Talk:United States of Tara/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spoilers

Please stop posting spoilers. Don't add newly found info until the day after the episode has aired on the regular Showtime (Mondays). If you watch it on demand ahead of time, fine, keep it to yourself and don't spoil it for those of us who don't.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This goes against Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Spoiler). If you don't want to be "spoiled", don't edit this article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting the line about Tara being raped was the cause of her DID

Who keeps deleting the line about Tara's rape being the cause of her DID, and why? It may not have been explicitly stated in the show but if you read the DID article it clearly states (from clinical studies):

"Dissociation is recognized as a symptomatic presentation in response to trauma, extreme emotional stress, and, as noted, in association with emotional dysregulation and borderline personality disorder.

I don't know about you but I'm guessing her rape was pretty traumatic, and I'm no psychologist, but she seems to transform into an alter whenever she gets reminded of it (for example in the pilot when seeing Kate getting beaten by her boyfriend, she turned into Buck, her "tough guy" personality) who she sees fit to handle the situation (Buck later beats up the abuser).TomCat4680 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not sourced, and even within the show, it is not mentioned as a definite cause of the DID, just a theory, so when you DO get a source, make sure you word it carefully. Nar Matteru (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well the stuff about Gimmie isn't sourced either and since the episode hasn't aired yet its a violation of WP:CRYSTAL so I'm taking it out.TomCat4680 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need a source. Anyone that's ever passed high school psychology can figure out that Tara was traumatized after being raped...err 'sexually abused' at boarding school, so she developed the disorder to deal with her intense emotions. Obviously her therapist (like most therapists) is too stupid to figure that out. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How's this for a theory. T is Tara before the rape, Buck is the brother or father she wishes would have been there to stop the abuse, Alice is what Tara considers the perfect wife that Max wishes he had, Poncho Goblin is child Tara.TomCat4680 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of information about Gimme

I've re-added the paragraph about Gimme, removed here by TomCat4680. TomCat, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (as evidence by your edit summary and comments above) and it is inappropriate behaviour. Regardless of the issue discussed above, the information about Gimme is verifiable and doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL. I've watched episode 8; it's not speculation just because it hasn't aired to a wider audience. Please engage in civil discussion rather than using sarcasm and deleting content to try to prove your point. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith before you make accusations like that. I'm trying to save the general viewing public who want to watch the show on its original airing without being spoiled by overzealous obsessive fans like you. You're the one being inconsiderate by watching the show On Demand a week in advance then ruining it for those who chose to watch it the old fashioned way. You know what, maybe the general viewing public doesn't want to be spoiled. Ever think of that? NO! You're just being selfish and self centered and serving your own purpose by spoiling it for the rest of us. Its just like seeing a movie the first day it comes out then going back the next day and telling everyone how it ends. Be considerate of other people's wants and needs, the world doesn't revolve around you. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

you guys are giving a bad name to the internets. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

you guys are taking this a little too seriously.

1. Spoilers are not prohibited on wikipedia.
2. Not sure on if that still applies to episodes not having technically aired yet or not, however the on demand still counts as a release in some form or another.
3. Alice specifically said the name "Gimme" in regards to the pissing poncho goblin. That holds a whole lot more water than the theory that max is investigating. No character, even the trained psychiatrist, has actually determined that the rape was the exact cause of the DID. Nar Matteru (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I give up, I'm just going to watch it On Demand now too, since people are just going to spoil it anyway.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How can you quote policy at me when you're ignoring it yourself? I've already mentioned WP:SPOILERS, but I'll do it again; there's also your personal attacks, which, besides being rude and inappropriate, flout numerous other Wikipedia policies. Calling me "inconsiderate" and saying I'm "serving my own purpose" and being "selfish and self centered" doesn't further the argument, and I'm certainly not hurt by your comments in any way. What are you trying to achieve? Please try to be mature. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I said you win, I'll leave the spoilers in. Just think about your actions and how they might affect others from now on.TomCat4680 (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the ondemand users (and after being ripped and uploaded, pirates like me) see it before its traditional form of release, doesn't make it any less of a release. We don't wait until a movie comes out on DVD to add plot details, simply because people might not have been able to see it in a theatre. Or hell, most US films/TV Shows have delayed international releases, clearly we should wait until every country on earth has seen a release before printing plot details.

Censorship is a very slippery slope, where does this line lie that divides the point where its acceptable to have spoilers and when its not. (I know you're gonna try and answer that anyway, but it was rhetorical)

I think you need to calm down, hang back and watch how wikipedia works, not just learning policies, watch the community as well, see how things tick, how consensus is reached, how disputes are resolved, learn how to stop letting your emotions take complete control of your keyboard, etc Nar Matteru (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

An IP editor who thinks they're a psychologist analyzed each alter and came to hypothesis about why each one comes out and when. I marked it as original research (and removed a sentence that was in the first person). Should I just take them all out? TomCat4680 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

- That was me. I actually am a psychologist, but I understand why you would want to take it out. It was basically speculation based on my knowledge. I did make sure to add the word "seems" in what I wrote to make it clear that it was in no way authoritative. Just Saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.14.140 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you're a psychologist. If you were you'd know that its inappropriate in an encyclopedia to begin sentences with "I" or try to "diagnose" people (especially fictional characters) based on your supposed "expertise" because it is considered original research. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

- I don't see how any of your criticisms pertain to whether or not I am a psychologist. The reason the one sentence had "I" in it is because I was discussing it on a messageboard with some other people and afterward thought it might be an interesting add-on to the wikipedia entry. I just missed that in the corrections when I copy/pasted. I made the assumption that the writers are trying to form a cohesive picture of why Tara transforms and that her various personalities aren't just completely random. I assume the writers are trying to slowly reveal an angle, so I speculated on what the writers were going for based on my knowledge and hence, once again, made sure to include the word "seems." I think by doing that I was encouraging some healthy mental exploration into the show which is a good thing. Is that more clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.14.140 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok Dr. Anonymous, I.P. What are your credentials? TomCat4680 (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A) Credentials don't matter on wikipedia. If an 8 year old adds something with a reliable source to back it up, it trumps :::Original Research from someone with a doctorate any day.

B) I find it funny that TomCat is chiding an anonymous IP for the very same thing he was warned against doing earlier.

C) Psychoanalyzing fictional characters should probably be best be left as a personal hobby, and off of wikipedia.

Does anyone watch tv for entertainment anymore? Nar Matteru (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

re: B. Yes but I took it down myself after it was declared original research. If anonymous really was a psychologist they'd have a screen name. Earning a doctorate is quite an accomplishment and I don't know about you but if I had mine I'd flaunt it as much as possible. So maybe they are actually an 8 year old? TomCat4680 (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, that makes no sense, being a psychologist has absolutely nothing to do with the internet or even wikipedia. I'm completely unaware of any mandate stating that upon receiving their doctorate, all psychologists automatically recieve a wikipedia account and username.

As for having a Doctorate, you could flaunt it as much as you want, it wouldn't make your edits any more suitable for inclusion in wikipedia any more than an 8 year old's if it violates wikipedia policy. The only thing it might have a bearing on is respect from some editors who feel that education somehow equates intelligence (it doesn't) And unfortunately, those same editors might be hesitant to remove opinions, or even worse, incorrect information from the encyclopedia out of fear of inferiority. Nar Matteru (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

- Me again. Let me reiterate. What I wrote was speculation. I made that clear in the writing. Tomcat I don't know why you are making such a big deal out of it. I thought it could be an interesting line of though for those who are into reading into characters of shows they like. I know a lot of people like that. It is not research. My being a psychologist is almost completely irrelevant. I don't have a screen name because I don't care to make one; I rarely edit wikipedia. Your sense of logic is really awful. I feel like the entry was more interesting after writing what I had written. So what if wikipedia promotes some stated speculation along with the facts? Is that really such a bad thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.14.140 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"So what if wikipedia promotes some stated speculation along with the facts? Is that really such a bad thing?" Yes, as it is against the goal of an encyclopedia. Nar Matteru (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It'd be better if you used exact quotes from the show or name the specific scenes in specific episodes that prove your conclusions. Your claims were all very vague and generalized so I marked them as dubious (meaning that claim is debatable). TomCat4680 (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Who played Tiffany?

What's the name of the actress who played Tiffany? I think she should be mentioned in the article because she took out a restraining order against Tara and got Charmaine fired from her job when her mural was defaced but I can't find the her name anywhere. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Solved by someone else. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add the names of Tara / Charmaine's parents too TomCat4680 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The actress who played the mother is Pamela Reed However, I'm not sure these characters are notable enough for inclusion. Nar Matteru (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure they are. They think Tara isn't well enough mentally to raise her own kids. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. They are extremely minor characters, the parents only having one appearance, and the whole bit about them not thinking shes capable of raising her kids is pretty trivial as well. I'm not gonna remove them, but chances are, someone else will. Tiffany, on the other hand, I can see, not just for the reasons you stated but also because of the fact that its still not certain which alter defaced her mural (Assumptions have been made about both T or Gimme, but still not known to the audience yet) Nar Matteru (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a good chance that any one of the four could have done it, but that's just my opinion. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

An IP editor who thinks they're a psychologist analyzed each alter and came to hypothesis about why each one comes out and when. I marked it as original research (and removed a sentence that was in the first person). Should I just take them all out? TomCat4680 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

- That was me. I actually am a psychologist, but I understand why you would want to take it out. It was basically speculation based on my knowledge. I did make sure to add the word "seems" in what I wrote to make it clear that it was in no way authoritative. Just Saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.14.140 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you're a psychologist. If you were you'd know that its inappropriate in an encyclopedia to begin sentences with "I" or try to "diagnose" people (especially fictional characters) based on your supposed "expertise" because it is considered original research. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

- I don't see how any of your criticisms pertain to whether or not I am a psychologist. The reason the one sentence had "I" in it is because I was discussing it on a messageboard with some other people and afterward thought it might be an interesting add-on to the wikipedia entry. I just missed that in the corrections when I copy/pasted. I made the assumption that the writers are trying to form a cohesive picture of why Tara transforms and that her various personalities aren't just completely random. I assume the writers are trying to slowly reveal an angle, so I speculated on what the writers were going for based on my knowledge and hence, once again, made sure to include the word "seems." I think by doing that I was encouraging some healthy mental exploration into the show which is a good thing. Is that more clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.14.140 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok Dr. Anonymous, I.P. What are your credentials? TomCat4680 (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A) Credentials don't matter on wikipedia. If an 8 year old adds something with a reliable source to back it up, it trumps :::Original Research from someone with a doctorate any day.

B) I find it funny that TomCat is chiding an anonymous IP for the very same thing he was warned against doing earlier.

C) Psychoanalyzing fictional characters should probably be best be left as a personal hobby, and off of wikipedia.

Does anyone watch tv for entertainment anymore? Nar Matteru (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

re: B. Yes but I took it down myself after it was declared original research. If anonymous really was a psychologist they'd have a screen name. Earning a doctorate is quite an accomplishment and I don't know about you but if I had mine I'd flaunt it as much as possible. So maybe they are actually an 8 year old? TomCat4680 (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, that makes no sense, being a psychologist has absolutely nothing to do with the internet or even wikipedia. I'm completely unaware of any mandate stating that upon receiving their doctorate, all psychologists automatically recieve a wikipedia account and username.

As for having a Doctorate, you could flaunt it as much as you want, it wouldn't make your edits any more suitable for inclusion in wikipedia any more than an 8 year old's if it violates wikipedia policy. The only thing it might have a bearing on is respect from some editors who feel that education somehow equates intelligence (it doesn't) And unfortunately, those same editors might be hesitant to remove opinions, or even worse, incorrect information from the encyclopedia out of fear of inferiority. Nar Matteru (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

- Me again. Let me reiterate. What I wrote was speculation. I made that clear in the writing. Tomcat I don't know why you are making such a big deal out of it. I thought it could be an interesting line of though for those who are into reading into characters of shows they like. I know a lot of people like that. It is not research. My being a psychologist is almost completely irrelevant. I don't have a screen name because I don't care to make one; I rarely edit wikipedia. Your sense of logic is really awful. I feel like the entry was more interesting after writing what I had written. So what if wikipedia promotes some stated speculation along with the facts? Is that really such a bad thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.14.140 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"So what if wikipedia promotes some stated speculation along with the facts? Is that really such a bad thing?" Yes, as it is against the goal of an encyclopedia. Nar Matteru (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It'd be better if you used exact quotes from the show or name the specific scenes in specific episodes that prove your conclusions. Your claims were all very vague and generalized so I marked them as dubious (meaning that claim is debatable). TomCat4680 (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Who played Tiffany?

What's the name of the actress who played Tiffany? I think she should be mentioned in the article because she took out a restraining order against Tara and got Charmaine fired from her job when her mural was defaced but I can't find the her name anywhere. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Solved by someone else. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add the names of Tara / Charmaine's parents too TomCat4680 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The actress who played the mother is Pamela Reed However, I'm not sure these characters are notable enough for inclusion. Nar Matteru (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure they are. They think Tara isn't well enough mentally to raise her own kids. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. They are extremely minor characters, the parents only having one appearance, and the whole bit about them not thinking shes capable of raising her kids is pretty trivial as well. I'm not gonna remove them, but chances are, someone else will. Tiffany, on the other hand, I can see, not just for the reasons you stated but also because of the fact that its still not certain which alter defaced her mural (Assumptions have been made about both T or Gimme, but still not known to the audience yet) Nar Matteru (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a good chance that any one of the four could have done it, but that's just my opinion. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop changing Diablo Cody to Brook Busey

Whoever keeps changing Diablo Cody to "Brook Busey", please stop. She is a writer and her pen name is Diablo Cody. Yes, Brook Busey is her legal birth name, but she does not use it professionally. Does anyone say that their favorite actor is Marion Morrison or Norma Jean Baker? Does say their favorite author is Eric Blair or Samuel Clemens? Does anyone say their favorite musician is Brian Warner or Steven Georgiou? I don't think so. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Who played Tripp?

I added a character profile for Tripp Johansson, but I couldn't find the actor's name. Please add it if you know who played him. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

T is 16, not 15

Okay from now on I will skip all the way to the 4th vandalism warning for anyone who changes T's age from 16 to 15. T is 16. She said in episode 10 that she is the same age as Jason. (He said "I'm 16". She later said "I'm the same age as you".) People have changed it to 15 way too many times and its untrue. She was 15 for the first 5 episodes but she became 16 on Charmine's birthday. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A) You need to relax. This is a fairly unimportant point to harp on. You are bordering on WP:OWN alot lately, which is a shame, since you are also the editor making the most valuable contributions to this article.

B) It's not a good idea to skip warning levels, as its kinda against the purpose of having multiple warning levels. Not aware of any rule against it, however. Nar Matteru (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm plenty relaxed. I never said I owned anything. I just don't like people changing information repeatedly after it has been reverted several times. Same thing with changing Diablo Cody to Brook Busey, its been reverted repeatedly yet people continue to do it. Anyways, I explained why she is now 16 and not 15, so hopefully this will end the confusion. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, T doesn't even appear in episode 6, and "I'm the same age as you" could be ambiguous, not to mention the fact that T is a liar. Neither you nor whoever is changing it back has provided a source, and its a VERY minor issue to begin with.Nar Matteru (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I quoted a line from the show, how is that not a reliable source? They have done no such thing. Odd how the changers have all been IP's (where most vandalism comes from), yet I have a record of being a very helpful contributor who always sources their statements properly. Who is more credible here? TomCat4680 (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Credibility of sources matters on wikipedia, credibility of editors does not. Anonymous editors are not second class citizens on wikipedia, and you must still assume good faith when dealing with them. If you suspect that they are all one editor with a dynamic IP address, you can accuse them of sockpuppetry. Quoting a line isn't really sourcing, linking to a transcript would be. Not to mention the ambiguity of the statement itself, and speaking of credibility, T herself being a known liar and manipulator.

And T doesn't even appear in episode 6, much less change age in a form seen by the audience.Nar Matteru (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok if its ambiguous I'll just change 16 / 15 to "teenaged". Problem solved. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It also solves the whole problem of time within the course of the show, imagine if you were to try and list the ages of characters in a show like friends which took place over a long enough period of time that the characters aged significantly during the show's run. Can't just pick and choose at which point in the series their ages should be listed. Nar Matteru (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay since you agree, end of discussion. I thought there was something about Max realizing that T and the other alters never age though, since technically they're not real people, they're just in her head. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Rape" at Boarding School

I have some issues with the discussion, mostly in the section about Trip, of Tara's rape. It is revealed in the last episode of Season 1 that Tara was not active during the event; it was T. who was in control of her body, and T. was a more than willing participant. As such, is it fair to categorize this event as rape? Certainly, from Tara's perspective, that's what it is interpreted as; but not so from T.'s, and Trip seems to be under the impression that what he did was wrong because of the alcohol involved, not because of a lack of willingness on T.'s part. I know this is a much larger issue than can be dealt with in any meaningful way on a talk page (can the 'alters' of an individual with a form of DID that strikingly mimics the highly dubious narratives of MPD of the 1970s and 1980s engage in consensual sex using that individual's body, or is that always already a form of rape?), but we're taking a stand either way through our word choice. So, what do other people think? I'll give it a little bit, then submit a revised version of Trip's description here at the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandTheHeadlessThompsonGunner (talk • contribs) 15:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, alters can influence the host's sexual activities. Buck has sex with women (Pammy), even though Tara is straight. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

archival procedure

 Fixed

very confusing, seemingly contradictory messages on this discussion page.

1. (wide box) "This talk page is automatically archived. Any sections with no replies in 7 days are automatically moved. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived."

2. (side box) "This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 28 days are automatically moved."

which is it? no replies are archived in 7 or 28 days? but then, would not "fewer than two timestamps" = ONE...or equivalent of NO replies (one timestamp would be from whomever created the section) and thus not be archived?

i'm sufficiently confused.

finally, IS there at my writing an archive? any links in the message boxes about archiving only seem to direct one to "help with archiving".--71.183.40.173 (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, whoever setup the archiving really made a mess of it. To answer your questions, the message in the side box corresponds to what the archive was set to (28 days). I've removed the wide box. For some reason the archive began at "Archive 3", so that's why it didn't show up in the "Archives" box. I've moved the archive to Talk:United States of Tara/Archive 1 now. What the message "No replies in 28 days are automatically moved" actually means is "if for 28 days there are no additional comments then it will get archived" rather than "if there are zero replies than the thread will get archived in 28 days". Hopefully it's all fixed now. Thanks for discovering this. - kollision (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Article class

this is below a c grade article imo but i don't know how to change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinner458 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States of Tara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090214045815/http://www.multichannel.com:80/article/173970-Showtime_United_With_Tara_For_Second_Season.php to http://www.multichannel.com/article/173970-Showtime_United_With_Tara_For_Second_Season.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)