Talk:Justified (TV series)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Justified (TV series). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Music
Don't think the music section is needed, at least not yet. Simply moved what was there to the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.107.174 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Note:Created section for this unsigned comment. CapnZapp (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- note: signature & date added - wolf 04:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
sexy
The character's sexiness is a notable quality. It was widely noted by critics at the premier of the show. Various sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle [1] were also provided for the claim, but removed by various editors over time. "Sexy" is a specific claim, found in the sources, and not a term flagged at wp:peacock. It is not, however, a plot element. Once the character gets its own page the issue can be expanded there. As for now it is fine along with the character's other notable characteristics no more or less essential such as his softspokenness that are mentioned in the lead. μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree, for the reasons I have noted int he edit summary when reverting it out. Using the Lede to call one of the characters "sexy" is non-neutral, silly and trivial to the series. Do some people think of the character as sexy? Perhaps, but the Lede is an overview of the article - a summation of the article, if you will, and the character of Givens is more than just 'sexy; Note that I am not saying that it shouldn't be in the body of the article (perhaps in the Cast or Reception sections); it is cited, and should be in the article. Just not in the Lede, where it comes across like advertising, non-neutral and peacockery.
- And you should consider that if "various editors over time" are voicing issues with the usage of this term that perhaps they might have a point. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with JS above. "Sexy" is non-encyclopedic, especially for the lede. Dayewalker (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, sourced or not, I've been wondering about the inclusion of that descriptor in the lead. Jack pretty much sums up my reasons. I'm not opposed to seeing it noted in the character description, in light of that being the subjective opinion of many critics. But in the lead it sounds cheesy, at least how it's written now. I'd be willing to consider a rephrase as a compromise. Millahnna (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not using the lead to "call" the character sexy. (Were that the case, moving the comment anywhere in the article would be inappropriate.) And the prior editors didn't remove the claim, they pared down the references as unnecessary overkill. That fact is that the character's sex appeal is quite essential to his description, as essential as such things as his softspokenness. The only reason the word is possibly controversial is because it has sex in it, not because it is not notable or unverifiable. (Nobody would complain about calling House, MD "misanthropic".) If you want to develop a section on the character and his sex appeal then that can be done. As it stands, one word along with the other words which describe the character without whom the show would not exist is perfectly fine. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with a different section is what would justify it? There isn't even a section on the character himself. Concern that the word sexy is cheesy is based on personal discomfort with the word, not the fact that anyone disagrees with the discription. At best, a pair of scare quotes would do, although leaving it as is is less attention getting so far as I am concerned. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I am thinking that some re-working is in order, as the Cast section is essentially a barebones correlating of actors to characters. I've heard that Olyphant is a method actor; there must be citations about how he developed out the character, or interviews with production staff about how/why he was cast. Some of that 'sexy' review stuff would fit there (ie. Firefly (TV series)). Or, as seen later in that same article, a sort of character overview. It can be as simple as the example there, or another FA example like House (TV series). Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am fully in favor of expanding on the character and the actor. I have added scare quotes. They will inform the reader the term is an opinion of various reviewers. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed them, as it doesn't resolve the underlying problem. The fact that the term is in the Lede is the larger part of the problem. Calling attention to it by using scare quotes only exacerbates the issue. Maybe hold off for a bit and see where discussion takes us. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to actually flat out state something along the lines of "the character has been described by reviewers as". That exact example is probably overly verbose but you get the idea. I'm not uncomfortable with the term sexy, in general. I just find the sentence in the lead to sound like fancruft at the moment, even though I know it's actually sourced to reviews later in the article. Millahnna (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Also, the formation of the Lede follows the development of the article (or is at least supposed to). First expand the the relevant section, and then we can attend to what belongs in the Lede or not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to actually flat out state something along the lines of "the character has been described by reviewers as". That exact example is probably overly verbose but you get the idea. I'm not uncomfortable with the term sexy, in general. I just find the sentence in the lead to sound like fancruft at the moment, even though I know it's actually sourced to reviews later in the article. Millahnna (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed them, as it doesn't resolve the underlying problem. The fact that the term is in the Lede is the larger part of the problem. Calling attention to it by using scare quotes only exacerbates the issue. Maybe hold off for a bit and see where discussion takes us. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am fully in favor of expanding on the character and the actor. I have added scare quotes. They will inform the reader the term is an opinion of various reviewers. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I am thinking that some re-working is in order, as the Cast section is essentially a barebones correlating of actors to characters. I've heard that Olyphant is a method actor; there must be citations about how he developed out the character, or interviews with production staff about how/why he was cast. Some of that 'sexy' review stuff would fit there (ie. Firefly (TV series)). Or, as seen later in that same article, a sort of character overview. It can be as simple as the example there, or another FA example like House (TV series). Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with a different section is what would justify it? There isn't even a section on the character himself. Concern that the word sexy is cheesy is based on personal discomfort with the word, not the fact that anyone disagrees with the discription. At best, a pair of scare quotes would do, although leaving it as is is less attention getting so far as I am concerned. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not using the lead to "call" the character sexy. (Were that the case, moving the comment anywhere in the article would be inappropriate.) And the prior editors didn't remove the claim, they pared down the references as unnecessary overkill. That fact is that the character's sex appeal is quite essential to his description, as essential as such things as his softspokenness. The only reason the word is possibly controversial is because it has sex in it, not because it is not notable or unverifiable. (Nobody would complain about calling House, MD "misanthropic".) If you want to develop a section on the character and his sex appeal then that can be done. As it stands, one word along with the other words which describe the character without whom the show would not exist is perfectly fine. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, sourced or not, I've been wondering about the inclusion of that descriptor in the lead. Jack pretty much sums up my reasons. I'm not opposed to seeing it noted in the character description, in light of that being the subjective opinion of many critics. But in the lead it sounds cheesy, at least how it's written now. I'd be willing to consider a rephrase as a compromise. Millahnna (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with JS above. "Sexy" is non-encyclopedic, especially for the lede. Dayewalker (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
In a short article it is not necessary that all claims be in the body rather than the lead.
Attributing a claim to a source, such as by the use of quotes and a reference, is a perfectly valid way to handle a controversial claim. If you think this is pov (I think it is undeniably the intention of the show and the consensus of critics) then WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV suggests quoting a source as appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 06:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is usually the case in very short articles, but not so much for tv series - especially those who've survived their first season. There is a lot of material out there that can be used to expand the article; it need not remain so scant that we need to short-circuit the process of making a GA or FA article in the rush to get the article out the door. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
arbitrary break 1
As it stands, the lead of the article practically is the article. I don't think anything at all should be deleted. But the description of the main character and the elmore leonard novels are all we have. What should really be done is to expand the text and then worry about having the lead summarize it. Unfortunately, I haven't watched the show since the first season, so I am not in a position to expand the plot section. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are various sources on the web that can be utilized to view the second season (I believe it's up to the 4th or 5th ep by now); in any case, it isn't so much about watching the series (which promotes a primary source style of writing) as it is about noting what others see when they watch the series. Noting what they say in the right place is key to a good article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Olyphant's steely gaze, Zen interior and matinee looks called to mind a younger Clint Eastwood" Tim Goodwin "'Justified' scores with hot star, smart scripts" Monday, March 15, 2010, SFGate, home of the San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/15/DD3I1CF9S1.DTL
Format of article
For what seems like the nth time, an editor is less than content with having the article formatted so that it is closer to those of FA quality. After a fairly lengthy discussion wherein it was pointed out by several editors that "sexy" and citations to support that, were ill-placed in the Lede. After waiting for her to accept this conclusion, I decided to offer a better way to format the article, with cast and character background descriptions placed in the - wait for it - Cast section. This has been reverted to [works of fiction, including credits, serve as their own sources - moving raylan givens comments is awkward in both wording and format her preferred version], and it is growing tedious.
The whole point of writing articles is not to gush over any particular actor or character (as per WP:NOT#FORUM). Also germane to this discussion is the problem in putting significant info in only the Lede and not in the body of the article, which directly contradicts WP:LEDE. As per the first category, we do not trumpet any one review or description over any other, as it presents both a perception of presentiment towards the subject of the article as well as undue wight towards the review - all of these Wiki no-no's.
In short, while I do not think that my way is the only way here, it has the virtue of following the majority of articles having achieved Featured Article status. And if we aren't writing articles in towards that end, then what are we doing here?
Lastly, the edit summary, "works of fiction, including credits, serve as their own sources - moving raylan givens comments is awkward in both wording and format" demonstrates a critical misapprehension of our policies and guidelines. While it is indeed true that primary sources of info can be used in plot summaries, they cannot be used to form evaluations of characters or to Sherlock out the plot not given. Rather than complain about the proper and appropriate placement of the information about the character as assessed by outside sources, it should be suggested that expansion of the other characters would make the Cast section seem less unbalanced, It cannot remain in the Lede without further expansion in the body of the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell the only source of uneasiness over this is that we are talking about a male character here. The sources are impeccable, the word is verbatim, it is not a peacock word, and hardly amounts to undue weight, unless male sexiness in general makes you uncomfortable. There is a huge difference between sheriff Lobo and sheriff Givens and it does not reside in their country ways. There is no problem referring to Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, or Beyonce Knowles or their characters as sexy. Sources abound for this. I am adding yet another source - Atlantic Monthly - and restoring the scare quotes. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- My difficulty is far less than the less-than-encyclopedic descriptor of "sexy", but rather - as has been the main point - in where it has been placed. It doesn't belong in the Lede which, as per WP:LEDE, is an overview of the article. Adding the sexy descriptor to the Lede without expanding upon it in the body of the text (appropriate weight, of course) is unacceptable. If you want to go into how the different characters have been received in the media, you may do as I have already suggested on at least two prior occasions and develop out the Cast section. And feel free to add as many sources as you wish, but you might wish to keep in mind that the article isn't about the lead character's "sexiness"; its about the program itself.
- And if you reinsert the material without finishing this discussion, I'll revert it and report you. I've tried to resolve this issue with you in your own talk page, but you are forcing my hand here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- The place for how characters were received by the media is not the cast section but the reception section. The cast section should be about the characters in the show itself, who they are etc. The lead is indeed an overview of the article, if the reception section (as I moved it there) says many have called him sexy, I don't really see an issue with saying that (not calling him sexy, but saying that many called him that in reviews) there then. Reception is best walled of into it's own section as to not conflict with the show itself, for example when the description of a character is someones opinion (perhaps of a reviewer) instead of how the character is described by the creators or the show itself. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- If the shows calls him sexy it could go in the cast section, if reviews call him sexy it could go in the review section. I see no reason whatsoever to have this in the lead as a character defining characteristic if not so named by primary sources, I don't see a problem with having in the lead a bit of reception which states that many have called him sexy. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- If the shows calls him sexy it could go in the cast section, if reviews call him sexy it could go in the review section. I see no reason whatsoever to have this in the lead as a character defining characteristic if not so named by primary sources, I don't see a problem with having in the lead a bit of reception which states that many have called him sexy. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- The place for how characters were received by the media is not the cast section but the reception section. The cast section should be about the characters in the show itself, who they are etc. The lead is indeed an overview of the article, if the reception section (as I moved it there) says many have called him sexy, I don't really see an issue with saying that (not calling him sexy, but saying that many called him that in reviews) there then. Reception is best walled of into it's own section as to not conflict with the show itself, for example when the description of a character is someones opinion (perhaps of a reviewer) instead of how the character is described by the creators or the show itself. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Theme song
There has been some back and forth regarding the name of the Gangstagrass song used as the theme song for the series. As far as the more reliable sources note, the title track is called: "Long Hard Times to Come", and not "On the Run." However, I have seen quite a few blogs that call it the latter, so I can understand the error. If someone has a reference that trumps the network's own, or Amazon.com, please feel free to offer it up here. A blog noting "On The Run" is not good enough (one of the reasons we don't use blogs is that any fart with a pulse can make one, failing to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion). If the song uses alternate titling, there would absolutely need to be reliable citation as to that effect. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a dog in this fight, I just saw the back-and-forth between two editors with no citation on either side, and found what seemed to be a reliable one supporting one of the editors and added it. I checked the FX website and couldn't find one, obviously you did a better job. And yes, I think FX's website should be considered more authoritative. RossPatterson (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just an FYI - I added a small mention of the song You'll Never Leave Harlan Alive by Brad Paisely under the theme song section. I fully realize it is not the theme song but wasn't quite sure where it should go. In MHO it deserves some sort of mention considering the song has been used in the final scenes of the last episode of Season 1 and Season 2. In that respect it has developed into some sort of "secondary theme". Pure speculation, but I suspect it will be used again in the Season 3 final scene. Time will tell I guess. Sector001 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Respectfully, your opinions cannot be used as a litmus test for inclusion. When you have a citable reference that notes its continued usage at the end of each season, then - and only then - can we actually say so. I'll revert it out, but when you find a source fro the continued usage of the song until a RS comes along to, well, justify it. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- A Note on a "Sample" - I do not know if anyone else has noticed, but in a few places in the theme song, "Long Hard Times to Come," there is a noticeable riff that must have been excised from a little-known, honkey-tonk song that was performed, originally, by the early 1970's Lynyrd Skynyrd lineup (the "original" lineup, I should say, as a plane crash in 1978 permanently altered the band's makeup, personnel wise). I am, of course, referring to the song, "Things Going On." This song is a honky-tonk number on one of Skynyrd's early albums. I make note of this due to the fact that I have scoured the Internet looking for any other sources, blogs, or articles that make mention of this Skynyrd song, and the fact that it was semingly sampled for the GangstaGrass song, but was not able to find a single mention of this fact, anywhere. Consequently, I would feel remiss if I did not note this obvious-to-me, glaring omission.ShawnAceHall (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Respectfully, your opinions cannot be used as a litmus test for inclusion. When you have a citable reference that notes its continued usage at the end of each season, then - and only then - can we actually say so. I'll revert it out, but when you find a source fro the continued usage of the song until a RS comes along to, well, justify it. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just an FYI - I added a small mention of the song You'll Never Leave Harlan Alive by Brad Paisely under the theme song section. I fully realize it is not the theme song but wasn't quite sure where it should go. In MHO it deserves some sort of mention considering the song has been used in the final scenes of the last episode of Season 1 and Season 2. In that respect it has developed into some sort of "secondary theme". Pure speculation, but I suspect it will be used again in the Season 3 final scene. Time will tell I guess. Sector001 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The X season saw critical acclaim. =
Does every paragraph have to be identically written and lead off with virtually the same sentence? This is terrible. john k (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Feel free to be WP:BOLD and WP:COPYEDIT it. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
1st season
The first season description is too long and contains a lot of opinions about character's motivations. It needs to be copy-edited by someone more familiar with the show than I am. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Working title
The working title for Justified was "Fire in the Hole" not Lawman. The cite just states the series name has been changed. Please see the Wikipedia article for FX for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.252.226 (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
season 5 reception
Season 5 was notably less well received, especially when you read retrospectives (as sourced). Again, do not point to aggregate scores as useful replacement for editor curation! CapnZapp (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it was received less positively than the rest of the other seasons, but it still, relatively, got good reviews. It wasn't critically panned or received overwhelming negative reviews; it was simply less popular than the other seasons. It's not uncommon for a TV series to have peaks and valleys in terms of quality. To point out a single season for being "bad" in the lede for an otherwise acclaimed series should be for seasons that received overwhelming negative comments (such as Game of Thrones season 8 or Community season 4). The lede is a basic overview, so the phrasing "Justified received critical acclaim throughout most of its run" is valid because it states "most of", and the critical reception section expands upon this. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)