Talk:The Paradise Syndrome

Analysis section

I have removed this section; it appears I am not the first. It is entirely inappropriate and irrelevant in this venue. This is not the place for someone to push their political agenda under the guise of literary analysis. Please do not revert without discussion. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove cited material from an article without first discussing it on the article's talk page. Discuss first, then remove after consensus is achieved.THD3 (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You must excuse me for not knowing standard protocol... it has been many years since I've made an edit here. I believe my latest action was acceptable. Now, please do something about it. The section is entirely unnecessary. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose removal: the analysis should stay, but some tweaking to the presentation could help things. Obviously, there's likely to not be a competing viewpoint to the analysis, if the other view doesn't think the matter worth commenting on—so the section will be inherently non-neutral. Additionally, the episode was subject to scholarly criticism, so that's worth noting in the article. I'm not sure Analysis is necessarily the best heading; Criticism, perhaps? —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is inherently non-neutral is the very reason it should be removed. It is fit for a rant on someone's personal blog, not on an encyclopedia. Literary analysis is inherently non-neutral in itself as the profession tends to have a cohesive opinion about things; those with differing opinions generally find it hard to graduate. There is not likely to be a competing viewpoint because the other view doesn't hold PHDs in literature - it's a paradox. Also, please refrain from removing the tag until a consensus has been reached - your one comment does not count as a consensus. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose removal. First, it's not a rant from a blog, it's a book from a notable academic publisher. I agree that Criticism is a better heading than Analysis. For the record, I disagree with the author's thesis, but the bottom line is that Wikipedia is not censored. There are numerous Wiki articles that have cited, critical statements about their subject, but a counterpoint from another valid source is warranted.THD3 (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Best to leave the POV tag on until a counterpoint has been added.THD3 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would concede if there was a counterpoint, but I still say the section is unnecessary - it's not a matter of censorship, it just doesn't belong in this particular article. Surely there must be some article on the criticism of Star Trek - its general lack of political correctness is widely known. Trinadtsat Tomitsu (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be almost 10 years old with no resolution. I am in favor of removal for the following reasons: 1. The language is not written from a neutral point of view. The entire paragraph is inflammatory in nature, having the appearance of nothing more that a lightweight rewrite of the source being quoted, and containing language that promotes outrage (as evidenced by the thread above.) 2. It has the appearance of racial bias, and the excuse that the bias might be against whites is nonetheless racist. 3. The source is not verifiable - it is incompletely cited and therefore falls outside the ability for an average reader to get context and verify content. This section conveys neither knowledge nor truth, it is an opinion piece, and does indeed border on a rant as previously suggested. Despite the talk here, I note that the POV tag seems to have been removed (again), and the item is still present in the section. I suggest that the three points above constitute policy violations for the section in question, and suggest that the original removal should be upheld and reapplied. GlennBarney (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree to the removal of the Analysis section, and submit that the Criticism section is also illogical and inappropriate for Wikipedia. This is a web site for facts, not just one guy's opinion. The writer is apparently anti-White because he capitalizes Native American, but not White. Races and countries of people are capitalized, as with Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Vulcan. To single out White to be in lower case indicates racial prejudice against White Earthlings. TruthMakesPeace2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Contents

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

Location of exterior shots

10/18/2021 I am moving this discussion from my talk page in hopes that other editors may find references not already listed clarifying the location of the exterior shots for this episode. StarHOG (Talk) 14:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, StarHOG-

You keep un-correcting my correction of an error in the Paradise Syndrome episode of Star Trek. Why are you doing this? I provided an authoritative reference to correct this error. The reference you keep re-instating is wrong on two counts:

1. It confused the episode This side of Paradise, which was filmed at the Disney Ranch and at Bronson Canyon, with The Paradise Syndrome that was only filmed at Franklin Canyon.

2. It states that This side of Paradise was filmed at two locations it was not filmed at.

There are many other references (IMDB, Memory Alpha, and Wikipedia’s own entry on Franklin Canyon) that will corroborate my assertion.

Respectfully,

— Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfanson (talk • contribs) 00:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for starting a dialogue. The first reference, the LA Magazine article, specifically states that Paradise Syndrome was filmed at Hollywood Reservoir. Yours says Franklin Canyon. I don't know which is correct, but the Franklin Canyon reference doesn't negate the Hollywood Reservoir reference. Until one is proved wrong, they should both stay. As for TSoP at Bronson, yes, that was my mistake, I'll remove that. StarHOG (Talk) 13:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, StarHOG-

Well, I do know which is correct. If you’ve ever been to the Hollywood Reservoir you would now this was not the filming location for The Paradise Syndrome. The problem with your reference from LA Magazine is that it confuses two episodes of Star Trek: The Paradise Syndrome with This Side of Paradise (as I mentioned in my previous note). It is simply incorrect to say that the filming location is uncertain, and to list both. The LA Magazine article is incorrect, sloppy journalism. I’m going to correct this entry again, and add some additional references to satisfy you, but would appreciate you yielding to this, as I am quite certain of my facts.

Best,

- Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.98.2 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I like your diligence. If we could find some more references that point to one of the locations, that would help wash-out a single source pointing to a wrong location. I looked at the episode and pictures of both locations - it looks a lot like it was Franklin, not Hollywood. However, this method is flawed, as it constitutes original research on our part. Even if you've visited the reservoir (and it sounds like you have), your first hand knowledge is not accepted as a source in a wikipedia article. Nor is my opinion of the pictures, no matter how right we might be. StarHOG (Talk) 14:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I like your diligence too. I’m a bit baffled by your seeming allegiance to this flawed magazine article. I mention my first hand experience of Hollywood reservoir merely to point out that I know by inspection that the article is wrong, and have pointed out that it is confused about this vs. another Star Trek episode, and that even for the other episode: This Side of Paradise, the author has made yet another error. I mentioned that there are many references for this location shoot, as it is a well known fact. I was quite surprised to see this error in the Wikipedia article on The Paradise Syndrome, and felt it my duty to correct it. Didn’t realize it would be so difficult to correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfanson (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Non, no, I have no allegiance to it. But let's say you didn't know it was wrong from going there. It was the source material for where the location was shot. Then another source gets added saying it was somewhere else. Which one is right? We as editors cannot use our personal experiences (lijke you visiting the reservoir) or knowledge (like me looking at the pictures and episode) to make decisions about what is right and wrong. We need more sources, or a source that says the LA article is flawed. That is my only allegiance, keeping the editing process pure. I have no doubt that the LA article is wrong, but that isn't good enough. StarHOG (Talk) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving the below comment to the correct section. It was originally posted above in "contents" and I had difficulty finding it. My apologies for moving another editor's comments.

Hello, StarHOG-

I have obtained copies of the Paramount Television Daily Production Reports from the UCLA library special collections (Roddenberry collection) for Star Trek production no. 60043-58 (originally titled “The Paleface” when filmed but changed a month later to “The Paradise Syndrome.” These reports state that this episode was filmed either on the Gower stages (June 11, 17, 18, 1968) or at Upper Franklin Canyon (June 12-14, 1968). It was not filmed at the Hollywood reservoir. I’ll be making a correction to the Wikipedia production section to this effect as the issue is now definitively settled.

Best,

— Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfanson (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Thank you, StarHOG- Yes, I placed the note in error in the “section above.” I don’t know if I can post the daily production reports because I’m not sure if there is a copyright associated with them. I suspect not, but the UCLA library cautions in their boilerplate against posting anything they’ve sent me, so I’m cautious. The reports of course are not marked with any copyright symbol. I’m interested to share these reports as they contain quite interesting details.

— Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfanson (talk • contribs) 08:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Jfanson (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)That makes sense to me. They are records of daily production work accomplished, nothing creative in them.