Talk:Cold Case/Archive 1

Archive 1

Music Issues

To the first comment, you know absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. First of all, almost all the music on the Dawson's Creek DVDs have been replaced due to licensing issues. Go to http://dawsonscreekmusic.com/ and, right off the bat, that's the first thing that site will tell you. Second, the fact that you would compare The L Word's music selection to Cold Case's is just laughable. The L Word mainly features obscure music by mostly unknown or underground artists. The music is most likely very cheap to obtain and the artists along with their labels are probably more than happy to receive the exposure. Cold Case on the other hand makes use of very popular and very well known songs by well known artists. That gives the rights owners the option to charge insane amounts of money just to use them once. It's a very sticky, legal situation when using songs by artists such as Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen (who is notoriously protective of his music). The producers of the immensely popular Cheers couldn't even get the permission to use "Da Do Run Run" on their DVDs. And that's just one song. Do you honestly believe it's going to be any easier for Cold Case to get all their music on DVD? Yes, obviously it's the music's legal issues keeping the show from being released on DVD. That's not speculation that just common sense.--AtomicAge 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability

Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for this series appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. These articles can be improved through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Overly long plot summaries should be edited, to a maximum length of approximately ten words per minute of screen time. Trivia should be integrated into the body of the article, or removed if it is not directly relevant. Quotes and images should only be used as part of a critical analysis of the episode. You might also consider merging any notable information onto the show's "List of episodes" or season pages. Otherwise, when these pages come up for review in fourteen days, they may be redirected, merged or deleted. If you want any help or further information, then come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. Thanks. Gwinva 15:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On episode notability - I'm very happy to go through the tagged pages and improve them where possible, inline with the style guide. Also on this point - does Wikipedia need more Cold Case episode pages? I'm very happy to work on them if so. And to go slightly off-topic, should these episode pages be titled (Cold Case), (Cold Case Episode) or nothing at all? Don't want to tread on any toes - just a newbie offering to help out. Cheers. Fadeitup 17:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

International broadcasting

I have left a message on the page of the IP user. For other people interested, this issue has been addressed over a year ago already at Talk:Scrubs_(TV_series)#Removal_of_International_Broadcasters_section. They were deemed not notable and I agree, also see WP:NOT. Arguments like "but other articles have this as well" don't hold, see WP:WAX.--Fogeltje (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Enigma Files and Cold Squad

In the section relating to the Cold Squad controversy, I had inserted:

"..., although do not seem to have noted the similarities to the UK BBC TV series The Enigma Files which ran nearly 2 decades earlier."

Ckatz redacted this ("rm. note re: older series") without any statement as to reason.

I'd like to restore this, as I would contend it is an objective statement that helps with the historical context. Any other thoughts before I do? [I will assume assent if no comments within 7 days] Bill Martin (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is unsourced. If you can find a reputable source that notes the similarities, then I see no problem. Without source this is original research which Wikipedia is not.--Fogeltje (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see the logic, albeit reluctantly (I tend to inclusionism) - wish people would include their reasons in edit comments! Bill Martin (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Move

Why was no consensus reached, or even a discussion started for the recent move? It is made worse by the fact that the title is badly written. Your thoughts? Malpass93 (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only was there no consensus, there was not even an attempt to discuss. I have requested a rollback since the user also changed the redirect. It's only possible to moves pages back over an empty redirect. User reason is also void, the term Cold case can be found by not capitalizing the c of case. On top of that, there is also a dablink at the top of the article.--Fogeltje (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The situation has been resolved. Ruslik0 was so kind to undo the move. I would like to point again that the term Cold case has it's own article already (the move rationale was "It is Better defined. the Article about "Cold Case" crimes should be put here instead.) Anyone still typing Cold Case while wanting to know about the term will get a disambiguity notice right at the top. This should suffice. If Colliric thinks otherwise he is free to discuss this here. I left him a message notifying him off the rollback.--Fogeltje (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Cold Squad controversy seems old

This all may be true but it seems old and outdated. When it says "last week" without giving any sense of when that really was, I think it needs editing but I don't know what the current situation is. Badlyarmed4 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

information regarding the DVD release is irrelevant and wrong

The entry about the DVD release is incorrect.

1- Many other tv shows containing excessive music titles have been released on DVD. One of the best examples is the L word which contains almost the same amount of licensed music material as Cold Case do. 2- Producers "always" !!! do include the DVD and alternative broadcasting usage right to the loyalty agreements. So buying them for the dvd release wont be a problem. Let alone, the producers of Cold Case are very experienced in dvd releases. 3- The price information about the CSI series is absolutely incorrect. CSI season box-sets range between $24 and $64. 4- I didnt had the chance to go trough all Dawson Creek episodes but i can confirm that many of the episodes on DVD have the exact same audio/music with the aired episodes, including the series finale and the 01/01 episode.

so stop BSing about the DVD release. there is definately something else about it. 88.240.146.153 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)MG

I've removed this. We have no evidence this is anything but someone's speculation. Jkelly 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few series where the producers didn't retain usage rights. Mission Hill being one of them. TheScaryOne (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

false statements without references

A lot of Canadians like to whine about this show, and I just removed an unsourced statement from one of them:

'and at one point the creators of Cold Squad launched legal action against the makers of Cold Case.'

Calling a lawyer and making a press release at the same time isn't a "legal action", it is nothing. There was no legal merit to that claim and no court case was won or even filed. Cold Squad was canceled and Cold Case is still on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.228.39 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, you should avoid making unwarranted statements such as what you wrote above, as it tends to weaken your argument. Secondly, the text has been tweaked and restored, along with several relevant, verifiable sources. Like it or not, it is a valid component of the article. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ckatz, for taking the time to comment and edit the page. I was unaware that this was an "unwarranted statement" I had made. If it was, it was at least partially because I had made my posting overly brief. I did not mean to suggest that Canadians were coloring the Cold Case Wiki page unfairly. What I meant (and failed to state directly, sorry) is that comments abound on the internet about this, especially on IMDB, where they tell it like Canada is the epicenter and genesis of all media and American TV shows are primarily just copies of Canadian shows. I have edited a number of true crime-related pages where they give a false report about a court action and that is what this was. When someone gets a threatening letter from a lawyer, it is often told later as "he got sued", which is a completely false statement. I delete those. Unfortunately, my edit to the Cold Case page was too broad, I just wiped the topic because it referred to a legal action that didn't exist. I didn't bother to take the time to rewrite and find sources to tell a more detailed version of the story (which involves no court cases whatsoever). You (Ckatz) have done that, telling about something that actually happened, and providing two hyperlinked secondary sources for it. Your recent edit has created the best version of the page, and I thank you for that. As for weakening my argument, the nationality of the person who pounced on my edit only proved my argument to be 100% correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.210.131 (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether you have witnessed comlaints or not isn't known by others nor should they expect to. The way you worded that does immediately discredit the opinion, it sounds petty and amounts to a cheap shot(IMO). Furthermore you take a swipe at "a lot of" citizens of an entire country and then assume that a response from someone in that country validates the original criticism? The fallacious logic you've expressed is embarrassing to this fellow American. :-P Batvette (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing Bias

Something should definitely be added about the extreme left-wing bias of the writers of "Cold Case": nearly every episode grinds some dreary politically-correct axe of the silly (especially feminist) left, and this needs to be documented as the fact it is. I will add such edits accordingly over the coming days. Carthago delenda est 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Such inclusions don't sound necessary, informative or productive. Sounds more like your own opinions based on your own personal biases and I don't see how it will be helpful to the entry or to anyone reading it. --AtomicAge 10:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Such inclusions are quite necessary. Those who routinely lie about their culture through propaganda are often quite apt to yearn to rule, eventually, along the lines of Joseph Goebbels. The producers & writers of this show are but little removed from his ideological lineage, albeit with an early 21st Century American-leftist bent. Your "commentary," such as it is, is appreciated: I'm more motivated than ever to make the necessary factual entries I described above. Carthago delenda est 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. Without proper citations this can't be included.--Fogeltje 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't watch Cold Case frequently, but nearly every episode I have seen appears designed to promote a distinct world view and sympathy on issues of race, sex, religion, mores, progress of society, etc. This includes how it selects and portrays its villains and victims (or arguably stereotypes them). The formula is: make A victimize B (each with predictable characteristics) to imply something about the mores and background represented in A and B, in a type of Straw man argument. More solid references could be found, but it's partly summed up here[1] with links to episodes: '...one of the preachiest of the preachy cop shows has to be "Cold Case" on CBS. The show is consumed with such liberal preoccupations as anti-abortion activism, disturbed Vietnam veterans, transgender hero(ines), interracial lesbian love affairs, draft dodgers, McCarthyism and demonizing Christians' (the last lacks a link, but Google '"cold case" christianity'). Reactions from viewers of all persuasions are also at [2]. --File Not Found 06:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster on this, the self-hating white point of view this show comes from had it falling very quickly into a plot trap, where the killer always turns out to be a racist, or a guy who didn't want his wife to vote, or some such nonsense that would have been passe even in 1955. Thanks to the person above who did the leg work to find plenty of published sources on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.210.131 (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When people write this way I can see They like to hide the truth All that happened and still happens... The problem is that Cold Case is one of the few shows that "SHOW" it. All the racism there is in USA, All those Christian who hate people who don't believe in God and homosexuals. When women had NO RIGHTS and were treated like animals... all That HAPPENED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.226.60.72 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

After viewing one outstanding re-run of cold case, the episode "Daniela", and then coming here and seeing the complaint of "liberal bias" with a link to this gem: ...one of the preachiest of the preachy cop shows has to be "Cold Case" on CBS. The show is consumed with such liberal preoccupations as anti-abortion activism, disturbed Vietnam veterans, transgender hero(ines), interracial lesbian love affairs, draft dodgers, McCarthyism and demonizing Christians I am going to take the unusual step (for me) of deleting that section of the article with no reservations whatsoever. That SFGate opinion article writer is a HATER pure and simple. Criticizing cold case writers for portraying a diverse selection of the population in a positive manner, shame on them, right? WTF is wrong with you people? I can't stop you from hating but I'll be damned if I have to recognize blatant racism, sexism and xenophobia as legitimate. Yeah someone did the "leg work" to produce a source. Doesn't mean that source is appropriate to include in an encyclopedia if it promotes a view that is so full of hatred. Batvette (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and viewpoint, but I have to dispute the deletion for the following reasons:

• Procedurally speaking, sections shouldn't be deleted outright. Instead, the recommended approach is to post a template, like one of the neutrality template, over the questionable section and invite a discussion. (This is especially true if the section isn't offensive [it wasn't] and has references [it did].) Alternatively, if you don't approve of a source, you could dispute it rather than the entire section.
• I don't think most Wikipedians would agree with your assertion that the writer of the SFGate article is a "HATER pure and simple." SFGate is the online portal for the San Francisco Chronicle, a major newspaper and the regional paper of San Francisco, one of the most tolerant and liberal-minded areas of the United States. I give the Chronicle more credit than you do, because I sincerely doubt it would print an editorial that would promulgate hatred.
• I also think the list you quoted is clearly one that could be easily classified as "left-wing" or "liberal" without offending anyone on either side of the aisle. It's no secret that those items can be considered offensive by people with conservative or particular religious persuasions. And given your concern with legitimacy, let's recognize that some people strongly oppose gay marriage, abortions, communism, etc. and would find their positive portrayal on Cold Case to be legitimately offensive.
• Along those lines, I think it's reasonable to say that most people, regardless of political viewpoint, would agree that Cold Case demonstrates a left-wing or liberal bias (see above for additional evidence). This is not an aberration. The show 24 is often called a right-wing show, for example, and nobody minds that. The SFGate article in question is just one example from the news media.

For these reasons, I'm going to restore the section in question and add a neutrality template. Let's continue the discussion here rather than warring with deletions and un-deletions. MaxVeers (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it if you really want it, but as I am the argumentive type, I must point out some fallacious logic here. Just because San Francisco has a notorious left leaning reputation does not mean this woman's criticism of cold case does not center on an agenda of intolerance and hate. Her editorial should be taken by itself even if she's the only fundie in the city. (she's not, I lived at 27th and Taravel in the Sunset district years ago) What you're doing is probably "appeal to authority" by saying if the Chronicle allowed it to be printed on a web page it can't be offensive- when the fact is they make a point of saying editorials do not reflect the views of the Chronicle! That's why I included her quote, look at what she has a problem with: "transgender heroines" and "interracial lesbian love affairs" and "disturbed Vietnam veterans". She's clearly angry that she has to see people outside of her acceptable limits of normalcy on television, and since those items of criticism are not about any particular actions by an individual role but a broad swipe at people of a different sexual identity AND race, this is why I would argue that her views are offensive. It's not alot different than posting a criticism on a page about the Cosby show that many white supremists are unhappy with the show's constant portrayal of blacks in a positive manners. She's bashing them for NO other reason than race and sexual orientation, that's very wrong. Batvette (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me how implying that a liberal viewpoint is a bad thing, is not offensive? I don't find being called a liberal offensive. What I find offensive is the idea that liberal ideals are a bad thing (which the writer of this topic rather blatantly believes). 71.63.17.46 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• ^^^While I think you and I are on the same page ideology wise on this matter, (see my arguments above) I think the criticism of a show's political bias, left or right, may have some legitimacy for encyclopedic content. Where I'm going to echo your sentiments is that such criticism should be of more substance than complaining about the portrayal of persons of diverse racial background and sexual orientation as well adjusted, productive members of a community. What's funny is surely by including such "liberal" issues, the writers are merely trying to put a little interest in each episode and character. Would the critics like every story to be about a white christian heterosexual male who murders his prom queen wife and hacks their 2.3 kids to pieces and burys them under their white picket fence in suburbia? Of course then it would be christian bashing! I've never understood the complaint about Hollywood anyway-by definition if movies and other entertainment were "conservative" people would fall asleep in their seats.Batvette (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Left wing? Come on! It's called Real Life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardodelroice (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims and end scenes

This section is getting way out of end, existing primarily of lists of end scenes. The 'notable exceptions' slowly turn out into a list of anything that is not listed in the first list. In my eyes, both lists should be deleted, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A list does not contribute anything to the paragraph. While the starting paragraph is fine, the lists are not. Perhaps ONE or TWO examples can be given for further illustration and perhaps the same when the pattern deviates. I also have a problem with the 'notable unlikeable victims' list as it is heavily POV. My strongest objection is again the list which should also be removed and perhaps replaced with one or two examples. I think I will be bold and go ahead with these changes later.--Fogeltje 17:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've chopped it down. I don't watch this page (nor the show itself, which is the schmaltziest junk on TV), so I'm sure someone will immediately restore it without me noticing. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding more information. Shows like "CSI" have every little details on their pages. Why can't Cold Case do the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardodelroice (talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Attribution of the criticisms

We currently reference two articles that are criticisms of the show. One is by the Culture and Media Institute. Given that they are a notable (i.e., blue-linked) organization, and given that their criticism of Cold Case is mentioned at their article, should the text be changed to mention them as one of the groups critical of the show? —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism needs to be legitimate

The section needs to undergo a change to "Controversy" and have it grouped together, or not be included at all, far-right neo-conservative opinion does not constitute legitimate criticism, however it does constitute legitimate controversy, and it would be a good step toward improving the article to group them together under one section.

I removed it until then, I may do it myself in the near future, but I don't have the time to at the moment. Revrant (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: casting vote: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Cold Case → Cold Case (TV series) — This was touched on earlier but there really was no major discussion. For consistency reasons, and because of the potential confusion of having two different articles with different capitalizations, perhaps this article should be moved to Cold Case (TV series). —Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Being the one that restarted this 'controversy', I have almost talked myself out of my request for the change. I commonly come to Wikipedia for info on TV shows and have appreciated that when the title has other meanings it shows in the suggestion list (search box) with '(TV series)' after it. When I typed 'cold case' in the box I was thrown by the absence of this, but did not consider the first choice on list 'Cold Case' because it didn't occur to me that the fact both words were capitalized was the indication that it was a title. Now that I have been reminded I will probably watch for that in the future.

The fact remains, 'Cold Case (TV series)' would remove all doubt, but this may be contrary to a policy/philosophy in Wikipedia that was alluded to in the IRC I went to to ask about the possibility of changing the title. Drumtrucker (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Cold Case (TV series) already exists as a redirect to this article. So, from the search standpoint, the provision already exists to get here from there. I don't see confusion caused by leaving the article at this title. Besides, if people get here and realize it isn't what they're looking for, there's a hatnote pointing to Cold case (disambiguation). —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment that page exists as a redirect to this article primarily because someone already did the move and then it was reverted; before that, my understanding is that the redirect did not exist. However you are completely correct in that it is reasonable to assume that the hatnote is sufficient in getting a viewer to the right place. But I'm not sure I see a reason to not do the move, except for "status quo" reasons. Avoiding the miss-hit in the first place would be a potential benefit. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see a reason to do the move, since Cold Case alone sufficiently disambiguates this article from others. If we're avoiding miss-hits, then we'll also need to move Cold case to Cold case (criminology), since that's not arguably a more primary term than the TV show, even if it's the term the show took its name from. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support it should redirect to the dab page. In normal English (as opposed to Wikipedia capitalization conventions), letters are capitalized if they are part of titles, meaning people looking for cold case would type Cold Case. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No DVDs / music licensing

Mostly directed at Ckatz but open to anyone...

I agree coldcasedvds.com isn't the most reliable source, but it does provide verifiable evidence for its position on the home page. I tend to hold the opinion that a shaky source is preferable to nothing at all, which is what the article had previously. This seems especially true given that the statement being supported is not very controversial and, actually, I don't know any competing views. Can someone find a better reference? If not, I think we should either restore the coldcasedvds.com reference or remove the sentence entirely. MaxVeers (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

character pages

i noticed when i was looking for information on Det. Lillian "Lilly" Rush and i came here there was no info on that particular character. so i goggled her name and found another wiki page on her and was wondering why it there is no link there from here. it's pretty obvious that the page is under construction. can we link to it or no? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Rush_(Cold_Case)Killemall22 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

World view issue

I added an extra citation to the list of seasons section, as I have been informed that the existing citation cannot be opened in other parts of the world outside of the US.--Soulparadox 17:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Conservative, traditional, religious bias??

Why this show supported so many gays and lesbians, all talking in a positive way? All gays and lesbians were innocent and kind-hearted and hated by evil normal traditional guy? Come on!! As fas as I know homosexual people was the people had the most metal or temper problems. Sometimes the "love" talked about in the show simply made me feel sick. Plus all the religious and traditional type became a serial killer freak type that kills people?? Wonder if the editor is kinda homophilic or left extremist, I think it has to be mentioned in the Show description, it is definitely not suitable for a lot of people. Society ain't like that. --137.189.236.67 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To the illiterate who wrote the comment above, what country are you from and how many wives do you have?

I traced his IP Address 137.189.236.67, it's From Hong Kong

Cold Case is a different show, It has a different meaning to protect minories and I won't waste any more time with such as***** person

I love television shows like this. It promotes diversity, understanding, and shoots down prejudices we all have. It also brings closet xenophobic racists (and apparently illiterate) out of the woodwork. Like those who posted above. Good job showing your ugly colors. Too bad you're too much of a coward to leave your signature.JanderVK (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, "all gays and lesbians were innocent..." I refer you to the episode "It's Raining Men" where the killer was gay. 2001:558:6040:9:6020:5764:D1B8:7F21 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)