Talk:The Mentalist/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about The Mentalist. 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

72.37.244.36 (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I read on IMDb that Psych was originally pitched to CBS, the network that eventually launched The Mentalist. I don't have the link handy, but it might be interesting to include if somebody knew where to check. Sorry about formatting this wrong, btw - I'm new to Wikipedia.

Really it's a pretty blatant ripoff of Monk and Psych. Monk also has keen observational powers, lost a wife to a killer as a recurring plotline, operates as a consultant to a police force in California, and has issues with communication. ??? Anyone? Bueller? 98.172.31.151 (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is psych except they made it serious, instead of light-hearted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.76.96 (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the high degree of similarity between the premises of The Mentalist and Psych (and, to a certain degree, Monk), I think the "Similarities to Other Media" section should be moved up, and not placed after the ratings like an afterthought. 117.192.118.116 (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to review WP:RS and WP:V. Unless you have a citation we can't even claim that they are ALL rip-off of Sherlock Holmes. You can't honestly think a detective solving crimes using keen powers of observation is new to Psych, do you? Padillah (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that The Mentalist's lead uses his 'keen sense of observation' to solve crimes that makes it similar to USA's Psych. Did Sherlock Holmes use his observation skills to fool people into believing he was a psychic? Did he ever get a job as a freelance detective for California law enforcement? The Mentalist 'borrows' HEAVILY from Psych's premise, and as stated before, Psych was initially pitched to (and passed on by) CBS, so they were definitely aware of the show even if they hadn't seen the 2 full seasons that aired prior to The Mentalist's premiere. 24.255.18.252

Then it should be easy to find a citation stating this and we can add that to the article. Yes, Sherlock Holmes did allow people to believe he was psychic, he stated several times it was easier than explaining the truth (which he had given up on except to Watson who he felt truely appreciated his gifts). And no Sherlock Holmes did not join the police force of a state that wouldn't exist for another 100 years. If that's the big difference you've got for me then you need to read an article about Forests vs. Trees. Padillah (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not knowing how to format this, but here's a citation related to the whole Mentalist vs. Psych 'copycat' question: http://weblogs.redeyechicago.com/showpatrol/2008/12/roday-hill-psych-mentalist.html (James Roday and Dule Hill are interviewed about The Mentalist being a 'copycat'). And Padillah, insulting somebody's intelligence isn't going to help get your point across. Your forest/trees argument doesn't hold much weight, either. Let's say a tree = one similarity between characters/shows, and a forest would be a ton of similarities strung together. Well, Monk/Psych/Law and Order: CI/Mentalist/Sherlock/etc. all share one common 'tree' in that their detectives have superb observation and deduction skills. The Mentalist, however, planted quite a few extra 'trees' from a bag of Pysch seeds that none of these other shows got into. 72.37.244.36 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to insult anyone's intelligence. In point of fact the phrase "Can't see the forest for the trees" simply means a person is fixating on one point to the exclusion of all others. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Anything can be "similar" to most anything else given enough parameters and what you are talking about comes dangerously close to copyright infringement, if interpreted the wrong way. So, between the speculation and the implication we have to be very careful what is posted. The blog in the link is a little weird, it both accept, unequivocally, and denies, irrevocably, that the Mentalist is a copy. Hmm, I think it may be worth noting that even the stars of Psych don't agree that the shows are similar. I also think the strongest verbiage we should use is "influenced by", anything more than that and we could get in trouble. As for formatting the link, don't worry about it. It's weird, if the link is in WP then you use two sets of brackets and a pipe [[WikiArticle|text to be linked]]. But, if it's not in WP you use one set of brackets and a space [http:\\ExternalLink Text to be linked]. Good research finding that blog interview. Padillah (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Dule Hill was being sarcastic, that's the way I read it at least. And don't worry about the whole 'insulting intelligence' thing. It's so hard to read somebody's intended tone on the internet. It's all good. 24.255.18.252 (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick word to explain that someone here referred this issue to third opinion which is where I have come from. Third opinion is not appropriate here since there are several editors involved and as such I have removed it from the list. There are other, better dispute resolution processes for this task, however I note that we have new editors coming in even since the listing and maybe some more time is needed before trying those. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I was the one that posted to 3O and I did so to illicit other editors opinions without forum-shopping, not resolve a dispute. To say there are more than two editors when two of the three are anon IP's doesn't ring quite true, there is no telling if the IP's are from a single dynamic or from multiple static/dynamic. I'd like to try and clear up some things: 1) is the blog cited a WP:RS? 2)If so can and how do we mention the similarity? What would you suggest to attract attention, RfC?

I don't know why the section 'Similarity to other shows' was removed, but it should definitely stay as it is a very important fact.117.192.111.227 (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't know why it was taken out? Really? Did you read any of the talkpage discussion above your post? Padillah (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that simply stating that the show is similar to others is not supported by RS and not appropriate. It's simmilar to many shows in that it's on TV in the first place. It's similar to the Today Show in that it's on the CBS network. Being similar based on trits you determine is not notable (unless you are a notable TV critic in which case you need to publish your opinion so we can note it here). Citations have been provided where the stars of one show have noted what they believe to be similarities but until the blog is verified as an RS, and until an entry is written that sums up the blog entry concisely it is not sufficient nor appropriate to simply state the similarities as fact because you say so. Padillah (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did read it. The fact remains that a lot of people in this talk page agreed that there is a similarity between Mentalist and Psych. And do you really expect the Psych stars or executives to cause a controversy by openly stating that the Mentalist ripped off their premise? Besides, just because no one has officially called out Mentalist on its similar theme, doesn't mean that the glaring similarity in premises should be ignored completely. If you're really concerned about reliability, then change the wording to 'It has been suggested by many (whereupon you link the article above) that this show is strongly influenced by the similar premise of Psych.' The goal here is to provide the reader with all pertinent information, not to prove you're a dedicated Mentalist fan. And if you're just going to tell me to review WP:RS and WP:V, at least explain what they are -- not all of us are full-time editors here.117.192.114.7 (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is the policy regarding verifiability. In short, anything you say on WP should come from somewhere else. No information should be created by the editors and we should be able to show that "somewhere else" to people if they ask. WP:RS is the policy regarding reliable sources. In short, Any source we use to comply with WP:V should be reliable and knowledgeable about the topic. I can't just start a facebook page and post whatever facts I want and then put them in WP with a citation. They have to come from a source that's at least nominally reliabe in it's coverage of the topic. And the topic very much does affect the RS. TV Guide is a fine RS for TV news and such but sucks as a geologic reference.

Now, on to the statement "just because no one has officially called out Mentalist on its similar theme, doesn't mean that the glaring similarity in premises should be ignored completely." Yes, it does. If the fact is something you came up with then we don't use it here. All due respect but WP needs more than your say-so to publish a statement. As for your phrasing of the entry, it looks fine. I (or someone else, I don't really care) need to check out the blog and see if it would qualify for RS and then we publish just what you suggested. Some blogs are just ramblings of incoherent Yentas. But some real columnists have resorted to calling their columns "blogs" in an effort to gain audience in the face of the growing blog community. So if this is a regular columnist and they are reporting on a real (obviously) conference call with the cast then 1) we should be able to use the blog as a source and 2) we should be able to find more references to this conference call in other sources.

As for asking you to read WP:V and WP:RS, I know not everybody here is a full-time editor. Heck, neither am I. That's why I told you where to find the policy to review. I assumed you were new or uninformed and tried to direct you to the relevant articles. That's what we call Assuming Good Faith, when you meet an editor you should always assume they are trying to make WP better. What you are doing by casting doubt on my sincerity to help the article and inferring that I am a fan trying to protect the article, that's called Bad Faith and it's very damaging. Some of the statements you've made could even be construed as Personal Attacks and get you blocked from editing. Not as a punishment but because it takes away from WP and distracts other editors. I'm a fair bit more accepting than most so you might want to watch you step with other editors and try to AGF. Remember, we're all here to help. Padillah (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The PSYCH similarities seem like a real issue of contention, if anyone could find a valid source out there it seems it could be made into a criticism section? 66.135.227.46 (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, if they ripped off psych, they certainly improved it a lot. I watched that show for the first time and it's pretty bad. It was only the first episode, but it's barely watchable. Enigma^msg 16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit late joining the discussion, but oh well. What really needs to be made clear here is that Psych isn't original. Sherlock Homes was a pretend psychic - as I think someone has already mentioned - so it isn't as if this is a new idea (Also in Psych there is Gus who is like Watson - something not found in the Mentalist). And I'd also give a shout out to Columbo and Poirot at this point. They don't pretend to be psychics, but these characters have "enhanced observational skills" or whatever the hell you want to call it. There is also the point that in Psych, the guy explicitly tries to make people think he is Psychic. The guy in the Mentalist does exactly the opposite. When it comes down to it, the Mentalist is better produced, better written, better acted, and IMO a hell of a lot funnier (I don't find Psych funny at all). I also just get the hint of jealousy from the Psych guys. The Mentalist pulls in 3 times the number of viewers, and you can say this is because the show is on CBS and therefore is better backed, but that would only account for the first few episodes - people don't continue to watch something they dislike.

Personal opinions aside, you are correct. If we feel we must there is plenty of room at either the Psych article or either of the actors articles to interject the conference call comments, even make note of the snide commercials currently running. None of which impacts The Mentalist so there's no need to mention it here. If there were law suits or something that actually impacted the show or it's ratings or credibility then that would fall into the puview of this article. But we need to remember this article is about the show The Mentalist, not about other shows or their similarity to this show. Padillah (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Until anything is official alleged against The Mentalist, it has no part here. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

Edit Break

USA Network is currently running a promo (as recent as the week of August 7th) for the new season of Psych. The promo has Shawn and Gus explaining to somebody that they're 'just like The Mentalist' only they're 'real' and The Mentalist is 'fake' - they go on to claim that 'if The Mentalist were real, it would be like a carbon copy.' I think this ribbing counts as an 'accusation,' doesn't it? At least add a 'feud' section. 68.228.34.197 (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Shawn and Gus poke fun? Really? I wouldn't have expected it from those two. </sarcasm> If we were to list the shows that poke fun at other shows it would take several years. If we were to list the shows Psych has poked fun at it would take even longer. I mean an actual allegation. A court case, a smear in the trades... something that could be construed as "real". To poke fun at a lack of originality is not the same as allegations of plagiarism. Padillah (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that they made the advert like that to attract some attention to their own programme. It is not an official allegation. Alan16 (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. The point of commercials is to get people talking about a product and what better way to get people to talk than to create controversy? No, the commercial is a commercial, it is there to atract attention, as you say. It is not an allegation of anything. Padillah (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The commercial, along with dialog in the show itself, 'poking fun' at The Mentalist's similarities is enough to note, imo. I'm not saying that there needs to be a section on the main article called "The Mentalist is a ripoff..." but it wouldn't hurt to mention the 'feud' in the 'reception' section. 68.228.35.240 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But there is no feud. Merriam Webster describes a feud as: "a mutual enmity or quarrel that is often prolonged or inveterate". It is only the Psych guys who are talking about this and solely for the purpose of creating some controversy, to get some interest in their programme. Alan16 (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Not only is there no feud, because this is only the 'Psych' guys talking, there is no need to mention that some other show is making fun of this show. This may be relevant to 'Psych' but not 'The Mentalist'. Padillah (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)When are people going to give this up. Another day, another editor adding irrelevant stuff on Psych again. Alan16 (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

All that matters is that reliable sources address the similarity between these programs. Professional reviews are relevant, so I'm adding the information to a subsection under "Reception." I'm also noting a related comment from the creator of Psych as well as the aforementioned joke (reminiscent of the "plagiarismo" gag on The Simpsons). If major publications consistently find something noteworthy, it belongs here. AlanJM (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, relevance also matters. A snide mention as a "poke in the ribs" on one episode of Psych does not warrant mention here. Several different professional people causing a bit of a stir may be something we can bring up. Formal charges, in court, of plagiarism need to be covered in depth and at length. So there's more than just "reliable sources address the similarity". Having said that, if you've got a list of people talking about it and can present that in a balanced way (remember, we can't foster the charge of Plagiarism since there's not been a charge leveled), be our guest! It would be great to have something tohang this argument on. Padillah (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to this issue, the most important factor is that reliable sources have frequently addressed it. How do we determine relevance if not by journalistic notability? Likewise, a "snide mention" does belong here when The New York Times and TV Guide see fit to write about it. AlanJM (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have one enormous problem with all this. It isn't just bloody Psych. Even your sources say that there are many of these programmes around. L&O:CI, Monk, CSI:CSI,... there are plenty. Entitling the section "similarity to Psych" is POV. The section would be better titled "Concept" and then talk about how it is not a new concept with many shows using a similar idea. And some of your "RS" seem a bit dodgy to me. There are a few which although hosted on well known sites, are in fact simply blogs of certain journalists/reviewers. Blogs are not reliable. Alan16 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm going to need to re-write that bit. You misrepresent more than a couple of your sources and although I doubt it will happen, this is the sort of thing people get sued over. Alan16 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Premise

Having seen about 8 episodes, I strongly disagree with what is written under premise in the article. While most of it is somewhat true, there is a way to strong emphasis on Jayne being considered dangerous and "a loose cannon" by his team an Lisbon. The writing suggests there is no personal relationship or friendship beetween the team and Jayne, yet even that they somewhat dislike or hate him. I admit I haven't seen the whole series yet, but even if the relationship between Jayne and the team changes, the premise should reflect that.

I think the premise should be rewritten to reflect the relationships properly. 80.142.248.15 (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There, how's that? Padillah (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

CBI

This article states that CBI is a fictional office. In the German article however there is a link to a CBI wiki-article in German with a link to an official government homepage of the CBI. However the abbreviation only appears in the link itself and not on the homepage, where it is called BII. Does anyone know whether this office exists and whether it is the one mentioned in the series? Timamoll (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. By definition they belong to a fictional one (unless someone can point me to a citation reflecting the fact that this is a docudrama and not a fictitious show). I cannot find a reference to the name change but can only surmise that the change from CBI to BII was due to the addition of "Intelligence" to the name and it's reorganization due to 9/11,but that is only my guess. In any case what the characters of this show belong to is a fictional CBI, not the real one. Padillah (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to mention that the California Bureau of Investigation depicted in "The Mentalist" is based on, or similar to, the real California Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence. The CBI depicted on the show, like the real BII, is under the authority of the State's Attorney General and Department of Justice. There are, of course, some details in the show which are clearly fictional. In the episode "Bloodshot," for example, a plaque on the wall of the fictional CBI HQ building in Sacramento indicates that it is a historic building known as the J. Walker Chandlery. In "Russet Potatoes," the guards stationed at the walk-through metal detectors appear to be wearing California State Police uniforms. Of course, the CSP merged with the California Highway Patrol in 1995. APS221 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Very good info! Can you find citations for any of that so we can use it? If there is some TV columnist that makes the connection then we can include it. Otherwise, it may seem pretty blatant but it's still us assuming and we might be wrong. Padillah (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, common sense is also a wikipolicy, so using said common sense, it may be better to describe the CBI as depicted on the show as "fictionalized" instead of "fictional". So that's what I'm going to do.oknazevad (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone that read WP:TRUTH would have to argue the whole "common sense is also a wikipolicy" statement. Besides, you can't fictionalize something that is not based in reality. Since there is no proof for a reality-based CBI it can't be fictionalized. You can fictionalize wolves as Worgs, you can't fictionalize Elves. Padillah (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that this information should be omitted. Changes to names of such organizations are usually done to bypass legal issues, making things easier. If a fictional organis obviously based of a real one there should be a mention. MasteroftheWord (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of omitting for omittance sake. It's a question of having citations backing up the statement. Can anyone find a review that mentions it? Someone somewhere should have said something, or we can't post it. Padillah (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical

Hey, this sentence under Red John sounds a bit off, I was reluctant to fix it:

Where he hacked into the CBI's computer system and has been monitoring them for some time.

It doesn't make sense to me, thanks to whomever sorts it out.D3t3ctiv3 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense, although perhaps "had" may have been a better choice than "has". Alan16 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agent Bosco??

Who is this agent Bosco that supposedly mentored and dated Lisbon? I just watched the whole series and don't recall any mention. The info is also absent from the Lisbon page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.109.250 (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember something like that from near the start of the season. Don't recognise the name though. Alan16 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Concept section = BAD

The concept section spends too much time defending the show's originality. I'm almost considering throwing a flag on this article for breaking standards of neutrality. 76.169.78.52 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I'd say that that would be ridiculous thing to do. People are continually trying to put rubbish in about it being a copy of Psych, and so the section was created using reliable sources. It states that there have been many comparisons. Sourced. It then states that all these shows owe the concept to something much older than any of them. Sourced. It then gets more specific about the Psych commercial accusation. Sourced. It then shows a reliable source refuting the accusation as nonsense. Sourced. There is nothing POV in there. Every statement is either neutral or neutral talking about a POV. Everything is souced. Reliably. I can't remember the last time an IP edited this article constructively, so don't be offended if I assume you're another Psych fan looking for it to say that The Mentalist stole the concept. Alan16 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the concept section currently comes off as advocacy argument for the show's purported orginality -- to the extent that it makes a cynic wonder if someone actively involved with the show in question was writing or editing content in violation of guidelines. 71.84.243.110 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm 17 and live in the far north of Scotland. I've not quite got my CBS job yet, sorry to disappoint you. Alan16 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the section is fine. It presents the view that it is stolen from Psych, and then shows that both are derived from something far older. Alan16 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The section is a mess. It takes the ridiculous position that because Psych was not the first detective show ever made, making a show in which a person who has a gift for deduction uses that gift to pretend to be a psychic in order to solve crimes is suddenly an old and commonly used premise, which is just laughable. One other thing: the claim that Psych and The Mentalist are both ripoffs of Sherlock Holmes, thus The Mentalist is not a ripoff of Psych is equally silly. Sherlock Holmes may have on one or two occasions allowed others to think his abilities were supernatural. He absolutely never claimed his abilities were supernatural, which the main characters on both Psych and the mentalist do, which is what makes them unique. Give me an example of a show in which the premise is that the main character pretends to be psychic, but is actually a fraud and uses his keen powers of observation to solve crime and you've got something - otherwise, I think it's pretty obvious what "inspired" the creators of The Mentalist. Also: Alan, I specifically think it's hilarious that earlier in this thread you complain about bad sourcing for the opinion that The Mentalist is a transparent ripoff of Psych's concept, and yet you defend the sources in the "concept" article, which are all simply the opinions of bloggers stating the opposite. If I start a blog called "The Mentalist is a Ripoff of Psych" does that make my opinion a reliable source? Please. The mere fact that an opinion is printed on a web page doesn't make it a source. This whole section should be removed, it comes across like an advocacy piece for The Mentalist's claimed originality. Kryptography (Kryptography)

Point of correction - the Patric Jane character does not claim to be a psychic nor does he use that illusion to help solve crimes. In point of fact he decries psychics at every turn and all but actively despises them. He plainly explains and even draws attention to his methods of observation and deduction, he doesn't hide them for fear of discovery. He argues out loud to not be labeled a psychic several times during the run of the show. Also of note is the fact that durring the period when Jane did claim to be psychic he was not helping the police, he was fleecing his victims, and he admits to as much. Psych, on the other hand, makes a great show of his supposed "abilities" and while the audience is cognizant of his ruse, most characters in the story (Lassiter aside) are either convinced or accepting of the "psychic" premise. So what is being argued is that a show where the protagonist is not a psychic was stolen from a show whose protagonist IS a psychic? That's quite a stretch. Padillah (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's being argued that either show stole the "psychic" element from anyone. It's being pointed out that solving crimes based on acute observation and astute deduction is not a new concept. This being the only plot point left to argue once one notices that the approach of both protagonists to being labeled "psychic" is diametrically opposite. Padillah (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that there was an edit conflict so the following may be outdated – From that answer it seems to me like you've never actually seen The Mentalist or read Sherlock Holmes. One of the most commonly used phrase on The Mentalist is: "I'm not psychic, just paying attention," and Holmes was always leading people on about being psychic. So the body of your argument is incorrect - Patrick Jane states often that he is no psychic and just lets people think what they want... The same as Holmes and the Psych guys. Which one of these came first? You misrepresent the section when you say that "because M rips of P which is a rip of of SH". That is not what the section says. The section in a sense says that "if anything M & P rip of SH". This concept is old, very old - the fact that you don't know this is frankly irrelevant. And if you want to stick to TV, then if anything, tM & P rip of Monk an older show based on a similar concept. I don't believe The Mentalist is a rip off, and you know what? I don't believe the Psych guys do either. Why? Because if they really thought that the concept was unique to them before The Mentalist then do you not think that they might have taken legal action, especially considering the sort of culture we live in today. This section really has two possible outcomes: 1) It stays the way it is, in a neutral tone stating that the concept is not new, but rather is an old one which has been used often. Or 2) It gets deleted because no official accusations have been made against The Mentalist. I don't care either way. You obviously do care a lot about this, and are probably a die-hard Psych fan by the sound of things. If you want my suggestion, you should take this to the Psych page, because that is where it belongs, not here. Nobody related to Psych has said that The Mentalist is plagiarism in any official way. Until then, The Mentalist has no case to argue. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Alan16 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To start with: I'm glad we agree that the section needs to be deleted. A few points: Your whole "if there isn't a legal accusation of plagarism, nobody can consider "The Mentalist" a ripoff of "Psyche" is pretty silly. Tons of fans think Deep Space 9 was a ripoff of Babylon 5, but no suit was ever filed. Whether or not something is original and clever or a trite rehash of someone else's superior product is a matter of opinion. Plagarism is a legal standard, "that's a ripoff" is a personal one. A fan can consider something a ripoff even absent legal evidence to prove plagarism. Also: The fact that the guy on Psych pretends to be a psychic but is just really observant, and uses his observant nature to solve crimes, but the guy on the mentalist used to pretend he's psychic but is just really observant and uses his observant abilities to solve crimes - come on, I really don't think calling The Mentallist painfully unoriginal is much of a stretch. Obviously that's just my opinion, and I don't anticipate anyone's going to change anyone's mind here. Either, way I'm glad we've come to an agreement and I'll delete the useless section now. Kryptography (Kryptography) —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Um, I hate to break this to you but you and your misunderstandings of Alan16 do not make a consensus. Alan16 has no business saying the section can go. It is notable and relevant to the show (in as much as the show is being slighted and the issue has attracted the attention of critics). As for what you can consider, that is of no consequence here. You can consider the world to be flat, until you can cite a reliable source it doesn't matter to me. There can be a law suit against the U.S. government to allow Texas to succeed from the Union but unless you have a citation, it ain't going in a WP article. To have reduced the presentation of either of these shows to a single facet of their considerable presentation is a grave disservice. I'm not sure you could convince me that people watch either show for the gripping forensics displays. They watch for the drama and the story-telling. They watch for the interaction between Gus and Shawn. They watch to see if Rigsby and Van Pelt will ever kiss. It occurs to me that I'm not entirely sure I understand where you stand on this issue. You argue here that The Mentalist is not very orriginal yet nere the top you argue that we cannot display another show with the same premise. You are staring to look like a fan that simply wants to win the argument and will change their tactic to do so. Please let us concentrate on improving the article by ether helping or choosing another article and allowing us to get back to editing. Padillah (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To start with, I did not say the section can go. I outlined the two possibilities for the section, let it stay basically the way it is because it is quasi-notable in the sense that there is some critical coverage of the situation but almost all the critics are actually talking about the adverts as being wrong, or it should go for the same reasons. Basically there is a significant amount of coverage, but they are talking about the inaccuracy of the comparison. Personally I don't care, but if I had to chose I'd just leave it the way it is - NPOV and well sourced. And I'll finish by echoing Padillah's closing thoughts - this debate has gone on long enough, so Kryptography you can either join us in trying to improve the article, or move on to another article and just learnt to live with the decision. Alan16 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to help improve this article by removing a section which is very clearly just an attack on people with a certain opinion, that is people who think that The Mentalist is a ripoff of Psych. I'm not arguing that there needs to be a section about The Mentalist being a ripoff of psych, I'm saying that this section shouldn't be here at all. I'm sorry I distracted you by stating that in my opinion, the mentalist is not in fact very original and does borrow very heavily from Psych's premise, thus making this section both unnecessary and actually inaccurate, but that's really a side issue. The bottom line is that the article is an arguement which really has no purpose. Arguements about whether or not the Mentalist is a ripoff of Psych belongs here on the talk page or on a forum, not in the Wikipedia article. The "Concept" section of this article is pretty clearly an artifact of some kind of edit war in which there were prior accusations of unoriginality. It doesn't scan with the rest of the article and serves no purpose. If there's a contraversy about the Mentalist's originality, then put in a contraversy section and sight the two contrasting opinions. Your position is that there is no contraversy and there is no question that the Mentalist is extremely original, so really, per your own positions, there's no reason for the section to exist. 22:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptography (talk • contribs)

If they ripped off Psych, they certainly improved upon it a great deal. In fact, the creators of Psych refer to The Mentalist during the show and give it free plugs. Remember the episode where Shawn said he watches The Mentalist regularly with his father? Finally, it could be argued that Psych itself ripped off Monk. This is how it is with TV series. I'm ambivalent about the section. I wouldn't object to its staying or going. Enigma^msg 05:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about location of this show

Does anyone know if they really shoot in Sacramento County in California, or they just do shoots of the landscapes, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.240.132 (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mentalist is almost completely filmed at Universal Studios and at locations around Los Angeles County. The CBI HQ is actually Pico House in downtown L.A. Only one episode so far (see this SacBee article) involved on location filming in Sacramento. Also, keep in mind that many of the locations in the show are fictional composites of several real California towns, like "Rancho Rosa" and "Santa Marta Beach."

Anyway, the reason for minimizing on location shooting is that for productions filming on the West Coast, it is insanely expensive under union contracts to film anywhere outside of the studio zone. Whenever a production based in L.A. goes outside of the studio zone, all the key cast and crew members are entitled to first-class transportation and lodging. So either it's cheaper to try to film as many shots in the studio zone as possible, or place the entire production in some faraway jurisdiction not subject to the studio zone rule (ideally one offering generous tax credits to attract Hollywood producers) and hope that the local actors and techs are capable of doing work as good as the professionals in L.A. This is why, for example, 50 First Dates went to great expense to build interiors on soundstages in L.A. that looked like they were in Hawaii, so that they could cut down on the number of days filming on location in Hawaii. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I almost forgot to mention that the real-life California Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence (in case you're curious) is headquartered in the same office tower that houses the California Attorney General's office, which I already took a photo of for Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Parts of the show are clearly filmed in Vancouver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.13.204 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Season 2 Episodes

New episode "Redline" airs Feb 4, 2010 according to IMDB. Also here's list of season 2 episodes which has 2 more after "Redline." --jenlight (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of ratings, shares, and foreign viewers, rank, share, and ratings

I am going to go ahead and remove the ratings and shares from the US viewer information as well as the share, rank, viewers, and ratings for foreign countries from the individual season pages. This is because wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see note 3). The show is broadcast in over 40 countries, so if we have ratings for France and the UK why not for all countries. The reason is because it is unnecessary and we would have pages and pages of statistics. The show is American and only the American ratings count for things such as season renewal. I would keep the American rank just because the viewers and rank are common on other pages and are interesting. As for ratings and share, I doubt most people even know what they mean, I sure don't. Additionally, the statistics of other countries are notable, however, they should be presented in prose like "The show average such and such amount of viewers in France and was well received by critics". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As I already said, I don't have a problem with that. But watch out when you do this again in the future that you don't remove the actual reference info for the ratings that stay. I re-added 19 removed references for season 1 and a bot re-added 12 for season two. Just a friendly warning for the future. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary said that I was waiting for the Bot to fix them, as I knew it would. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Tommyjgrimshaw re-added them, I've requested a comment. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and am still getting to grips with the rules etc. I added the ratings when I actually created the season pages, and thought they'd just be interesting for others. They were interesting for me. Why not have another page for international ratings for season 1 of The Mentalist. If people want to add their country's data they can. I appreciate it may be unfair for only the UK and France to have their ratings added, but on the other hand, maybe no-one from another country wants to put their country's rating on Wikipedia or they don't know how.Tommyjgrimshaw (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well a page with statistics from 40 or so countries would fail wikipedia guidelines. It's just really not that relevant to show the ratings just like it isn't right to provide an in depth description of an episode's plot. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This show is fiction.

Can we all agree - this show is fiction, right? So why is there a contingent that is trying to establish how the real CBI fits into this TV show? What does this add to the show? What does this knowledge add to the article? Please stop with the insistence on making mention of a department that no longer exists in a show that is fictional in any regard. Padillah (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to TNT

Should we update the article about the show being aired on TNT? Right now the article says it will begin in Fall 2011, but I am watching The Mentalist on TNT right now. I am not being picky about the summer/fall descrepancy, just asking if it should be stated that the show is now airing on TNT. Brinkley32 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Show titles ... hommage to ITC?

The style of the titles for the show, especially the typography, is very reminiscent of the styling of titles from UK television syndicators/producers ITC the 60s and 70s ... such as the Saint, Danger Man etc. As Bruno Heller is British and would have grown up with such programmes on UK independent television, so I suspect this is deliberate but has anyone ever seen him refer to this? The Monty Python sketch 'The Bishop' lampoons this company's style of titles very effectively. (Special effects by the Moderator of the Church of Scotland) Delverie (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Young Patrick Jane

It is never mentioned who plays the young Patrick Jane, either on the main page, or Patrick Jane's character page. He is a recurring cast member and should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.141.151 (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

character listings

OK I am prepared to be shouted down on this one, but shouldn't it be that the characters fictional name should be listed before that of the actor ?Steve Bowen (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Red John Category moving

Isn't Red John a major character? He's the main protagonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.20.20 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The main cast is reserved for the people that get weekly credits and the characters they play. The actor(s) playing Red John have never had main cast billing, so "he " is at best a recurring or secondary character. See WP:MOS:TV. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Jane's personality

Jane is not cold and uncaring. He is often shown to care about people, particularly children and young people, as well as victims and their families. He's donated money and given money to help people. He may sometimes *seem* to be cold and uncaring, but I think the writers and producers give us ample evidence on an ongoing basis that he's not at all lacking in empathy. When you see the episode where he loses his memory, then you see someone more cold and uncaring. It's like one of his colleagues says during that episode: losing his wife and daughter made him a better person. Before his wife and daughter were killed, he conned people for money and didn't care, but he's not like that now. He only tricks and manipulates people for the purpose of putting criminals in jail. He's not warm and fuzzy; he doesn't show emotion often; he may act like he doesn't care; but he has plenty of feeling and compassion. That's my take, so I have a real problem with the description of the character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonlet (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I second this assessmemt. The characterization of Patrick Jane's personality in this article is so skewed and inaccurate that it should be removed and rewritten.Jane's detachment is an act, a defense mechamism, and a way of applying his skills -- very much in the tradition of Sherlock Holmes. He is sensitive and empathetic in the extreme -- otherwise he wouldn't be as good as he is. He goes beyond simple "psychic"tricks like cold reading and seems able to plumb people's psyches -- well outside the scope of a typical psychic's or medim's skills -- by being hyper-perceptive ... but he often seems to go beyond simple observation. One can't be truly disconnected from people and still be able to read them so accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.43.46 (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error

In the paragraph below the word 'council' should be 'counsel'.

Noun: counsel (plural counsels)

1.The exchange of opinions and advice; consultation 2.Advice or guidance so given 3.A lawyer, as in Queen's Counsel (QC)

Jillian Bach as Sarah Harrigan— a public defender that the team first meet in the Season 3 episode "Every Rose Has Its Thorn", where she is a client at a matchmaking service. Her interest is piqued by Rigsby during an interview regarding an alibi she provides to a suspect, after which she asks him out on a date, which he accepts. She and Rigsby continue their relationship during Season 4, where she is assigned as the legal council for a suspect the team are interviewing in one episode. During another episode, she assists Rigsby with his upcoming testimony for a case that has gone to trial, before they consummate their relationship. She announces in "My Bloody Valentine" that she is pregnant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.145.251 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! – Jonadin (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Filming locations?

I'd like to see a section about where it's filmed. For example, where is the building that serves as the headquarters of the CBI? What serves as their courthouse or other occasional locations? I've heard rumours that parts of it are filmed in Vancouver, which seems plausible as one of the offices they used as a location had some pictures by a member of the Group of Seven --Monado (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about filming locations... specifically, why is there a bridge in almost every single opening scene?? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.165.37 (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of group of seven and Tom Thompson works not only in the original 'boss' office but in houses where various events took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.121.173 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Simon Baker Picture

Is there any way we can get a better picture here? I suggest the one on the Patrick Jane Page. Jokem (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

shoting of red john

on one episode - in which his black colegue is used to put jonh from hiding - and traitor in cbs is found and shoted - jane shot person claiming he is red jon and then await aresting (end of episode). and in next episode he is normaly working for cbs like nothing hapened - why ? he is not in prison, no court...etc. Why ? even dr. house was in jail :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9199:52F6:D456:6D5B:2203:D241 (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed episodes. Maybe you saw old episodes on a channel which didn't go straight from season 3 to 4. He shot the man claiming to be Red John in the season 3 finale Strawberries and Cream (The Mentalist)#Part two. He was on trial at the start of The Mentalist (season 4). IMDb has more about episode 1 and 2. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)