Talk:Haven (TV series)

"excluding Canada and Scandinavia"

"The series will be the first property to be produced for Syfy Pay channels around the globe, excluding Canada and Scandinavia."

This is taken almost word-for-word from the article, however the phrasing is extremely confusing. What is Canada and Scandinavia being excluded from? Is it not airing there? (despite being produced and filmed in Canada) Is it being produced for channels other than Syfy in those countries? There are plenty of ways this could be interpreted, but none of them seem reasonable. (if it's produced and filmed in Canada why isn't it being shown there? If it's being shown on Syfy in all other countries why isn't it being shown on Syfy in Canada and Scandinavia. Since I don't understand what the sentence is saying I can't determine whether it's even worthwhile to include in the article at all. I would suggest either rephrasing it to make it less ambiguous or removing it completely. --StarkRG (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes that is awkward phrasing. It is E1's typical phrasing for a press release announcing the broadcasting rights buyers for a series. To be simple, there is no Syfy channel in Canada. It is one of few countries where there is no Syfy or any other Universal channel save for NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC. In Canada Haven is a "Showcase original series". E1 Entertainment partners with a Canadian production company, in this case Canwest, to make this and a few other shows in Canada. Canwest also owns the cable channel Showcase. The science fiction themed channel SPACE is owned by Canwest's competition and its existence is why the American version of Syfy is not licensed to be shown in Canada and why there is no domestic version of Syfy.

In a somewhat similar fashion, there is no Universal or Syfy channel in Scandinavian countries (that i can find mention of anywhere). Other shows distributed by E1 are bought by local stations or networks in that part of the world. They will likely begin announcing acquisition of Haven soon if they have not already done so. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Official Fan Site

The site Visit Haven has been set up for fans to interact - it is being established by people directly involved in the series including Exec Producer Jose Molina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goer2u4 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please back that up, there is no such info on the website to support such claims. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Best I can do right now is refer you to a recent tweet from his official Twitter account JoseMolinaTV but I know from having spoken to him personally. There's also reference to the website on the official Haven twitter account HavenTV Goer2u4 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, we don't include fansites here. The primary site for the show is enough. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

References to other works

I made a slight correction to the mention of Flagg. It was originally written as a mention of "Reverend Flagg", but after checking once again on the show intro credits...the flier mentions "The Most Revered Flagg". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.153.249 (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Destructive editing

Numerous points in the section "Homage to Stephen King" were edited out recently rather than noted with a citation request. The request for references might be expected, but individual hacking of the text does not reflect interest in consensus. I've put most of the material back after finding the suitable references. It's easy to hack, but it is not responsible. The aim of Wiki is to be informative. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, terming anyone's edits as "destructive" - especially when said edits aren't complete nonsense or vandalism - is considered bad faith; you assume good faith and you will find that you get it in return.

Secondly, while the aim of Wikipedia is to be informative, it is actually more important to be careful as to whose opinion is being rendered as part of the article. For example, if I said that Haven was a typical whitebread piece of Canadian trash, I couldn't add that to the article because that is my opinion. Drawing connections within the series to support that conclusion would be original research or synthesis. Drawing connections between Stephen King or his body of work in the absence of verifiable, reliable sources cannot be included as well. I cannot speak for ThuranX, but would presume that he looked at all the connections that were offered and considered them trivial; were that the case, I find myself in agreement with him. A nod to the homages have to come in a more reliable and verifiable (at least on of your citations is a dead link, btw) than a cheap version of pop-up video.

I propose we discuss each of these points on this page, to weigh how vital they are to an understanding of the series, or whether they are simply an interesting aside drawn by a group of fans with no citational standing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Destructive editing" is merely descriptive. Your editing destroyed the material, removing most of it. This is not a matter of good or bad faith. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be helpful, you should supply something more specific than "at least on of your citations is a dead link, btw". -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Continued non-consensus editing is not reflective of Wiki policy. Do not hack out other people's work then discuss it. You discuss, before you remove. Various other people put this material in. They reflect a consensus of active editors on the issue. I mostly only put the references in and edited it accordingly. If you have problems with the references or the section in general then you discuss the issues. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. To begin with, you might have noticed that I have undone some of your comment placement amongst my text. It's usually seen as extremely combative to alter the posts of another, even at the best of times. I'll address this more on your own talk page, but I must ask you to not do it again; its considered tendentious editing, and has a few negative repercussions, not the least of which is the loss of good faith (remember how I mentioned WP:AGF before?) amongst your fellow editors. As well, there is no good take on terming someone's edits as "destructive"; just because you disagree with those edits doesn't make them bad - it just makes them different than yours.

Lets address some of the points you have addressed. You keep speaking of a consensus, but I am not seeing that which you speak of. Are you referring to a consensus of wiki editors who feel the material must be in in its entirety? I am not seeing that and frankly, that is the only consensus that matters here within WIkipedia. Consensus is a built thing amongst editors with differing viewpoints as to what the article should and should not contain, and it changes all the time. Get used to that.

To put it succinctly, I tink you are relying overmuch on one site to provide you the trivial bits of connection that you are seeking to add to the article. One or two of the more significant points might be worthy of inclusion - and that is a hefty 'might' - but not every crufty little bit. I am open to discussing this, but understand that it is the crucible of that discussion that forms not consensus, and not you deciding that it belongs in all by yourself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that you have let off steam can we get back to the issue of editing?

You are a new editor of this article. You haven't contributed any content to it. You have come along and simply removed large amounts of other people's work without consultation or comment in the discussion page. This was done on the grounds that the material didn't have citations to support it. No effort was made by you on the discussion page at this stage to talk about whether it is reasonable to remove the material. You stated in your edit summary: Find a citation that connects the instances to King's works, and it can come back. This however, proved to be false. When everything that had citations was put back, you removed the material again, changing your justification, saying: "some of these choices seem synthesized, Hutch - perhaps addressing them singly on the discussion page might be helpful." (And my name is not "Hutch", so please don't refer to me that way.)

I work on attempting to respect the intentions of the editors who have worked on the material before me. That means I will try to use as much of it as possible, though I don't have any personal interest in the section under examination other than the effort attempting to improve it. You came and removed material as you did on the grounds of lack of citations. Your reasoning for removing the material you did should have been clarified by the several references obtained from the horse's mouth. The producers of the program have given specific indications of the King references. This is not a matter of original research. I don't understand why you were not satisfied with the citations, as per your original complaint. If you believed your new reasoning, why didn't you state it originally?

Several people have contributed to the section. They show that there is a consensus for the material in the section. I did appreciate your original complaint, causing a review of the material and the insertion of citations, but your reversion of the material rather than discussing your new objections to it is odd to say the least. You have received feedback on your original large edit. The problem was addressed, ie the material was changed, not reverted. Your reversion was promiscuous. Your reasoning changed. Your next step should have been discussion not reversion. You are not engaging according to the guidelines in WP:BRD. Your editing cashes out as disruptive and cannot build a new consensus. I see from comments on your talk page that you are prone to edit conflicts, suggesting that you need to consider consensus more seriously. This is not the first time that your have been reminded of the WP:BRD process, due to your preference to revert rather than to talk. Rather than project onto me your responsiblities, please talk about your new complaint rather than simply revert as you have. I am returning the material of the section to the last new edit where I provided the citations you requested. Discuss before reverting. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, this section still looks more like trivia than any kind of significant addition to the article. I would suggest that the material be completely rewritten and significantly condensed into a paragraph format. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Huntster (and ThuranX, if I may be so bold as to glean an opinion from his single edit removing some of the trivia) - the material is both inconsequential to the series and, at best, trivial.

I will again point out that you perhaps misunderstand our guidelines in regards to what is and is not a consensus. It doesn't matter that I've never edited the article here before - in Wikipedia, we are all equally qualified to edit an article, until proven otherwise. It's important that you absorb that, Ihutchesson - ere your Wikipedia ride is bound to be a bumpy one. Consensus changes, and often changes daily. Prior consensus only matters until someone else says 'say what?' and offers good reasons why the prior edits are silly.

And am sorry if you feel I was being less than genuine in my issues with the trivia section. While I was pointing out the largest issue with the crufty little section of King connections, the edit summary space is only so large - my issues with the section far exceeded the space allowed.

Perhaps you could express to us - via citations - how this additional material helps to obtain a greater understanding of the series, because I am simply not seeing how it does.

You don't provide any constructive way forward, Jack Sebastian. You merely try to put the issue onto me. You made an edit and I dealt with that edit by responding to your issue of citations. You are the one who wants to change the section. Where are your productive suggestions? Leaving the vestigal fragment that is there now is not of little use. It doesn't reflect the fact that there is an evident policy of the writers to consistently cite King's works throughout the series. It is merely an introductory passage with one random example marked with a dot. Rewrite it. Be a good editor rather than simply reverting a change that you stimulated. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

By all means Huntster, rewrite the whole section so that it reflects what you would like. It will be either accepted or modified! It will probably be more useful than what has happened to it now. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've made some substantial edits to the section previously entitled "Homage to Stephen King". To begin with, I've changed the title to "References to other works", seeing as a reference to The X-Files is apparently out there, as well. I've converted some of the more solid references (ie. not prone to accusations of original research or synthesis) into prose. This should satisfy the editor most interested in preserving his researched additions as well as improve the article, moving it closer to GA candidacy. I've added a cited reference where someone noted a reference to the X-Files' Fox "Spooky" Mulder.
Additionally, I've trimmed down the cast list - no sense adding every Tom. Dick and Harriet, since there is a link to another page that details each and every one of them. Lastly, I've addressed some of the more egregious problems in the bullet-pointed opening credits section. I get why it might have a place in the article, but bullet-point lists don't really appear in GA articles; there must be a way to convert to prose these events. Perhaps someone citable has opined about the nature of them. Were such out there, we could simply refer to them, and not go out on a limb, expressing our impressions as to what we are seeing and what it means.
Hopefully, these series of edits will satisfy people. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Title changed to "Stephen King in Haven", removed the trivial reference to X-Files and added a few more examples of King in Haven. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You might want to discuss that removal, as its cited. Unless, of course, you did it out of spite. Of course the matter is still up for discussion and, considering that the matter is in fact verifiable and reliably cited, it's going o stay in until otherwise determined to be trivial. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Let us examine those bits that keep getting added in by an editor (the same one who initially added them and is apparently loathe to see them go). The DIFF where their bold addition has been reverted can be seen here.

The title is changed to reflect only a Stephen King homage" to the series. Additionally, every single one of the less notable instances - instances alluded to in the (imho) better version of the text created by myself - have been reinserted. To list them all is trivial, as has been noted by no less than three other editors. I would say that that forms a consensus for trimming. Additionally, there is entirely too much synthesis occurring in the connections being formed by the editor linking one of the plot points in an episode to a King story. Lastly, the X-Files reference within the series, actually well-cited, was removed without any reasoning for such(here or in the all-too-short edit summary).

All have been reverted as the BOLD edits they were. It is hoped that the person seeking to change the info will make their way here to defend their proposed changes, and we can go from there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The X-Files business was obtained from a user-written non-reliable source written by one robertkillen@hotmail.com. Your edit in that issue is poorly conceived and has no value. As such it must go. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide something in the way of proof that the source is non-reliable, Ian, or any less reliable or verifiable than source you have provided for the article? I am not seeing what you are. I appreciate you seeking to discuss the matter instead of simply reverting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is not a recognized authority. The site is not a recognized authority on the material. You have no way of valuing the source. You should not have put the material on the page. It is against Wiki policy to use such a questionable source. The material that you removed is from the company that supplies the program and is thus considered a reliable source.

Please explain why you removed the material relating to King's "It" and the writers' use of it. This is non-trivial and shows a useful background to the writers and the material they use. Your reversion seems to have no sense in it. It has nothing to do with your trivia about X-Files. It is a separate issue. It was part of the material you removed in your first hack. You merely cut it out with the excuse of lack of citation. Then you cut it out again for another excuse. It is noteworthy. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The title that you have used suggests that the material is merely trivia. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hutch, I am starting to suspect that you are going to oppose any removal of information about King references. i am hoping that isn't the issue, because it would mean that you haven't read up on WP:OWN, which would be an oversight ion your part.

As to why a lot of the minor refernces to King's work were removed was predicated on how Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The reference to It was visual only, and had precisely no bearing on the episode in which it appeared. That is the litmus for deciding what references of King's get mentioned. Where the references are explicit - as in the very name of the town and specific refernces to other parts of the King Storyworld, we mention it. If the changes are ephemeral, or require someone well-versed in King's works to understand, then we do not mention it. These are the basics of article editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And if the Mulder citation bothers you, the second one I added to the X-Files reference should represent an even more reliable source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your importance is noteworthy, Sebby. You tout your own doctoring of the section as "better version of the text created by myself". I would expect this from anyone who edits their first page. Passing slights such as "Unless, of course, you did it out of spite" should make you reconsider WP:AGF. The claim of "too much synthesis" merely indicates that you did not look at the sources.

You stated that you are starting to suspect that you are going to oppose any removal of information about King references. Please stop with the unhelpful conjecturing. Much of the King material was left out of my last substantive edit, so a fair portion of the above is irrelevant.

The TV.com source is just another user-supplied quote and not reliable. I'll change it for you if you like. Perhaps you should reconsider what is and what is not a reliable source. You seem to have a generic problem on the matter. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears that you are going to keep taking cheap shots, I am going to suggest that we take the matter to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and let them give us some uninvolved feedback. I suspect that is going to work far better than reverting each other. I will file there immediately. Towards that end, I will expect you to self revert immediately - you are in violation of 3RR, and I think we both know that I will report you unless you revert immediately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I decided waiting wasn't going to be prudent anymore. The 3RR complaint was filed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Er.. when you guys have finished arguing, would you update the Haven theme tune reference to the Leah Siegel page I've created. Now I know it's poor so feel free to use your energies tidying it up.Lanternrouge (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New additions

I've reverted the most recent bits that another editor has sought to add recently. The various discussions have concerned citability (since resolved, for the most part), relevance (which myself and two other editors have found to be wanting) and most recently, original research. This last bit concerns the one paragraph that was added that I think - with significant improvement - could be beneficial to the article:

Syfy notes, "It is a particular favorite Stephen King book for the Haven writers and producers". For example, in "A Tale of Two Audreys", a little boy in a yellow rain slicker is seen outside the church chasing a newspaper boat that he has set in the stream in the gutter. He chases until it falls down into a stormdrain on Witcham Street. He then sticks his right arm down into the drain and screams. The scene can be found in the opening chapter of the book. Also derived from It, episode "Fear and Loathing" revolves around a Troubled person who (unwillingly) takes the form of a person's worst fear, and in one instance appears as a clown, a visual allusion to Pennywise of the film version of It.[]

To me, this suggests that the contributor is seeking to connect - far beyond the citation's flimsy, unprovenanced, pop-up video - aspects of It to a Haven episode. I have noted it before, and it is no less true now than it was then, that we cannot connect the dots - no matter how glaringly obvious they may seem to us, as aficionados of King's body of work. We need actual relevant citations as to the episodes visual allusions to the book/film. Find those, and a lot of my difficulty with the inclusion of this particular information evaporate.

I am vehemently opposed to any synthesis connection between MacGuffin characters and King characters. It's largely trivial, especially when readers can explore the connections via the external link at the bottom of the article. This is directly because of WP:IINFO. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

FIRST UNJUSTIFIABLE REVERT above, based on false claims.

---

This editor was incapable of discussing the issues when he brought them to the dispute resolution board. The view of the editor is that it is ok to talk of the more trivial aspects of Stephen King's influence on Haven a book that someone gave the protagonist, or a few place names. In short, it is ok for this editor to allow the more trivial information. But, when it comes to substantial issues that Syfy have indicated, the editor refuses point blank to consider them, making false claims of synthesis, when the information is found on the web site of the primary source of information. He claims above that the source is a "flimsy, unprovenanced, pop-up video". He has "pop-up video" right. The rest is his opinion based not on the fact that the video is provided on the producers' web site and that it is a direct source for information about writers and producers. The validity of Syfy's material as primary was established by Mr Stradivarius here. What is the editor's opinion based on? I don't know. It has nothing to do with evidence. He just doesn't like the fact that the primary source of the information comes in a video with pop-up information.

When he says, "I am vehemently opposed to any synthesis connection between MacGuffin characters and King characters", it shows either that he has taken no notice of the information in the videos or that he hasn't looked at them. The connections are made in the videos. There is no synthesis. This editor has no justification for excluding good material from this article. He prefers to include the more trivial than the more important examples of influence. To bolster his position he has complained about citations, trivia, synthesis original research, repudiation of sources and back to trivia plus now "MacGuffin characters". This kitchen sink approach is definitely covering all bases. One thing is certain he doesn't want to have this information in the article. His reasons for this are not what he has claimed, as they have no basis in reality. Hence we go back to the last good edit. I.Hutchesson ► 07:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you can stop the personal attacks at any point, Ian. It doesn't win you any converts.

Secondly, you aren't accurately representing the outcome of the DRN discussion. For precisely the same reasons above, I disagreed with the importation of all the fairly useless parallels you keep seeking to introduce. Indeed, they suggested mediation, and yet, your first impulse after the page protection is lifted is to revert back in precisely the same information that prompted the initial dispute and page protection in the first place.

You keep talking about consensus, but you are the only one wanting this information in the article, whereas three others (myself the most vocal of the three) seek to limit the unnecessary information. The smart way - indeed, the only way - to be handling this is to seek a consensus here in the talk page FIRST. You have not crafted a consensus, Ihutchesson. Current consensus of three other editors is to limit the crufty, unnecessary information. Therefore, you are the only one who thinks that your edit is "the last good edit".

I've seen the same information that you have. I don't feel that the same 8 or so additional references are necessary. Others agree. I would ask that you self revert immediately, as you have reverted twice in an article you were expressly warned against edit-warring in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You have once again initiated the reverting. And in your latest response you have shown no sign of having looked at the evidence from the primary source for the show and you have added nothing in this response that deals with the material under analysis. You took the same thing to DRN without entering into the discussion. I don't want to go through that again, Jack Sebastian, so rather than repeat it, I'd prefer to put the issue before other editors. -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is the material in section "References to other works" acceptable?

There is a dispute between two editors over the content of the section "References to other works". I would like to hear the opinions of any willing Wiki editors on the section's acceptability (last diff: [1]; reverted form here). Thanks. -- I.Hutchesson ► 07:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the submitter forgot to submit the opposing edit, wherein most of the 11 references were trimmed away to 3, with a link at the bottom of the article for further reader perusal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Remove most - Because it looks like all the sources used are the producer of the TV show. The material would be undeniably good for the article if there were WP:Secondary sources that described the references/allusions. But the producer is a mere WP:Primary source. Although the WP:Verifiability policy does not prohibit primary sources, it discourages them. So when a dispute arises (like in this RfC), a good rule is to require secondary sources (e.g. a reliable reviewer, or a major newspaper or magazine, etc). I don't doubt that the references/allusions are valid and correct, but until there are secondary sources, it is not encyclopedic to rely on the show's producer for trivia like that (on the other hand, the producer could be relied on for facts & figures like dates & budgets). I recommend reducing the references/allusions material down to a single sentence (but it would be okay to have a large footnote with examples, etc). --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)