Talk:Heather Lisinski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heather Lisinski article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Greetings!

As a fan of Sprague Grayden and Heather Lisinski, and the CBS series "Jericho," I will do my best to keep this page up to speed with the latest activities of her character on the series. Comments and additions are welcome. 205.188.117.5 10:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the main article looks a lot better (and fuller) now. I am removing the stub tag -- this is plenty of information (in fact, there is more here than on the page for the actress, Sprague Grayden, so I'll have to work on that). Right now, I have listed details from every episode, but by the end of the season that will be impossible, so I plan to go back in and retcon the details at that time. I hope all this is helpful. 205.188.117.5 11:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Made some minor tweaks to this page today, a few word changes, deleted some minor and unnecessary details, making room for episode seven, which has now been added to the page. 205.188.117.5 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I took out the reference to 2009, as they appear to have decided over on the main Jericho page that this is either incorrect or speculative. Condensed details of the previous episodes and created a placeholder for episode eight, which has now been added to the article. 205.188.117.5 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there...I think there is one detail you might have gotten wrong. I don't think she grew up in Jericho. It doesn't say anywhere she didn't, but it also doesn't say anywhere that she did. I think if she had, then she would have known who Jake was, Emily's father, etc. etc. Capricorn74 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, it's awfully nice to see someone else reading this article. You might be right. I took that from Sprague Grayden's comment that "she didn't have a lot of friends in the town growing up." Turn that around, she grew up in the town. Grayden also says that she has led a "sheltered" life, and that she "represents" the town, so it was my presumption she's always been in Jericho. Now all this is coming from the actress, not the writers, so it may not be canon, but I presume she's got the backstory on her character just like Skeet Ulrich knows all about where Jake has been for the past five years, but we don't. Let me see if I can word the statement in such a manner as to make it less definite. And thanks for your feedback! 205.188.117.5 04:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, she could not have spent her entire life in the town as at some point she must have left to go to college and get her teaching credentials. 134.173.43.8 03:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems probable but is speculation at this point as we have no point of reference in the series, nor even comments (as above, from the actress) to support it. We also don't know what the educational opportunities might be available in Jericho itself, although in a town of 5,000 in rural Kansas, those might be rather limited. Let me see if I can add this to the page in some way that doesn't sound speculative. Thanks! 205.188.117.5 05:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fancruft - in reply to anonymous editors (209.244.187.8) comment

Fancruft is not my intent. I just find that many of the character's abilities to be abnormal for a small town school teacher. As of this point in time I can only assume that the showing of such tactical, technical, and scientific abilities will somehow relate to the character's currently unknown past in a seemingly interesting manner similar to that of the character Jake Green... Zoli Elo 09:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to anonymous user 64.42.205.220

This note has been read by the anonymous user for whom it was intended. I have taken down the note and the subsequent discussion with another user which is no longer relevant. 209.244.189.26 09:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision and deleted scenes

Ckatz, I put back one line of the plot description you reverted because it appears that the dynamic between Jake and Heather is going to continue to play out in season two (per interviews) and the end of episode thirteen is key in that respect. Re: deleted scenes, I doubt we will have any official word as to whether or not they are canonical. Is it better to note them in the article (with that caveat), or simply leave them out? Thanks. 209.244.189.27 08:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed, simply because we can't analyze scenes. This may sound nit-picky, but everything has to be verifiable, and one person's "obvious" may well be another person's "not so much". Usually, we can use the episode as a reference for easily verifiable actions and events - someone gets shot, someone else does "X". However, if there is the possibility of doubt, then we need to find a third-party source. (For example, when the character Dale shot one of the gang members, we couldn't say he killed him because we didn't see a dead body.) --Ckatzchatspy 10:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Okey dokey. Incidentally, the gang member (Mitchell Cafferty) sure looked dead to me but there's never been any onscreen confirmation. Now, what do we do with deleted scenes? Mention them and note that they may not be canonical, or simply leave them out? 209.244.189.27 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
When can I expect to receive an answer to the above question? 209.244.189.26 09:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posting of "reliable sources" tag

Quoting the tag:
"This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Alone, sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. In addition, to avoid original research, any interpretation or analysis of a primary source must be found within the source itself or cited to a secondary source. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources."

Quoting the user who posted it:
"Please do not remove tag prior to adding reliable, third party sources, emphasis on the plural."

Quoting yours truly:
As the person who wrote more than ninety-five percent of this page (mostly as an anonymous user), I find it highly amusing that anybody would not consider CBS and the producers of Jericho "reliable sources" on the subject of a fictional television character which they themselves created. This strikes me as the height of absurdity. Since this page continues to be edited and altered without purpose, and since this article was primarily written by me, I have moved the information over to my personal Web space, where it will continue to be updated. Wikipedia will receive no further contributions from me. Good night, and good luck. 209.244.189.27 13:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you feel that way... however, I might point out the note below the edit box:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."

By editing the page, you have contributed the text to the site without any restrictions whatsoever. In addition, since you have now copied the article back to your own page, you have to abide by Wikipedia's copyright rules, which state:

"Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)"

That means that your statement on your web page:

"This page originally appeared on Wikipedia, where 90 to 95 percent of the article was written by me. Due to continued edits and reversions, I decided to move the page to my personal web space, where it will continue to be updated and expanded. Wikipedia is specifically prohibited from using any information on this page."

is probably invalid and cannot be enforced. In addition, you should note the following:

"If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content, this entails the following: your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL; you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B); and you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is any of a number of formats available from us, including the wiki text, the html web pages, xml feed, etc.)"

Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. Also, please remember that Wikipedia articles improve because of contributions from a wide variety of sources. --Ckatzchatspy 21:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the article in question was written almost entirely by me, I believe I maintain both authorship and copyright despite having licensed the content to Wikipedia under the GFDL; see extensive discussions on a similar matter in the talk page archives of the main Jericho article. Thus, if I were to "acknowledge authorship" of the article I would be recognizing my own efforts. That said, it is my misfortune that I did not take the "edited mercilessly" warning a bit more seriously. What I have contributed to this article, I have contributed and would not retract it, nor could I. The new page on my personal web space, though, has been edited to reflect only my own work and any additions to the article are mine alone. I regret to say that Wikipedia has increasingly impressed me as a place for slavish adherence to rules (someone else's observation, not mine) and the enforcement of endless policies which hinder rather than help the increase of knowledge and the addition of useful information, and I must add that your statement above has done nothing to dissuade me from that perception. Preach on in the bully pulpit, if you wish - I'll be making my contributions elsewhere. 209.244.189.27 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you interpret my comments as "bullying", you've got issues way beyond trying to "own" the article. It was only an attempt to help, but whatever - not worth wasting any more time on. --Ckatzchatspy 12:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI - from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_pulpit:
A bully pulpit is a public office of sufficiently high rank that provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter. The bully pulpit can bring issues to the fore that were not initially in debate, due to the office's stature and publicity.
This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the American presidency as a 'bully pulpit,' by which he meant a terrific platform from which persuasively to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt often used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today). A pulpit is the elevated platform used by a preacher. The term has no relationship to the word bully in the sense of a 'harasser'.
Just so there's no misunderstanding between us. I'm done here, anyway. 209.244.189.27 13:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Since even my attempt to delete the contentious personal conversation on this page has been reverted, please note that I am deleting my Wikipedia account, and have removed all reference to my user name and personal web page, replacing these instead with a numerical IP address. For privacy reasons, please do not revert these changes. Readers should note that this article will no longer be updated by this writer. 'Bye. 209.244.189.27 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. I have proposed deletion for the following reasons: unreliable sources; original research; failure to cite references; minor character in now-cancelled TV show; article is essentially fancruft. Recommend AfD because this is far too much information to merge (a paragraph in the main Jericho article probably would be sufficient). Not being a registered user, I must ask that another Wikipedian complete the deletion nomination process. 63.3.19.1 (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The "reasons" you cite are reasons for cleanup tags, not deletion. There are plenty of references, the character is not minor, the fact the TV show is cancelled is irrelevant. I'll remove the AfD tags. -- Chuq (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Article has been tagged as needing reliable third-party sources since last year, but none have yet been added. Per WP:PROVEIT, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Character was recurring, and not a regular. IMHO, in no way does this article meets encyclopedic standards, especially with this level of detail; it reads like fancruft, pure and simple, and the OP even says so in the first remark at the top of the page. It would seem, at least, that discussion on deletion is warranted, which is why I made the AfD proposal. I see no harm in taking this article to discussion. Best, 63.3.19.1 (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged for cleanup

Article has been tagged for cleanup, subsequent to the discussion in the section immediately above. 63.3.19.1 (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)