Talk:Rendition (TV story)

Plot = Spoilers

I dont think the plot of "Rendition" should be added until the episode has been broadcast in the UK. The mysterious 16:42, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Details can/will be added after the first broadcast of each episode, regardless of country of broadcast. There are enough warnings for anyone who doesn't want to see spoilers. Geek Mythology 16:45, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if your worried about spoilers, don't read this page.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:48, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Those wishing to see the policy which covers our decision to open up Torchwood: Miracle Day to unfettered editing based on the US schedule are encouraged to read tardis:spoiler policy. Basically, the ruling is that any story in the DWU, regardless of medium, shall be unlocked following its global premiere.

The televised DW, TW, and K9 all have different countries of origin. Some comics are available in the US prior to the UK, and vice versa. Live performances of DWU fiction obviously have a debut in each city where the performance tours. Big Finish audios are available for download prior to the general availability in a physical format. With so many different premiere possibilities, we have to go with a simple policy that covers all contingencies. Thus, we don't consider something a spoiler so long as the story in question has premiered in a venue that typically carries the stories of that medium. (So, a press launch or a screening at a convention isn't considered a premiere, nor is a copy leaked to the internet, nor is a dress rehearsal of a play that you happened to attend.)

Users wishing to see the (failed) Miracle Day challenge to the spoiler policy can go here. Users may also be interested in the technical administration of this policy decision, available here.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:43:20 Mon 18 Jul 2011 

City Hall

I removed this from the production errors:

• Washington has no city hall, since it's the only city in America administered by the US Congress. The closest thing to a "city hall" in Washington is the John A. Wilson Building, but it's more akin to a state capitol than a city hall.

The Wilson Building is not "more akin to a state capitol". For one thing, Washington is legally a city, and DC is legally explicitly not a state. Washington is run by a Mayor and a City Council, not a Governor and a State Congress. They're not governing a sovereign entity, which is the definition of what a capitol is. And their day-to-day practical business is much more like that of a typical city of the same size than of a state.

Also, while the building is not officially called "City Hall", it's still a city hall, the seat of the city government (like, say, the San Diego City Administration Building). People imprecisely call it "City Hall" all the time (even most of the former mayors). Those who are being careful will refer to the government function as "City Hall" and the location where it takes place as the "Wilson Building" (as when the mayor Anthony Williams talked about moving City Hall back from One Judiciary to the Wilson Building in 2001), but even that usage it makes sense in the show. The only people who wouldn't call it "City Hall" are those who work in the judiciary, because the building that houses one of the courts that makes up the tangled legal system in DC was officially called "City Hall" until 2009.

Finally, the city hasn't been administered by the US Congress since the Home Rule Act of 1973. It's under the jurisdiction of the Congress, but administered on their behalf by the locally-elected government. While Congress does have more power over the city government than most states do, and occasionally exercises it, they're still not administering it either legally or factually. --173.228.85.118 22:40, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Balderdash. Washington is not "legally a city". It is legally the District of Columbia. It's governance is unique, being the only locality whose executive decisions can be overruled by the US Federal legislature. The HRA does not change the fact that the Congress still has authority over the district, reviews all legislation that the District Council passes and retains full control over the budget. All DC budgets are still passed by an Act of the US Congress, not by some late-night session down at the District Council chambers. And since DC has no representation in Congress, the District has no true say in their own governance. You're totally misrepresenting what the HRA meant to the District. The net result of the HRA wasn't a change in power; it was just the creation of middle management in the form of a mayor and a council, who have the power to formally recommend a course of action to Congress. But it's not true home rule in any way.

By saying that the JAW is "more akin to a state capitol", the implication isn't that it is a state capitol — merely that it's closer to a state capitol than a true city hall. It is not the seat of the city government, because ultimate authority for the city still resides in the US Capitol Building, not at the JAW or Judiciary Square. The very closest analogy is that it's a Territorial Building, because, sure, there's a measure of self-governance that goes on there, people elected by the residents of DC work there, but there's another level of power — on local maters — above it. Think about it. If residents of Washington truly believed that they were fully self-governing, there wouldn't be an active political movement for self-governance. Indeed, what kind of "city" doesn't have the power to spend or borrow a dime without approval of the US Congress?

Also, you say that it's "more like that of a typical city of the same size than of a state", but think about that phrase for a moment. There's no city in the union, no city on Earth besides maybe Canberra, that is "the same size". See, Washington just . . . stops. It has a highly regular, highly planned size that has (essentially) never varied. It has no power to annex, which makes it very unlike any other city in America. Without the power to annex surrounding unincorporated areas, it's got a severe financial problem. That makes it much more dependent on Federal money than most cities. Now, of course it's gonna get that money, because . . . it's Constitutionally mandated (and confirmed in HRA 1973) that the Congress oversee its budget and administration. Of course, Washington does have local taxes. But if a city can't annex more land, and they're constrained from building on most of their land area because of all the culturally significant landmarks, there's a damn heavy cap on how much money local taxes are gonna raise. And so we're back to the start of this argument: Washington is not really a proper city, but federally-managed land with only the veneer of self-governance. It doesn't have a city hall because Washington is not legally a city.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 05:29:04 Mon 01 Aug 2011 

EDTA and arsenic

The EDTA sequence was pretty unrealistic, but I think this may be more a case of dramatic license than a production error.

The problem with EDTA is that it doesn't work well with arsenic. They could have used EDTA with mercury or lead poisoning, or dimercaprol or a related organosulfate with arsenic. But there are good dramatic reasons to us both EDTA and arsenic.

Of all of the common chelating agents, EDTA is probably the easiest one to produce with materials that might be found on a plane. The MacGyver-esque way that Gwen produced it wasn't really accurate, but it wasn't that far off, and it was dramatic; trying to produce, say, DMSA would have been both more ridiculous and more boring. (Also, the organosulfates have a much narrower safety range—a little more than the therapeutic dose is toxic.)

Meanwhile, presumably they intentionally chose to use arsenic rather than, say, lead or mercury because of its associations. It's one of the most famous poisons in the world, and particularly associated with political poisonings (from the Medicis to the Korean Empire). It was used for skin whitening by Elizabethan aristocrats, and foppish Victorians at least talked about using it, even if they never really did, which gave the perfect opportunity for Jack to mention his old boyfriend doing so. It was also the most common treatment for syphillis at the turn of the last century, which RTD probably thought about even if he didn't have Jack mention it. --173.228.85.118 23:07, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Just an explanation

Hi. Just made a few changes to this article. Mainly grammar and readibility.

I'm not sure of the etiquette of this Wiki so I decided it'd be best to explain the one change I made which wasn't to do with grammar.

The original article (or at least the one before I edited it) had Esther and Rex 'recieving bribes'. This, to me, didn't really get at what was happening and therefore I changed it as clearly the fact that these large sums of money came from a chinese account was an attempt to frame them as double agents working for the Chinese in order to be able to eliminate them without any tricky questions being asked by the rest of the CIA. I altered the wording of the article to reflect that.

81.109.71.250 17:41, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good change to me. You don't have to announce all your changes on the talk page, it's a wiki so most people should be expecting changes, as long as it's all for the greater good. It's normally a good idea to fill in the Summary as well.Geek Mythology 18:03, July 24, 2011 (UTC)