Talk:Par Avion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Par Avion article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.


yeah, "par avion" can mean "by air mail" but it also just means "by plane"...

--- Okay, I took the "theory" out of this article, because it was just someones theory, no sources. 58.106.105.141 10:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Just changed the spelling mistake -> "ax" to "axe" Regards, Chris

I suspect the pilons keep "the monster" out.


Ax and Axe are both correct.


- Jack -

Erm. In the Trivia, it says he appears midway in the episode. Where..? Gothicfrog 21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


I see Jack at 35:33 wiping the floors as pregnant Claire walks past to visit her mother. Ronnknee 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not Jack, it's just some guy with a vague resemblance. - Mike.


Contents

[edit] "Back in sydney"

the summary states this in paragraph 4 but there is no previous mention of the flashback. Amend it? -FTR

[edit] Article name

Shouldn't Par Avion as used in air mail/air traffic have primary meaning here, and the episode be at Par Avion (Lost episode) ? -- Chuq 10:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

I added the following error section with the following material: -

Errors in Production Claire's mothers surgery, medical treatment, and subsequent life support and stay in hospital is addressed by Claire's aunt who says, "We can't afford to pay for that.", which the doctor addresses that the payments have already been sorted out. Australia uses the Medicare system, whereby all hospital treatment and medical care is given free to people who need medical treatment. There is never a question of a bill, nor is insurance required. During the cafe scene where Claire has a coffee with her newly reunited father, the father discusses other 'alternatives' to relieve Claire's mothers pain and cites that switching the life support machines off is illegal. Whilst euthanasia is illegal in Australia, removal of treatments, such as life support machines, is not deemed to be euthanasia, although it is effectively the same it is legal. During the hospital scene where a very pregnant Claire visits her mother, who is still on life support, her mother is seen to still have a tube down her ausophogus. Life support over duration would require a tracheotomy for further use to avoid liquid build up in the lungs, pneumonia and eventual death.

User ChazBeckett has subsequently reverted these edits as each individual one was made, citing: -

  • we have no idea how the Australian medical system works in the Lost universe
  • Lost exists in a fictional universe; differences from the real-world are not errors

Lost has, from the get-go, focused on realism as it's fulcrum to engage the audience, whilst I accept some things are far fetched and fanciful and intended as fiction, there are, through this episode, numerous errors, both to do with the medical system and to do with the medical care of a patient.

You could argue that in the 'Lost universe' human rights such as the right to medical treatment are absconded. But many would argue that this is a factual inaccuracy as to a faux pas of the means by which the medical system of Australia runs. Perhaps, if you are not an Australian, you would not detect this; thus it is notable as an error as many others who aren't Australians would not note this normally. Wikipedia is about items of notability.

Perhaps you could argue that in the 'Lost universe', the laws of Australia are more akin to the American producers home countries laws, but again this is a faux pas (and possibly even factually incorrect by US standards IMHO), and thus is notable to our worldly audience of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the last point I addressed is something that cannot exist in the 'Lost universe', as the patient over a period of a few weeks on ventilation through a tube would develop pneumonia from liquid build up on the lungs and die.

Thus, before you abitrarily revert my edits, reading your talk page, or perhaps the discussion page may be of benefit not only to yourself, but to fellow Wikipedians. It is impolite to just randomly revert peoples edits because you, personally, believe X or Y. 211.30.75.123 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For starters, please describe how your additions comply with WP:OR, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Also, please see my previous response at User talk:ChazBeckett. Thanks. ChazBeckett 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears our IP'd friend has gone to bed, which, if he's a fellow Aussie is probably a good idea given that the sun is rising here. Allow me to field this one. The information he addressed is common knowledge and thus doesn't fall into the WP:OR category. I have ammended citations as you requested after your third revert of this information which addresses your WP:CITE and WP:RS concerns. And with that, I too am hitting the sack for the evening. <3 Jachin 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From RfC

The problem is that what we have now is a violation of no original research. Specifically, the statements are textbook cases of unpublished synthesis of published material. For example, Source A (the episode) shows cost being discusssed in relation to the care of Claire's mother. Source B (Australian law) demonstrates that cost may not be an issue due to the Australian medical system. Using the synthesis of these two sources, it's now stated that the episode is therefore in error. This is clearly original research. WP:ATT explicitly states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." The burden does not lie on the editor questioning the validity of the statement. In this case, the statements should be removed until the issues of original research can be dealt with. ChazBeckett 23:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also information in Medicare (Australia) that suggests that it's not always the case that all expenses are paid at all hospitals in Australia. Specifically it states "For private patients in public or private hospitals, Medicare will cover 75 per cent of the Medicare Schedule fee for medical procedures. Private patients still need private hospital coverage to help with accommodation costs and other hospital charges."

This puts editors in the position where they'd have to make assumptions about what type of hospital (public or private) and what type of patient Claire's mother is (public or private). Does she have any private insurance? The episode doesn't deal with any of these matters explicitly. Trying to fill in any of these gaps would violate WP:OR, so we need to avoid this. ChazBeckett 00:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chaz on this one. The idea that the Australian medical system in the real world and the world of Lost have differences is not necessarily an "error" (It may be but it is original research to say so). There a plenty of things in Lost that do not correspond to there real world counter parts. I also take objection to the idea that this is not OR because these "facts" are common knowledge. "The sky is blue" is common knowledge no citation required, "everyone gets free health care in Australia" is not common knowledge and requires a citation. Putting two citation together is original research, so these statement have got to go. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, that is exactly why I used the reference of America not being communist, which addresses the ad populus argument directly and succinctly.

Chaz, you seem to be taking that authors posts personally, which is rather odd. The information is there, be bold, enhance on it rather than stripping it arbitrarily, repeatedly. Jachin 07:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a little addendum, the first paragraph of Chaz's, 'private patients in' .. therein lies the problem, public patients get free healthcare. Private patients get subsidised healthcare because their private healthcare fund picks up the tab for the rest of the service. This is dealt with between Medicare and the private healthcare fund. The 'price' of care isn't discussed in a hospital, because it's irrelivant.
Having re-read this entire situation, I'm definitely seeing where IP dude is coming from. It's quite an insulting and racist faux pas to insinuate that Australia would deny medical aid to someone who needs it at cost. Jachin 07:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, final edit but I've got to get this off my chest. I am strongly of the belief that Chaz has a problem ad hominem and not with the facts. Given the disputed tag of the factual accuracy of the errors section, albeit the statement it is original research, one could argue on the flipside that the entire trivia section is also. It would be stupid to do so, but it's definitely equally valid. As with all trivia sections. Allow me to illustrate: -

According to Claire at the end of the episode, they have now been on the island for 80 days, which would currently make it December 10th, 2004.

Perhaps in the Lost Universe they went through a time warp and it's now another year?

Sawyer is seen reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.

He could have been reading anything, just because it said that on the cover (Don't judge a book by it's ..).

Claire Littleton and Jack Shephard are revealed to be half-siblings in this episode, unbeknownst to either of them. They share the same father, Christian Shephard.

How do you know that was actually Christian Shepard? Perhaps Dharma have cloned him?

Claire's only mention of her mother prior to this episode came in her flashbacks in "Raised by Another"; when she and Thomas discovered she was pregnant, Claire told him that "[her] mom would disown [her]," to which Thomas replied "Well, she basically has already."

Citations please?  :P

One claim versus another becomes rather redundant. I don't see why you'd go to the extremes you have with the matter to discredit fellow editors who are merely making additional information available. By where your argument is going we'd have to nerf every trivia section and every error section for every episode of every show ever created, thus I hold it to be logically flawed. Jachin 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's a lot to reply to, but I'll try to keep it concise. The issue here is not the Australian healthcare system. Quite honestly, I have no opinion at all on it since it's pretty much irrelevant to my life. Also, I've never encountered the anon or you (Jachin) ever so I'm rather puzzled by how you came to be "strongly of the belief that Chaz has a problem ad hominem and not with the facts." This isn't a dispute about editors, it's about Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Plain and simple.
The synthesis section of the attribution policy nicely captures the problem:
"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research."
Wikipedia's policy is to include only information that can already be found in reliable primary or secondary sources. It is not up to us to synthesize these sources in order to make conclusions or assertions. What is required to include the statements in dispute is a reliable source stating that the discussion and potrayal of Australian healthcare in Par Avion is an error. That may seem nearly impossible since how many reliable sources are there going to be on a specific scene of a specific epsiode of a specific television series? And this speaks to the larger problem of having articles on single episodes.
You brought up a good point in your last paragraph when you stated "By where your argument is going we'd have to nerf every trivia section and every error section for every episode of every show ever created..." Most trivia or "errors" in articles exist because they're undisputed, properly sourced or no one cares enough to bother removing them. Unfortunately, a lot falls in that last category. Any controversial or disputed trivia/errors should either be removed, sourced (as discussed in the above paragraph) or the statements should be reworded to state only what was observed .
For example, we state that "According to Claire..." they have been on the island for 80 days. This is because we don't have any citations to prove they've been on the island 80 days, only what Claire claims. If you believe that some of the trivia in this (or any other article) violates policy needs to be removed or tagged, I fully support that.
I think these disputed statements really amount to nitpicks and I'd prefer not to debate them much longer. I hope my explanation has made the situation and my position a little clearer. Thanks. ChazBeckett 12:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification of your position. I understand where you are coming from, however I tend to stand more behind a common sense approach to such matters. When matters are obvious fact to more than a handful or niche group of people that is. The synthesis angle is interesting yet horrifically flawed. I believe that that is more a purposive construct for defence against highly contraversial or inflammatory comments and not so much put in place to make editors lives that difficult that they give up bothering with adding their trivia or errors noticed in film and screen media production stubs or articles.
I would truly challenge the policies in this relation, because they go completely against common sense. I'd definitely recommend next time those policies come up for review we introduce this talk page as an example of how they are effecting articles such as these, because the removal of all trivia or error entries on all screen media production pages is logically flawed.
It does quite irritate me however that we're appointing articles to episode names. I don't believe a Lost episode has more notability than 'Par Avion' does in so far as the traditional 'by airmail' slogan. It was interesting that the disambig line up top was 'for the old meaning of..' .. last I checked it's still the current meaning.  :P Jachin 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:SYN does not just apply to controversial claims. Putting two sources together is not appropriate in any situation. That is the policy, if you would like to change it you can discuss it on the WP:OR talk page. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, re-reading this whole section, I wasted my time replying altogether. There is no synthesis. Jachin 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you figure? The errors section puts two sources together that is synthesis. --Daniel J. Leivick 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No synthesis? Right...just like there's no sockpuppet. ChazBeckett 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this whole “have they been on the island for eighty days or not?” matter, we received an answer to this question two episodes later; Exposé reveals that yes, indeed, they have been on that island for 80 days. (Mchelada 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Pylons seen in episode 7 "The Moth"?

After watching this episode I re-watched the seventh episode of season one "The Moth ". Just after Charlie volunteers to go into the cave to rescue Jack (time 23:25) there is a still of the island in which a series of regularly spaced posts can be seen in the lower left. I've not found any references to these on fansites etc., but I think this may be a little hint to the pylons which are seen in this episode. Uberdude85 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Patchydies.jpg

Image:Patchydies.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)