Jump to content

Talk:The Wire/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Plot

I think the Plot synopsis and episode list sections needs to be overhauled for this article to keep its FA status.–FunkyVoltron talk 23:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How so?--Opark 77 (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Just here to say that those plot synopses are really long, considering that there are also season and episode articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly podcast about television: you're invited

On Thursday, at 11 am EST (15:00 UTC Wikipedia time), there will be a podcast discussion on Skype with television scholar Jason Mittell, who has written extensively about The Wire. If any editors of this article would like to participate, please sign up: Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode76. --ragesoss (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


Museum Exhibit

Where should something like this be mentioned? http://www.thebmi.org/index.cfm/cID/674 71.232.29.160 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting and I'm glad you gave the link, but it's a pretty minor museum and in my opinion, doesn't merit inclusion in the article. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Found a news clip from the HBO website about a party held there: http://www.hbo.com/thewire/news/ (4.30.08) and a old event listing http://www.citypaper.com/calendar/review.asp?rid=13241 at the Baltimore_City_Paper. 71.232.29.160 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection, thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done The bots should start over the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic political influence

Perhaps this could be added somewhere? [1]

"With his party having won 6 of the City Council’s 15 seats, Mr. Gnarr needed a coalition partner, but ruled out any party whose members had not seen all five seasons of “The Wire.” "

Esn (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like trivia to me. Why don't we wait until he enforces it? --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
He did enforce it. It's in the article.
The Best Party, whose members include a who’s who of Iceland’s punk rock scene, formed a coalition with the center-left Social Democrats (despite Mr. Gnarr’s suspicion that party leaders had assigned an underling to watch “The Wire” and take notes).
P.S. Reykjavik is the capital of Iceland, and has most of the country's population. Esn (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
One or two sentences seem okay to me. Sorry, this best party thing sounds so outlandish at first. Perhaps a new section can be added about political influence, especially if you can find another political party that have also acknowledged the show in a significant way. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot section

The plot section has recently been tagged as too long. I think the plot overviews for the first three seasons are fine, but season 4 may need to be trimmed a little, while season 5 definitely needs to be cut down quite a bit. If an experienced copy-editor could help out, that would be great. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the tag. I think that sections 3, 4, and 5 definitely need to be trimmed, but I have not yet watched the whole series. As soon as I finish it, I will edit the section.Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've cut the fifth season synopsis back but I think it could do with further pruning. Arthur Holland (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


The plot of season 2 is pretty similar to the film 'On the Waterfront' featuring Marlon Brando, maybe some mention of this could be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.200.61 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On the notability tags added to all the episode pages

I'm speaking more as a reader here than as an editor: I've found the episode-by-episode plot summaries extremely useful as I've watched the series. Reading the plot summary after watching each episode has really helped me keep track of the events and people in this very complex story. I recognize that these articles may violate notability policies and style guidelines about the lengths of plot summaries. But they've been useful to me, and I assume to a lot of other readers. It's also obvious that one or more Wikipedians put a lot of work into writing these summaries. I would hate to see it all disappear into the ether. It's my opinion that each episode of The Wire is individually significant as a work of art. In any case I hope there will be a full discussion before any action is taken. Leoniceno (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see it they are not tagged for notability (that could have led to deletion) but for improvement of sources (which usually does not lead to deletion). Whether that tagging is actually justified or really useful depends on the particular case. For a simple plot description no sources other than the episode itself is needed (though occasionally other editors are not aware of that), but for any additional commentary or analysis an external source would be required.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of them are tagged with "May not meet the general notability guidelines," and the tag has been up since June. Good to know that the episode itself is acceptable as the source for a plot summary. Leoniceno (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Well if you are afraid that some episodes might silently vanish due to a lack of notability (we do have some editors that dislike episode articles), I'd suggest you add those with the an actual notability tag to your watchlist and post a message here when an actual AfD occurs.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Commercial success

In the intro, it is stated that The Wire "never enjoy[ed] large commercial success." My question is, how can the commercial success of an HBO show be measured? HBO is paid for by subscription, and there is presumably no way of knowing which shows make people subscribe. Since HBO shows generate no immediate profit for the company, I think it is wrong to say anything about The Wire and commercial success - unless we're talking about DVD sales. I feel that a clarification or reformulation is in order. Wouldn't it be better to say that The Wire never attained large mainstream popularity, or something like that? 130.238.66.78 (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a good point. I initially removed your clarify tag because the citation right there to the Telegraph cites poor viewership. Then again, viewership doesn't necessarily have much to do with commercial success. I think a sensible fix is to change "commercial success" to "high viewership" or something like that. DVD sales are fluid.. I'm no tv expert but I assume viewership implies at the original air time. Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I would read that potentially as dvd sales, but primary as selling the broadcasting rights worldwide (syndication). --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! I've edited the sentence; please feel free to revise it. 130.238.66.78 (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuation

In June 2011 Eric Holder ordered (as United States Attorney General) the authors to write one more season or at least a movie.[1] They responded they will do it if the United States Department of Justice will rework their "misguided, destructive and dehumanising drug prohibition".[2]

I found that in the German wiki including those two references, but nothing here. May not relevant enough? 84.227.38.7 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


You could just add it and wait, if someone complains. That's how I work at the german article. --88.70.228.22 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ Jeremy Pelofsky (2011-05-31). "Attorney General orders more episodes of the "The Wire", or a movie". Tales from the Trail. Retrieved 2011-11-06. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |day=, |month=, and |deadurl= (help)
  2. ^ Ray Gustini (2011-06-10). "'The Wire' Creator David Simon Has a Counteroffer for Eric Holder". The Atlantic Wire. Retrieved 2011-11-06. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=, |day=, |month=, and |deadurl= (help)

Excellent analysis

Police procedural

According to the definition of police procedural (quote: attempts to convincingly depict the activities of a police force as they investigate crimes) with the argument described in the article (especially if you watched this extraordinary series) I think we should add the corresponding category.--Galazan (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because "police procedural" is usually synonymous with "case-of-the-week" shows, which obviously The Wire is not. Labeling it a "police procedural" just seems odd to me. Anyway, I'd like to hear what some other editors think. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this "case of the week" meaning is not in the sense of police procedural, that remarks the true police work far away from fiction. At least I never heard about it.--Galazan (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • To provide my 2 cents, I am with Drovetrughosts on this. And it's not only about the "case of the week" aspect either. In the words of Charlie Brooker, "calling The Wire a 'cop show' is a bit like calling The Godfather a 'film about a few dodgy Italians'." Police procedurals and "cop shows" in general are portrayed firmly from the perspective of law enforcement, which The Wire is certainly not. --213.196.194.27 (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It's obvious that Brooker was talking about the complexity of this master TV work, which couldn't be tagged with a simple stereotype. I insist in my point: please read the meaning of police procedural.--Galazan (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Greatest show of all time sources

This is about the line in the lead that says many critics consider this the greatest drama of all time. The first source doesn't lead any where and the second and third sources are just links to metacritic, which is original research. That leaves the last 3 sources, which do say The Wire is the greatest show of all time, but should the line be there because of 3 sources? Me5000 (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. I don't think it should be there because of 3 or even 4 sources. Here's the line if you want to examine it:

"Despite only receiving modest ratings and never winning major television awards, The Wire has been described by many critics as the greatest TV drama of all time.[1][2][3][4][5][6]" Me5000 (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Traister, Rebbeca (September 15, 2007). "The best TV show of all time". Salon.com. Retrieved March 7, 2008.
  2. ^ "The Wire: Season 4". Metacritic. Retrieved March 7, 2008.
  3. ^ "The Wire: Season 5". Metacritic. Retrieved March 7, 2008.
  4. ^ "The Wire: arguably the greatest television programme ever made". Telegraph. London. April 2, 2009. Retrieved April 2, 2009.
  5. ^ Wilde, Jon (July 21, 2007). "The Wire is unmissable television". London: guardian.co.uk. Retrieved September 7, 2009.
  6. ^ Carey, Kevin (February 13, 2007). "A show of honesty". London: guardian.co.uk. Retrieved September 7, 2009.

This should definitely be added back. The Wire is considered to be one of the greatest shows of all time by several television critics, so this should be noted. Here's a working link to the Salon article. The Metacritic links are valid because they link to over 40 unanimously positive reviews for the shows, including these quotes:

  • "One of the finest TV shows ever made" - New York Post
  • "The best series on TV, period." - Entertainment Weekly
  • "A vibrant, masterful work of art, HBO's novelistic urban saga The Wire is the best show on television." - L.A. Weekly
  • "To me, what allows "The Wire" to surpass "The Sopranos" in the pantheon of greatest American TV shows is its ambition and its anger. - Kansas City Star
  • "A critic for this paper once declared "The Wire" "the greatest dramatic series ever produced for television" and as the fourth season gets under way Sunday night, there's no reason to quibble with that assessment." - Newsday
  • "The best show on television." - Philadelphia Daily News
  • "If you stick with it, you will be rewarded with some of the most compelling, provocative drama ever produced for television." - San Jose Mercury News/Contra Costa Times

More articles: Empire Online, Slate Magazine, Vulture, HitFix. The question is, how many sources do we actually need? I'm fine with it saying "one of the the greatest", but it should definitely be included. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Drovethrughosts. This is well-sourced and should be in the lede. No good reason was offered for removing it in the first place. How is citing Metacritic original research? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I thought Metacritic was cited simply because of the score, evidently I was wrong. I think the suggestion by Drovethrughosts of adding it back as "one of the greatest" is what should be done. Many critics clearly rate the show very highly, but to say they said it was "the greatest tv drama of all time", when many of the sources say greatest show on TV(meaning greatest show currently airing on TV), greatest of the decade, or have it on a list of greatest shows where it isn't number 1 is original research. Me5000 (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I essentially agree with Drovethrughosts, i.e. the informations belongs into the article. However I also think that "one of the greatest" is more appropriate than "the greatest". The latter formulation tends to be almost always problematic anyhow unless there is an universally accepted objective measure available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Police... not cops

I'm extremely surprised that this article doesn't reference the fact that "cop" is never - and I mean never - used in show titles or script. They use "police" instead. That's obviously not a coincidence. Anyone care to comment? Anyone care to find a way to integrate that into the article? Anything that's not coincidence should most certainly be pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.85.110 (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The scriptwriters use "police", "po-po", "five-oh" and maybe some others. They don't use "pigs", "filth", "cops", "old Bill", "John Q. Law", "peelers", and many many others. What's the relevance of highlighting "cops"? pablo 07:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

They do use the term "cops." Example: in the first season when they are in the pit and Bodie hits one of the officers. Greggs goes after him and chastises him for "hit[ting] a cop." --96.242.158.14 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Style (realism)

On Nov. 19, Hartley1000 wrote the following paragraphs. It was immediately reverted by a bot for "possible vandalism". I don't think that is true. I think it was a good faith edit. The material seems very thought out and productive, but there are obvious problems with its form, as, in its current state, it is not fit for an encyclopedia, and closer resembles an academic essay. However, I do believe that the material in question could very easily be worked on to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia and thus to use it here in this article. Please let us know what you think and any ideas you have to incorporate it. Here are the paragraphs:

The style of The Wire is something very, very special. Way special. Mainly because it more than probably has something for everyone to relate to or that they feel they can immerse with in detail. Whether it is because the viewer may have lived the life already in line with one of the characters ' story lives' and they are 'seeing' themselves in real life operation may result in a likable or unlikable feeling depending on whether that lifestyle was a happy previous one or not. (Depending on whether or not your own character was different before and you have changed since). Call it 'De Ja Vu' if you will. Yet the beauty of running along with a particular Wire character is that you relate too them in this way is because the viewer is then urged to wait and see what the outcome is of their actions.

Most of the characters in The Wire are dependable in a way that their actions and lifestyles are stable and you more or less can run along with them pretty much resulting in a feeling at the end of 'ah, that didn't surprise me'. Yet the power of the quality realism within the episodes has yet again sucked you right in before your very eyes and you largely feel the need to at least start to watch the beginning of the next episode before your mind can decidedly put that drawn in feeling to rest until the next time you are full on ready to watch that episode or two more. Obviously defendant on if you are watching it with DVD seasons. The way the series shoots off in different directions keep the viewers on their toes. Yes we have seen this style sort of before, but not this way.

Everything about The Wire is possible in real life. In fact most of the things contained within The Wire package probably has happened. In real life for example, if you don't believe a Gay person can complete all of the 'tasks' that Omar Little has in The Wire, then you need to live. You need to get out. If you don't believe that some Cops like Jimmy can actually speak the street language in real life, can see through mis-leading activities and do have the sense and power to spring a bad guy free after smashing up a real life Police Radio car because he understood the real situation and just wasn't prepared to turn a blind eye, then you need to get with it.

If you watch the series intensely, then you should realize that the writers are so blob on with realism, and it is easy to see that the areas of Baltimore portrayed are crime and drug ridden so seriously that it is basically a War-Zone and some of the people in The Wire are most likely candidates for symptoms of what we know as PTSD.

If I was ever asked to write a character reference for each regular individual shown in a TV Series, I would choose The Wire to do it with. Such is the captivation. The last TV series that I can remember had the same level of captivation where by every actor in the shows did their utmost to be believed with such huge levels of immersion is Rich Man Poor Man. This is because it contained a residual character right through the base line that made the show. Tommy Jordache. A lovable rogue. A lovable rogue is not a person that is born this way. A lovable rogue will break the law at the drop of a hat if he sees a benefit that either helps other people, or himself, or both. Enter Omar Little ..... Gary Boocock ....

Charles35 (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's WP:OR and violates WP:NOT#ESSAY. Sorry.--Oneiros (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Nothing to be sorry about :) When I said "that isn't true", I meant that Hartley1000's post was not vandalism, as the bot had claimed. I agree with both of those rules you mentioned, and I don't think that this material, as is, should be on the article. The reason I posted it here is because I saw that it was Hartley1000's first post, and since (s)he's new, it would be nice to not have all that work just go to waste. Since (s)he is clearly interested in the subject and willing to put in the time to write several paragraphs, I figured (s)he probably wants to improve the article. Although the original material is not article worthy, I don't doubt that Hartley1000 can work to refine it and somehow incorporate his/her efforts into the article in another way.

Hartley1000 - let us know if you need anything or if you want to contribute to the article in any way. I'm glad to help. Charles35 (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Amazon not spam

User:Qworty maintains that amazon references are WP:SPAM and is proceeding to delete all such especially on articles he wishes to delete. Wheras I do not agree with him, it seems an edit war on a featured page is required to prove who is right. see Talk:The Vampire Diaries (novel series) as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.25.140 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd advise against that, see WP:POINT --SubSeven (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Please avoid a WP:POINT violation here. Qworty (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Then who is right? Make a decision. Qworty dose not have the courage of his convictions to delete and only bullies those that don't answer back. If it is policy as Qworty asserts, it must be deleted from this article as he has done on many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.25.140 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
To me the amazon links placed in that way clearly look like spam. I see no good reason to link amazon there, we hardly need to " or some prove"/source the release dates here. Even if you feel that the release dates need to be sourced explicitly, there is still no good reason to do that via amazon, you could cite the label/production company or some database like IMDB instead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
90.215.25.140, please calm down and watch your tone. A few "please"s and backing down on the accusations that Qworty is a bully would be nice. As I see it, Qworty is a fellow Wikipedian trying to improve Wikipedia, although you guys disagree on exactly how. I concur with Kmhkmh's opinion above: Wikipedia's policies involving Amazon should be applied to this article, too, and the Amazon references replaced with more reliable sources, such as the label/production company. Whether or not the article still meets FA requirements after the removal of the Amazon links can be decided by FAR, if necessary. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately IMDb will not satisfy Qworty as anybody such as me can and has edited it. If amazon fails policy then how can it's removal affect the FA requirements. I am really arguing against myself because it is very difficult to find an alternative source to amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.25.140 (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
What FA requirement are you talking about?--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
To say Amazon is spam is unbelievably ridiculous. It's being used as a reference to cite DVD release dates. Saying it's "spam", implies something harmful or inappropriate is being done, and that's not the case. Citation spamming is the aim of promotion, and do you really think editors are promoting Amazon, which is one of the most-visited websites on the Internet, and is simply the go-to for DVD release dates, to say it's being promoted is beyond ridiculous. Spam would be some random IP editor inserting external links to some random website that nobody's heard of throughout the article saying "BUY HERE". But to call it "spam" when tons of experience editors use Amazon as a reference to cite DVD release dates throughout hundreds (more like thousands) of articles is insulting. I was actually the one that add those references back in 2010 when I did a clean-up of the article, so to say it "clearly look like spam" is quite an insult. DVD release dates should have references, and guess what, Amazon is one of the best resources. What about region 2 and 4 release dates, it's impossible to find any sources that aren't online retailers. It's just how it is. I even looked at the HBO Shop, and they don't even list the full release date. It's crazy what stupid little things people concern themselves with. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually the Amazon links are exactly of "Buy here" and it is not unbecoming spam just because the company is well known or because the edit originates from regular editor. As I said before in my eyes there is absolutely no need to link amazon nevermind linking it repeatedly. Also note "looking like spam" does not necessarily imply that concerned editor was intentionally spamming. It just means the result of his (well meant) edit looks spam.
If the linking amazon for release date has become a commonly accepted practice and/or sourced release dates for FA article. Then this is something I'm not aware of and for which I personally like to see some evidence. In any case personally I find such a thing silly, but if the community supports it for whatever reason, so be it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
In my experience, editors have removed Amazon references, citing that they are unreliable. I have not personally seen a discussion saying so. If there are other sources for DVD release dates, it would be better, and this whole discussion can end. If not (as Drovethrughosts has stated), I'm willing to let this go as an ignore this rule situation. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Personally I'm not really convinced we need to source individual release dates nor are they really an important information. But if you want to source the release date referencing the producer/distrubution is certainly better (and more reliable) than referencing Amazon and imho the imdn or similar databases are not really worse than Amazon for sourcing such information. It is my experience so far that other editors tend to remove Amazon links as spam. However so far I've seen that mostly in context of literature/book information and not really in the context dvd release dates. Personally I wouldn't use such amazon links, but since i'm not one of the principal authors of this article, I don't have really strong opinion on that here and would tolerate a principal author's decision to use Amazon for sourcing in the lack for anything better being easily available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
In my five years on Wikipedia, pretty much exclusively within TV-related articles, I've never seen an Amazon reference removed because it's been determined "unreliable" or "spam". For something to be unreliable it means it would have to have proven to be unreliable in the past with incorrect release dates, and that's never been the case from my end. Replacing the region 1 refs is no big deal, there's TVShowsOnDVD, DVD Talk, DVD Active. The problem is international release dates, all I know of is online retailers for region 2 and 4, and I'm assuming if you have a problem with Amazon, it's the same for every online retailer, no? And really, intention should matter when it comes to "spam". Spam is when it's only serving a single purpose of promoting something, or includes inappropriate content. And it is none of that, it is simply serving to cite release dates. It should say the way it is, I've never encountered a problem like this in the five years I've been here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Time the series takes place in.

So does the series takes place in the 1980s? and if so why isn't it mentioned in the article?--84.94.120.42 (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It takes place around the time it was filmed and aired. The clothing styles certainly do not reflects the 80s. Off the top of my head I can remember a student in the 4th season mention Enron. --CutOffTies (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
In the last episode of Season 2, Freamon puts all case photos etc. in a box which is labeled "Port Investigation 2003". Cannot be more clear than this. Rozmysl (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The cell phones (and computers) they use were not around either back then either, but i believe parts of the plots are driven or influenced by experiences/events of/in Baltimore in the 1980s. As far as the social/economic situation is concerned Reagan's 80s and Bush's 2000s have quite a number of similarities.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The first episode makes reference to the twin towers falling. Good enough? 66.240.10.170 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, McNulty's friend with the Feds (Fitzhugh) even tells him, since 9/11, narcotics have taken a backseat to the war on terror (I'm paraphrasing, but 9/11 is mentioned). While influenced by B-More of the late 80s and 90s, there is no question that the show is set in the early 2000s. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but I don't think it's that simple. It's much more ambiguous. There are elements from the 2000s, the 1990s, and the 1980s. I think it's purely fictional and doesn't take place in a specific time period. Charles35 (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
And Clay Davis call the attorney Bondama. trespassers william (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In season 1, episode three, the FBI guy shows McNutty and Greggs a tape of a bust in his "career case", but says the bosses don't care because, as McNutty puts it, "not one of them's named Osama". Charles35 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In season 1, episode 13, when Rhonda Pearlman is charging the Barksdales in court, in reference to the arrest of Deangelo for transporting drugs from NJ to MD, she says "on or about the date of September 17, 2002..." Charles35 (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

He might be nutty but his name is still McNulty :). The plot definitely takes place during the Bush era, that is more or less at the same time it was shot. The inspiration for the plot however came partially from events in the 80s (Reagan/Bush years), during which the "career" of the real world figures after which the series characters were modeled took place (and the series principal authors were working as police officer and reporter in Baltimore).--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Bubbles calls him McNutty :) Charles35 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Critical Response -- When did Obama become a TV critic?

Mr. Obama's opinion about the series is irrelevant and should not be included. Obama is not a TV critic and as far as I know has nothing to do with TV or police or drugs or any other topic of the series. (He probably would be able to tell something interesting about corruption, e.g. his Solindra scam, or Benghasi betrayal, but it has nothing to do with The Wire). Are we now going to include opinions of every former US President about every TV series? (In several years Obama is going to become just another former US President, doubtfully the best at that, while The Wire will remain unique for a long time). Opinion of Iceland capital's mayor is of course also irrelevant, but at least it has some merit due to being unusually strong. Rozmysl (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly qualifies somebody for being a TV critic? Why would only opinion of TV critics being of interest when describing the reception of a film or series?
The question of notable opinions for the reception pf a cultural work aside this is not a forum for venting anger or disappointment about Obama.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A critic is somebody whose opinion about the subject matters. There is nothing which would show that Obama is a TV critic, even amateur. Has he ever written any TV or Movie reviews?
As for venting, the article provokes this by including opinions of people irrelevant to the show, such as Obama and Reykjavík mayor. If you watched The Wire, one of the main points the creators are trying to make is corruption among people with political power, such as Obama. He is one of the bad guys The Wire is about. I am not saying that he is worse than other politicians (he is bad enough, but surely there are worse), but he is one of them.
The Wire is one of the best shows about the corruption among all politicians collectively, it is not fair to insult its spirit by citing opinions of Obama or other politicians. It is just bad taste.Rozmysl (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Opinions of notable people are/can be part of the general reception of cultural works, in that sense they are not irrelevant to the reception of the show. As for the "mattering" I'm not sure why the opinion of a random "tv critic" necessary matters more than that of a famous person. I guess you could have a separate section for reception by professional critics and one for notable people, but I don't think that is really necessary.
As far as the show's content is concerned (yes, I watched it, all 5 seasons), it is about among other things about corruption but in Baltimore and not in Washington. IF you want to associate Obama with one of the bad guys of series, that's your personal choice, I don't quite see what bearing that's supposed to have for the article or Obama's opinion of the show.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The show is about all-penetrating corruption of everything and everyone in the American political system three levels from the ground level up, whether it is police, FBI, justice, unions, or school boards, etc. Since Obama is definitely above the level of a major of police, he is one of the "bad guys" of the show. It has nothing to do with Washington or Baltimore or Miami. This is why citing opinion of mayor of Reykyavik is as cynical. Of course, Obama and that mayor have not been caught in anything criminal, but so have the high-ranking suits in the show.Rozmysl (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

African American television shows

Categorizing this show by race is not only wildly inaccurate, but it obscures as much as it reveals. My argument now is the same as when the category was called Black television shows: this is not an encyclopedic definition and it does not help with an understanding of the show's complexity. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing credits

Having just included the writing credits in the info box (about time) we've run into a little snag here. When listing the numbers of episodes worked on by a particular writer, one wiki editor favors crediting the initial "story" writer solely (not to be confused with the teleplay writer, but more on that in a second). I favor listing the total number of episodes a writer was officially credited with. This amounts to about 2 - 4 people per episode, thus upping each writer's episode count even if they only ever came up with the kernel for one story or, alternately, one teleplay. Being somewhat familiar with the way television shows are written I can tell you that once the story is pitched and the initial teleplay submitted there is still a lot of writing, editing and rewriting to be completed. Scenes change, dialogue is added or subtracted, characters added or reconfigured, continuity corrected. Ideas are exchanged. It's not the work of one person and while this may sound like conjecture, it is in fact standard practice and officially noted in the end credits of individual episodes. Thus while David Simon is credited with writing or co-writing 21 of the 60 teleplays, he is likewise given a whopping 50 "story by" credits. There is a third credit, however, which I think is fairer and more accurate in ascertaining what we mean when we say someone "wrote" an episode of a television series - and that is the screen credit which lists Simon as a writer on all 60 of the episodes. This is how it's done on the show, and unless we are to disbelieve the producers of the series (a primary source if ever there was one) we must assume that Mr. Simon did do some writing on all 60 episodes. Before you go and say that these are vanity credits for the creator and exec. producer of the show (and before I respond with "Citation needed") I would point out that Ed Burns, Simon's collaborator and the second most credited writer on the series was also co-exec on 10 episodes, some of which he received NO writing credit for. George Pelacanos produced 12 but received writing credit for only 8.

This is also how it's listed on IMDB. An example: the IMDB page for the episode "Hot Shots" credits 4 writers. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0749432/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_wr#writers Rafael Alvarez and Joy Lusco Kecken are listed as writers on the episode, but neither of them received "story by" or "teleplay by" credit. The fact that this episode required the assistance of two additional staff writers besides Simon and Burns gives credence to the suspicion that the initial teleplay was not a "finished product." A suspicion which, according to the accounting department at Time-Warner at least, is veritable fact - they have to justify paying those people somehow. This doesn't seem to be a staff courtesy either since not every episode credits staff writers even during the time those same writers were otherwise credited as script supervisors or with various other duties (or none at all).

Now, granted the IMDB page for the series mistakenly omits Shamit Choksey and David H. Melnick (who together wrote one teleplay) and Kia Corthron (who also wrote one), but as they say, two (or three) wrongs don't make a right, and if we have to choose between: 1) giving credit to a writer based on how many stories they pitched (or in Simon's case, envisioned) vs. 2) how many teleplays they wrote the first draft of vs 3) how many they actually worked on and received credit (and pay) for from the show's producers, then I'd elect that third option. Wellesradio (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is why I didn't want this in the infobox, since The Wire doesn't use the regular "written by" credit for the episodes (except one). Actually, I wasn't solely looking at the story credits, I was looking if the writer was credited under either or, that's why Simon has 50, because he doesn't have story credit for 10 season 4 episodes, thus why it's not 60. "Created by" or any producer credit does not equal a writing credit. My version is simply done looking at the episode list, and compiling the number of episodes each writer is credited with. This is why you don't just use IMDb as your source. For example, Joy Kecken (or Joy Lusco) did not write 14 episodes, just 3 (once in each of the first three seasons). Same with Chris Collins, he did not write 12, just once in the fifth season. The reason why Rafael Alvarez is listed with 14 writing credits on IMDb (when he actually only wrote 3 teleplays) is because he was a staff writer for the second season, which is not a writing credit but simply a position a writer on the staff has (like story editor, producer, etc). The only way to do this is via the episode credits, one episode (either story or teleplay) = one writing credit. I'm sorry, but I'm undoing your version, it's incorrect as you're just using IMDb's (incorrect) numbers, and I'm going by the actual episode credits. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that. You're simply using another wikipedia page as a source for this one. I went back and looked at the DVD screen credits on a number of these episodes and they don't all list staff writers even when those staff writers were concurrently employed by the production crew. At other times these writers instead got credits for doing things other than writing. In other words, you get screen credit when you do actual writing on an episode. It is NOT the same thing as being script editor any more than being film editor is the same thing as being a writer or a director of photography. A list of "Other writers" means exactly what it says. It's other writers who have worked on the show and the numbers list exactly the number of episodes they wrote for. Wellesradio (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

But really, thanks for pointing out the faulty wikilinks. I do have to wonder though, why does Pelecanos get credit above the fold? Despite having drafted more teleplays (but not by that many) he wrote for less episodes than a lot of the others. Wellesradio (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You're still attributing Lusco, Alvarez, and Collins to several more episodes that what should be listed for them. Lusco only wrote 3 teleplays, Alvarez 3 as well, and Collins just wrote one. We can't just attribute more episodes just because they served as a staff writer. The writing credits are teleplay and story, that's what appears in the opening credits. Why are you still listing Simon with 60? He's the creator I know, and more than likely had something to do with all the episodes, but he does not receive story or teleplay credit for several episodes in season 4, so where are those credits coming from? If we can't come to an agreement, it should just be removed. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going by the END credits of the episodes. You're going by what another wikipedia page says. That's not an outside source. And you STILL haven't explained why Pelecanos gets above the fold credit as a writer. Wellesradio (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What exact credits are you referring to though in the end credits? Official writing credits ("written by", "teleplay by", or "story by") either appear on-screen or during the opening credits in The Wire's case. I'm not just going by another Wikipedia page, what's there is simply the actual writing credits taken from the opening credits. You're the one giving extra credit to writers when they don't even receive teleplay/story credits. Again, being a staff writer is not a writing credit, which is exactly where these extra episodes are coming from. For Simon, you mentioned in your very first reply, "and that is the screen credit which lists Simon as a writer on all 60 of the episodes"—again what exact credit are you referring to? Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's a writing credit. Despite how neat and easy and convenient it is to fantasize an "auteur" creation, if a writer is hired as part of a writing staff it is customary to receive this credit for any episode they work on. The staff do not get credit on every episode simply being "on staff." If this were the case they'd receive screen credit on a lot more episodes than they do. This is pretty standard industry practice on television dramas. I think you misconstrue these credits as being some sort of token achievement - a "hey, look ma, my name is on TV!" It's what the rights managers uses to pay people. As it is, these staff writer credits appear on less episodes than you think and then it's hardly the same names as may have appeared earlier. I don't know what you think we do, but writers write: whether drafts of scripts, outlines or scene structure - you are paid to write for that episode. Unless Drovethrughosts has a reference where it is explicitly stated that the teleplay drafters were the sole writers on every episode, I consider this point moot and your case groundless. As it is, I've provided at least one creditable source, regardless of what you think of it.Wellesradio (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not an episodic writing credit, it's their position held on the staff, whether it be staff writer, story editor or any form of producer. We're not counting the amount of episodes various writers simply worked on (in that case, it'd be any writer credited as anything on any given episode). We're counting the amount of episodes a writer is officially credited for writing the episode (teleplay and story) per the Writers Guild of America. You have to understand, I'm not discounting that just because someone isn't credited with teleplay or story, that did not contribute to the episode, but that's not the point and not what we're counting; we have to go by the official writing credits, which is the on-screen credits of "teleplay by" and "story by". Check out the WGA website if you need to, like here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Again - they were always "on staff" but don't (and didn't) get staff writing credit unless they wrote for the episode. Wellesradio (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Per IMDB, Alvarez and Keckan were staff writers in season 2, and Collins was a staff writer in season 4. Are you saying there's episodes within those seasons in which they're not credited as staff writers? If so, then your episode counts are off (along with IMDB). They were hired as staff writers for that season, and then were either promoted or left the staff in subsequent seasons. It's still not an official writing credit, it's nothing different than being credited as story editor, script coordinator, etc. We're going by the official writing credits per the WGA (teleplay and story), it's really that simple. But whatever, I made a compromise, so hope you find it satisfactory. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Drovethrughosts on this. His explanations throughout this disagreement have been direct and make perfect sense. It is time for this dispute to end. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the WGA credits as I've been a member for six years. And yes, to answer the question posed by Drovethrughosts, I'm saying there are episodes within those seasons where they are not listed as staff writers. Wellesradio (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Cast list in infobox

I want to make the suggestion that the cast list in the infobox be trimmed to include only actors who are credited in all five seasons. At this point, it seems the list is too exhaustive, listing every actor, including those who appeared in only one season, or part of one season. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to trim it, but limiting to actors who just appeared in all five seasons is problematic because it would then omit actors such as Idris Elba (Stringer) and Wood Harris (Avon) who had major roles during the first three seasons. We'd also have to lose J. D. Williams (Bodie), Corey Parker Robinson (Sydnor), and Robert Wisdom (Colvin) just because they missed one season. On the other hand, we'd have to keep Michael Kostroff (Maurice Levy) and Isiah Whitlock, Jr. (Clay Davis) because they did appear in all five (though the first four as guest stars), but, are obviously less notable than the previous actors/characters mentioned. We could trim by episode count? Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, those are very good points. We could start by eliminating those who appeared in only one season. Then, decide who remains by episode count, as you suggest. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Critical Response

The critical response has a paragraph for each of seasons 1-4, and then nothing about season 5. Having just finished season five, and curious how it was received, I thought this was an unfortunate oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:21C:B3FF:FEC3:2572 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Garbled pseudo-Russian name in the Main Titles of Season 2.

The name on the Russian passport in Season 2 Main Credits reads: Family name: Федоровскал; Given name: Dовлащ; Patronimic: Лщтвкфыршт. Tranliterated into Latin, it will look like: Family name: Fedorovskal; Given name: Dovlashch; Patronimic: Lshchtvkfyrsht (meaningless mess of letters). Family name was meant to read Федоровская (Fedorovskaya), Given name probably Довлат (Dovlat); Patronimic if decifered will be Кондрашин (Kondrashin). Лщтвкфыршт turns to be Kondrashin if you type it in Latin keyboard layour, but hitting places where corresponding Cyrillic letters would be. Together, the deciphered name will be Dovlat Kondrashin Fedorovskaya. This is messed up too, because on the photo, the passport owner is a woman. Dovlat is a masculin Russian name, a very rare at that; Kondrashin which is supposed to be a woman's patronimic, is not a patronimic at all, but another masculin family name instead. Fedorovskaya for a change is a somewhat valid feminine family name, however it is spelled wrongly. Altogether, it is a pity that the creators of such an amazing show did not asked a Russian-speaking guy to verify the spelling of the documents in the main titles (one needs at most 5 or 6 grades of Russian school to figure this out). I would have done it for free. Rozmysl (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also said Republic of Russia instead of Russian Federation. FunnyTaste (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this too - apart from the gibberish and the unlikely names, the "Soviet" passport is machine readable and the "Republic of Russia" also uses the Soviet hammer and sickle - surprisingly prominent errors in a show that's praised for its realism. I'll be charitable and suggest these were bad fakes picked up by the police... - ProhibitOnions (T) 13:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Season 4 Synopsis

Some information is incorrect regarding Season 4 synopsis. Bodie is actually shot by Michael Lee, not another member of Marlo's crew named O'Dog. CChris02188 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a hidden note in that section about this, it was O-Dog not Michael per the official synopsis on the HBO website. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible Themes and Academia section sources

The Themes section and last paragraph of the Academia subsection seem thin to me. Many published articles have been written about the themes of the show. Possible sources to supplement these, and other sections of the page include the (five) articles on the show in the Autumn 2011 issue of UChicago's Critical Inquiry (These do not require a subscription).

Patrick Jagoda's and Linda Williams' articles in particular discuss and analyze the themes of the show. Neuroxic (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Wire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Wire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Wire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wire/Archive_2&oldid=1144418104"