguide.com deals directly with it here: http://community.tvguide.com/blog/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/700000049

Clearly Nina Tassler and Michael Ausiello are reliable sources, and reporting their statements is not original research. The "Efforts to revive the series" section needs to be expanded to show the extent of the fan protest, how CBS is responding to it, and how the media is reacting to it. It is news worthy because no other network has offered to provide anything to the fans of the other cancelled series. Dwcarless 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. While I pushed to have mention of the protests and petition, all that needs to be done now is say that CBS gave a little response on the message boards. Add another sentence, but the protesters(including me!) haven't gotten anything else accomplished worthy of a full expansion. Maybe if CBS does something, but not yet. --Fshy

Exactly. Keep in mind that the "Fandom" section in the Firefly article is only three paragraphs long. This is for supporters who took out paid ads, organized charity screenings, and created a documentary, all of which may have contributed to a theatrical film release. So far, the Jericho campaign consists primarily of an electronic petition, and a letter from CBS which doesn't commit them to anything. Just look at the text of Ms. Tassler's letter for clues: she use the past tense (twice) to refer to the series, and never commits to any definite action other than saying "we hope to develop a way to provide closure".

Dwcarless, I understand that it is tough losing a show you obviously care about, and if the campaign leads to a revival of the series, kudos to you, and Fshy, and everyone else who participates. However, you have to remember that this is not the "Save Jericho" website, nor is it a fan site. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which is an entirely different goal. Sometimes, that means that you have to sit back and watch what develops, and only *then* develop a solid article (or section, or whatever) to deliver that information. That doesn't mean that we should ignore what is going on in real time, only that we should be very cautious about how far to take it without having any context. After all, that is why Wikinews exists - to cover the developing stories as things happen, while Wikipedia takes the longer-term perspective. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Fshy's suggestion, I've added a short sentence to the section:

In a response posted on the Jericho forum, CBS president Nina Tassler acknowledged the fan response, stating "we hope to develop a way to provide closure to... the Jericho story."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 05:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The new additon looks good, and I agree it is appropriate at this stage. We can add more if/when more develops. Dwcarless 03:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Media reporting our efforts to save Jericho:

http://www.film.com/tv/story/jerichocancelledviewersshouldcancelcbs/13982602/14544090 http://www.kbsd6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6537960 http://www.soundthesirens.com/news/?p=866 http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32716 http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/215216 http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1236653 http://blogs.usatoday.com/popcandy/2007/05/early_buzz_hero.html http://tv.ign.com/articles/790/790075p1.html http://www.premiumhollywood.com/2007/05/16/as-cbs-releases-its-fall-schedule-angry-jericho-fans-begin-googling-for-those-sites-theyve-heard-about-where-you-can-learn-how-to-build-your-very-own-atomic-bomb/ http://www.soundthesirens.com/news/?p=870 http://news.myspace.com/arts/screenwriting/item/3595712 http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2812959 http://copywriteink.blogspot.com/2007/05/going-nuts-cbs-in-crisis.html http://entertainmentnow.wordpress.com/2007/05/19/the-save-jericho-campaign http://www.syfyportal.com/news423672.html http://trent.blogspot.com/2007/05/jokes-on-us.html http://www.buddytv.com/articles/jericho/jericho-headed-to-tnt-fans-hop-6707.aspx http://copywriteink.blogspot.com/2007/05/getting-nuts-cbs.htmlhttp://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Cbs-Promises-Closure/800015581 http://www.huliq.com/22169/one-of-the-largest-network-television-protests-in-cbs-history http://2guystalking.com/2gttrb/?p=415 http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=41591

Media reporting cancellation:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/tv-upfronts-cbs-ugly-all-the-way-to-the-bank/#comment-645 http://www.realitytvmagazine.com/blog/2007/05/kid_nation_anno.html http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/blogs/marquee/2007/05/cbs-edgy-fox-quality.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2007/05/its_all_in_the_.html#comments http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2007/05/cbs_nukes_jeric.html#more http://www.fangasm.com/01television/jericho/jericho-canceled.php http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2007/05/debate_cbss_kid.html#more http://tubetalk.blogspot.com/2007/05/cbs-unveils-fall-schedule-jericho.html http://remote.lohudblogs.com/2007/05/16/jerichos-fate/ http://www.mercurynews.com/charliemccollum/ci_5909383?nclick_check=1 http://www.buddytv.com/articles/jericho/jericho-cancelled-6524.aspx#Comments http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2007/05/jericho_cancelled_decent_civil.html http://www.themonroetimes.com/l0517new.htm http://www.ifmagazine.com/new.asp?article=4466 http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2007/05/network_blues_and_what_tv_will.html http://remote.lohudblogs.com/2007/05/16/jerichos-fate/ http://www.filmfodder.com/scifi/archives/2007/05/jericho_cancell.shtmlLokysnommis 07:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The solution is, most likely, one or two movies - just like they did with Farscape after it was cancelled, same with Stargate SG-1. Obviously with such a story they aren't going to forget about it completely. The same thing (cancellation, fan protest etc.) happens to all shows sooner or later - I remember how disappointed I was when they cancelled Friends or SG-1, and most shows aren't made to last that long. Look at Prison Break for example - it was planned for one season, ran for two, and now they're going for the third and a possible title change. Jericho wasn't extremely popular or watched, or it wouldn't have been cancelled. And honestly, 58,000 doesn't say anything. The campaign to save Stargate SG-1 had about ten times as many signatures, and it still managed nothing. There's nothing to do, get over it. byeee 10:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ten times? I saw Save SG-1 petitions, but their size were, at most, smaller than the current Jericho petition. I also didn't see all that many petitions for SG-1 online. And "nothing" in that case amounted to movie-making commitments. 128.6.175.53 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean petitions on PetitionsOnline, I was rather talking about SaveStargateSG1.com. Stargate fans usually make such websites, SaveDanielJackson was successful, SaveCarsonBeckett was at least partially successful. Unfortunately the SaveStargateSG-1 site has taken down its signatures page completely. And I can't find anything on the Internet Archive. It's a pity. byeee 05:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate to interrupt this, but for later, I found hilarious stuff going on at www.nutsonline.com/jericho. They're shipping 4000 pounds of peanuts today(two tons) Seems like we're taking a page out of Roswell! No need to add it in yet. --Fshy

Here is a link to an article about the nutsonline campaign of sending nuts as reported on tv.com:

http://www.tv.com/jericho/show/58068/story/9589.html?tag=gumballs;title;2&om_act=convert&om_clk=gumballs.

As of now they've raised $9851 for a total of 7145 lbs of nuts. So it seems to be getting attention now. 1silver11 1:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole nut thing is strange enough to mention in the wiki. Also the attention of some big media should be mentioned. That isn't spam just information that has a lot to do with the TV show Jericho. I am not sure about this but I think this site: www.jericholives.com has a great deal in all this.

Much ado for nothing. Guys, calm down. There's 100% chances Jericho will not be resumed.--Kamikaze 16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have originally agreed - but I'm not so sure anymore. In fact, if it gets maintream TV coverage it would almost be smart for CBS to bring it back, as it could be the best (and cheapest) advertising campaign for a TV show ever. Cjurkschat 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Peremptorious example

The NUTS campaign has become news worthy. http://www.nutsonline.com/jericho

The Nuts Campaign is no longer Entertainment news, it has become TOP news at WCBS: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_143105458.html This is a reliable soucre, citing their own reliable source, and this is not original research. Dwcarless 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The entry has been trimmed somewhat... it is worth a mention, but remember that Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, and the trimmed entry look good. Dwcarless 01:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

When you say that wikipedia is not a news site I agree and disagree, in kind. I believe the Jericho Nuts campaign is now a part of the history of the show and while I agree this site is not meant to be an advertising board the phenomena of fans standing up for a show is not new and is mentioned in other articles as is the case with the Star Trek article. The fan response to a show being cancelled truly should be part of the article about the show to inform people. This will be part of the history of this show. Whether you agree with the fans methods or not does not matter. If the show is even revived or not really doesn’t matter, the fact that thousands of fans felt compelled to join together in protest of the shows removal is a testament to the shows appeal. I apologize if this is not in the correct format as I have not been on the talk page in the recent past. (Ghgoddess 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

As you mentioned, these events may well become a part of the history of the show. However, while they are ongoing, it is difficult to *accurately* incorporate into an article while keeping in an appropriate context. The thing to remember is that Wikipedia isn't designed or intended for chronicling events as they unfold. That is what I meant with the comparison to Wikinews. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Little crystal ball here; prepare yourself to add a section of a Variety magazine ad in later. We almost have sufficient funds for a full page black and white ad. --Fshy

Personal feeling here, but it would be a lot more notable (and impressive, I think) if the funds were donated to a charity in the name of the campaign - rather than being wasted on an ad for a TV show. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Sad thing is a donation to charity would probably get less mention than an ad in Variety, unless the donation were for a ridiculous amount of money. However.. Wasn't the ad already done by the Browncoats? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, we have given CBS instructions, as well as UPS if CBS rejects our shipment, to donate our nuts to charity. That doesn't get much attention, however--Fshy

We just received confirmation that CBS will honor our request to donate our nuts. We were somewhat worried that a bunch of perfectly good nuts would get thrown out by CBS --Fshy

Wikipedia isn't a message board. Please don't use this talk page for updates. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that CBS itself is now fully acknowledging this campaign protesting the show's cancellation. On their own news website http://www.cbsnews.com/ today under entertainment is the following link: http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/25/tv/main2851525.shtml Though web-based, this now has to be recognized as mainstream media attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.152.122 (talk • contribs)

Well, it's in the New York Times this morning in the "Business" section under Media & Advertising, see here [2]. That's about as mainstream as it gets; the NYT is the newspaper of record. I did not change the main article. Do with this what you will. 209.244.189.27 08:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuts

Just to expand upon my edit summary for the removal of the links to the "preferred vendor". Wikipedia is not an advertising site and the name of the company that the Jericho fans picked to be their preferred vendor is not particularly notable. One reason for this is that they are not the only company being used to send the nuts. Some people are going through other online distributors or are doing it guerrilla style and popping over to the grocery store buying a number of bags and sending 'em off themselves. That's also why I made the reference to "six tons" generic and just made it "tons". Six tons may have been sent from the preferred vendor, but that isn't necessarily how many tons that have been sent.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed this. I get where you are coming from on this but I think you are parsing things to finely. My contention would be that the article should err on the side of specificity if it can. Saying "Tons" does not give an accurate description of what is going on. Tons could be 2 tons or 2,000,000 tons. By giving the reader what information we have (x number of nuts from one vendor) and specifying that those numbers are only from one vendor we give the reader the change to draw their own conclusion from the most accurate information that we have available rather than dictating their perception by using intentionally vague language.--ThomasC22

Also Note, three facts is hardly an excessive amount of detail. Take the Firefly (TV Series) article for instance which says "The follow-up film, Serenity, was voted the best science fiction movie of all time in an SFX magazine poll of 3,000 fans." Is specifying "3,000" fans excessive here? It seems the article still managed to become a featured article with that line in it. Below that it says (about a Firefly event) "On June 23, 2006 fans organized worldwide charity screenings of Serenity in 47 cities, dubbed as Can’t Stop the Serenityor CSTS, an homage to the movie’s tagline, “Can’t stop the signal.” The event raised over 65,000 dollars for Equality Now" Should they have instead said that it raised "tons" of money? Again, its a featured article none the less. Finally, lets look at The Office (US), another featured article, and its Ratings section

"Premiering on Thursday, March 24, 2005, after an episode of The Apprentice on NBC, it caught the curiosity of 11.2 million viewers in the U.S., winning its time slot.[35] However, NBC meant for the series to air on Tuesday nights and when it first aired on a Tuesday night, it lost nearly half its audience with only 5.9 million viewers.[40] The program averaged 5.4 million viewers, ranking it #102 for the 2004-2005 U.S. television season.[41] The first season finale received the lowest rating in the show's history, earning just a 2.2 rating with a 10 share.[42]

As the second season started, the show slowly started gaining a cult following due to the success of Carell's August 2005 movie The 40-Year-Old Virgin and the fortune of airing after the surprise rookie hit comedy, My Name Is Earl. Growing viewership seemed promising enough to NBC that they moved the series in January 2006 to the "Must See TV" Thursday night where the ratings continued to grow. Some of this growth may be attributed to the iTunes Store beginning to sell the show on its then-new sales of TV Shows. By the 2005-2006 season, it placed #67 (tied with 20/20). It averaged 8.0 million viewers with a 4.0/10 rating. It also was up 40% in viewers from the year before and up 60% in viewers ages 18-49.[43]

The third-season premiere received a 5.7/9 and actually made a small increase in total viewers and viewers 18-49 over its lead-in program, My Name Is Earl.[44] As of January 2007, the show has averaged 8.7 million viewers so far this season.[45] The Season 3 finale was #1 (3.9/12 in 18-49, 7.9 million viewers overall) in the time period in adults 18-49, adults 18-34 and all key adult-male demographics. "The Office" topped its nearest competitor, ABC's Ugly Betty by a 38 percent margin of victory.[46]"

"Certainly excessive by your standard but again, its a featured article. So I have to ask, where are you getting this definition of excessive information from? --ThomasC22

The Firefly example is good, but perhaps not for what you intended. It demonstrates coverage of an event that has concluded, so that the editors can accurately provide context to what has transpired. The same is true for the Office details - those statistics have already occurred, and will not change. Conversely, the Jericho protest is currently under way, and as such the "breaking" news (such as the constantly updated numbers) are better suited to Wikinews. This certainly does not mean that Wikipedia should only cover the past, or that it should avoid current events. After all, that is one of the big advantages of the online encyclopedia versus its traditional counterparts. However, attempts at "precise" details (when the details themselves are in constant flux) do little to enhance the encyclopedia article, and in fact create a certain degree of instability. It also acts as a magnet for fans eager to promote the cause, rather than the development of the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thomas, you can not compare the content of one article on Wikipedia to the content of another because the editors on one article are different than those of another. But the examples you've provided do seem to be excessive detail in my opinion. But, fundamentally, the reason for restricting the amount of detail allowed in the article falls under WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and WP:Notability. As the Save Jericho campaign itself has noted, it's been near impossible to get any coverage from the press about the campaign and until that changes, the campaign is already getting as much mention as it is worth in the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuts (subsection)

Also, you should look here: http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/05/29/tv-squad-daily-with-brigitte-video/ This is not someone I know or have any relationship its just a random person on a web site. The relevance is that she's an outside party an she's saying that the sheer amount of nuts sent makes the story relevant in her eyes. Which in turn attests to why the information is important. --ThomasC22

The first and the last succesful petition for saving a TV Series was the one for Star Trek TOS, and it was quite a long time ago.--Kamikaze 19:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me as to what that has to do with this subsection? --Fshy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.45.140 (talk • contribs)

It has everything to do with it. Feeling enlightened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikaze (talk • contribs)

This subsection is about nuts. Feeling disillusioned? --Fshy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.45.140 (talk • contribs)

Both of you need to stop now. Unless you have constructive to add, please take it to a Jericho message board. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And you might want to consider being civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikaze (talk • contribs)

Your comment is inaccurate, however. Several shows have been renewed due to protest drives, the most notable being Roswell. Not always on the same network, but often on others. I do suggest we hold off on edits in this section, the protest is not truly notable until we know how it all plays out. Trusilver 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jericho was cancelled due to low ratings. If everyone who supposedly signed the zillions of petitions out there had watched the show when it was running, maybe the turnout would have been different. Be happy they said they'll provide closure. Anyway, I wouldn't have seen it run for more than two seasons. Maybe just one is the best choice, since the second series might have turned out very disappointing (see Prison Break or Lost's second season). And please wait until everything's solved (as in, a final response from the producers) before updating the number of nuts and signatures every time you get the chance. » byeee 09:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kamikaze asks for civility when he's the one that started being rude? Anyway, yeah, there's been a few instances where this sort of thing's happened. Star Trek isn't the only one. Farscape fans sent bras (to show that there were plenty of female fans) and cookies to Sci-Fi network, resulting in Sci-Fi giving them a miniseries. Fans of the show "Roswell" sent in bottles of Tabasco sauce, resulting in the show being given two more years. 24.99.231.40 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumors of return

E! Online is reporting, "Sources close to CBS tell me it is extremely likely the Armageddonish drama Jericho--which did not make the CBS '07-'08 schedule a few weeks ago, meaning it was effectilvely canceled—has been revived from the dead and will return for eight episodes for midseason." Full text at http://www.eonline.com/gossip/kristin/detail/index.jsp?uuid=41d01c80-22e2-4113-9708-7027837855c0 --ljheidel 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Text to that regard was added earlier this morning. After reviewing the TV Guide reference, I pulled it until we get something more concrete. (This new report also describes it as "rumours", which Wikipedia avoids.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Until those "reports" become official, I'm going to have to agree with Ckatz. Rumors and the like tend to fall under WP:CRYSTAL.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as well. That's why I put the info here rather than in the article. --ljheidel 07:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jericho is back! Carol Barbee confirms to the LA times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2007/06/its_official_th.html Dwcarless 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.............I wouldn't have added it in yet personally, but the odds seem to favor a return now; what with that announcement --Fshy

Carol Barbee's has been interviewed on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=26146 - Bevo 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, now its official. The message boards have it. CBS posted an official message via the admin at http://jerichoboard.cbs.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=CBSMBJericho&tid=13329. Add it in at your whim --Fshy

Here is the AP press release -- it's a done deal: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070606/ap_en_tv/tv_cbs_jericho Dwcarless 21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I think the subsection is finally worthy of an expansion. However, I dislike the title for the subsection "Fans save the show". It just doesn't sound neutral. Other than that, it finally is worthy of an expansion, as NOW we got something notable achieved. --Fshy

You're more than welcome to make any edits you want, Fshy.;) Or if the article is protected at the time, make any changes here on the talk page and request it be moved to the article. Although, I do think the section is just about the right size. Any suggestions on the name for the section. I just flung something out there as "Efforts to save series" didn't appeal to me now that the series has been renewed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not yet... that will require waiting a while to get some context. Just as with the initial campaign, there is no good reason (and quite a few bad ones) for "expanding" right now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine bobblehead, I just felt that IMO, it made the wiki article sound like it slightly sided with the protestors, as "saved" kind of implied support. Just a personal thought. Oh, and I generally refrain from editing any article which I have a bias for/against, as I'm not sure whether a fan(me) can provide a neutral point of view; so I just float stuff out here for others to make the ultimate decisions on. To Ckatz; you may be right, maybe we should wait for the sand to settle down first from this chaos before we expand the subsection. However, I do feel that, as a successful campaign, it will eventually deserve a future expansion; from what I've seen, successful campaigns are given more mention than unsuccessful ones. --Fshy

Certainly - the Firefly article is a good example. The trick will be keeping the "hordes" at bay over the next week or so, filtering out the excessive detail and keeping what is encyclopedic. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Bobblehead has requested protection. I think it seems in order; many fans are feeling overcelebratory, and have decided to splash their joy across the wiki page. --Fshy 03:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Was vs. Is

Jericho, in spite of being canceled, is a creative work (present tense), as it's still in existence; this is the subject of controversy over how to edit the main article. Please read Wikipedia style guides (wherever they are). 68.36.214.143 17:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Same thing happening over at the Heather Lisinski article, which I have been trying to maintain. Maybe an issue for WP:SOAPBOX as it sounds odd to me to refer to events in the present tense that are over in the series, especially after the series has been cancelled. Just my .02 -- 209.244.189.27 08:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a WP:SOAPBOX issue - it is how Wikipedia covers fictional topics. They are considered to be in a "perpetual present tense" - regardless of whether the work is still in production. Accordingly, events that happen during the run of the series are written in the present tense. The past tense is used for events occurring prior to the beginning of the series. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

While wiki considers it "correct", proper english ussage suggest that it is not. Jericho is no longer a show in CBS. Now if it were to come back again in some form or another than the correct usage would be "is." So WAS is correct.Thenext 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you don't know proper English then (as demonstrated by your reply). Matthew 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

While you are right, that kind of attitude only pushes people away Matthew --Fshy

Science Fiction

Why is Jericho being considered a scifi show? Because it deals with terrorism, nuclear weapons, torture, guns, and Jack Bauer (whoops on that last point)? Point is, 24's page doesn't even have the word science on it, let alone science fiction (not even the letter combination 'sci'), so how is Jericho different from 24 in any way in relation to science fiction. 209.43.40.143 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't science fiction. I'll remove the tag. Val42 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a science fiction show of the "aftermath" sub-genre. Novels and stories of this kind have been part of the science fiction canon since before the first A-bomb went off. Noted science fiction author Cy Kornbluth, for example, wrote his classic "Not This August" in the early 1950's. Science fiction (we call it "SF" in the trade, NOT "sci-fi" -- that's about bug-eyed monsters attacking top-heavy actresses) is about whatever happens after something has changed. It doesn't have to be about spaceships or time travel. Merely something changes that affects the human condition. Such as a nuclear war. Jericho, I'm afraid, was part of a sub-sub-genre of science fiction called "Hollywood liberal paranoia fantasy" -- not as common in books as it is on the big and little screens.Scott Adler 05:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean some trumped up rubbish magazines call it "SF" (ess-eff)... most people "in the trade" correctly refer to it as sci-fi :). And no, Jericho is not really sci-fi, it's post-apocalyptic fiction. Matthew 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, until recently, this article carried a category that associated it with science fiction. Courtesy of Val42, this edit removed the association. - Bevo 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think some people really don't know what Science-Fiction actually means. Jericho is clearly fiction, but not science-fiction. Science-Fiction has a clear connection to futuristic science and technology (think Star Trek). If Jericho were science fiction, so were all the shows that are not based on a true fact - more than 98% of the movies and shows I've seen. » byeee 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion: This seems to be what writer Harlan Ellison calls speculative fiction, a story in the "what if" genre. The premise is not unbelievable; it could happen, some have predicted it will happen in our lifetimes. I believe that "Jericho" is much closer to speculative fiction than science fiction. 209.247.22.62 10:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm writing my Master's thesis on Scientific romance in Britain and I've corresponded with some of the major editors in the Sci-Fi field. They have discussed this show at times. I don't watch it myself, but based on what I've seen Jericho is science fiction. It concerns science or technology radically changing society and individuals. It's science fiction in the way Alas, Babylon is science fiction, but that book is placed in Category:Science fiction novels. In addition Category:Post-apocalyptic fiction is a subcategory of Category:Science fiction themes and Category:Science fiction genres. In the case of 24 it does not focus on science/technological change (progress or regress), so far as I know, so is not science fiction.--T. Anthony 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Made4TV Movie

I've got to wonder at this point if this is perhaps what CBS and the Jericho staff are hinting at when they said things might not be settled. A 2 hour movie or a 5 total hour miniseries at this point could wrap up the shows plot, and probably guarentee ad revenue rates greater then a season of the show done conventionally at its current ratings would produce, and factor in only a fraction of the production costs. Not to mention you'd be guarenteed a return on investment of DvD sales (since people would buy a Season 1 DvD set, then the miniseries DvD set to have the whole story). I wish I had more to go on then the veiled hints of CBS and show staff about the show possibly not dying but not coming back as a series, but given the trend of other high budget/limited but loyal fan base shows like Stargate SG-1 doing it I've got to wonder if that's not what they're saying but not saying with their choice of wording in the articles linked and quotes avaliable here and at other sources. Just a theory of mine right now, not fit to be put up in the article (WAY too original research and heresay), but I'm keeping an eye out for it and we can all hope.

I'm not sure this is the place to discuss such ideas. Maybe a message board would be the best. And, in fact, I had already stated that while one whole season is very unlikely (and lacking plot twists), one or two movies would be the solution. At least, that's what I get out of we'll provide closure. Rest assured, they won't just end the series with a cliffhanger. It didn't have such low ratings to be completely cancelled. » byeee 05:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

While it's possible; byee is right. This is not the place. May I suggest you go talk with fellow fans at the CBS Jericho Message Board, as this talk page(not anymore, apparently) was originally for discussing the article on Jericho, not the subject itself. --Fshy

Protection 2

Sorry to all the anons and new users that are editing this article, but I've requested semi-protection for this article. Hopefully it'll be a short protection. Until then, feel free to request edits on the talk page and hopefully an established editor will make the changes you requested. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree Bobblehead. Protection seems in order. I should probably register again though; I don't I'm ever going to get my old account back again...:D --Fshy

Heyo, our protection request was declined. No matter; it died down anyway since the request; I often wonder if the mere request makes anonymous vandals hide due to fear of an admin :D --Fshy 01:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Web-based tie-ins section

The way it's currently worded, it sounds like the network is still producing Beyond Jericho episodes, and just not releasing them. Perhaps the statement "CBS has since decided to scrap the current webisode storyline, and instead release a new series of "prequel" webisodes named Countdown..." should be reworded? Maybe something more along the lines of "...decided to scrap the Countdown storyline, and instead..."

Thoughts? MikeFTM 19:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This section seems like way too much information now. Beyond Jericho has been dead for quite a while. I think this should be condensed and re-worded. 209.244.189.26 05:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)