Talk:Weeds (TV series)

Trivia

• In the opening credits scene, the shot of the men running through the park is in fact just one man reimposed using a computer to make it look like three men are running exactly the same. This is also the same for the shot of the boys walking off the school bus, the joggers, the SUVs, and the coffee drinkers. This is used to illustrate the theme song which suggests that suburbanites are "all the same".
• Many of the exterior shots of the show are filmed on location in and around the bedroom community of Stevenson Ranch, California and Santa Clarita, California.
• The aerial photo during the intro is of Calabasas, California.
• Several strains of pot listed on "The Big Board" at Craig X's store are the titles of first season episodes.
• In season 1, a truck owned by "Esteban Landscaping" backfires while driving by the Botwin's home.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• As of season 2, the title song "Little Boxes" (performed in the first season by its writer Malvina Reynolds) is performed by different artists in each episode. Artists include Elvis Costello (episode 201), Death Cab for Cutie (episode 202), Engelbert Humperdinck (episode 203), Kate and Anna McGarrigle (episode 204, performed in French), a classical orchestra (episode 205), Aidan Hawken (episode 206), Ozomatli (episode 207), The Submarines (episode 208), Tim DeLaughter (episode 209), Regina Spektor (episode 210), and Jenny Lewis with Johnathan Rice (episode 211). Reynolds' version was used again in 212.
• Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and NORML logos can be seen throughout parts of the second episode of the second season.
• Due to product placement deals, Nancy often carries a "It's a Grind Coffee House" beverage. A Starbucks in Calabasas, California, fills in for "It's a Grind," in the opening credits.
• In season 2, Nancy uses fake identification documents to rent a house for a large-scale grow operation. She uses the name "Lacy Laplante" ("la plante" is French for "the plant") and a Quebec driver's license (Permis de conduire) with the address 13468 Drummond, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 114. Drummond is a real street in Montreal and does use the postal code prefix H3G, but the highest address is 3480. The postal code H3G 114 has an invalid format; the Canadian postal code standard suffix is number-letter-number. The various codes on "Lacy's" license show the standard passenger-vehicle and motorcycle permits, with the requirement she wear glasses or corrective lenses. In addition to the Quebec drivers license, Nancy uses a fake Canadian Social Insurance Number card with a first digit of 5, indicating that the card was issued in Ontario.
• At the 2006 Golden Globes, Mary-Louise Parker was nominated for Best Actress in a Television Comedy or Musical, alongside the four lead actresses of the more popular network television show, Desperate Housewives. Desperate Housewives actress Teri Hatcher had won the award the year before, and even award presenter Chris Rock could only joke at this predicament, saying, "You gotta feel sorry for Mary-Louise Parker. Desperate Housewives is one of the biggest shows on the planet, and Weeds is only watched by Snoop Doggy Dogg." However, Parker beat all four ladies of Desperate Housewives to take home the award. Snoop Dogg has appeared on Weeds (episode 208), sampling and appreciating Parker's character's strain of marijuana, dubbing it "MILF weed".
• The book Rejuvenile by author Christopher Noxon has appeared several times on the show. Christopher Noxon is married to series creator Jenji Kohan. Noxon was also the music supervisor for season one and appeared in the pilot episode as a bear hunter.
• The Grandfather of the House is played by actor Albert Brooks, coincidentaly he played the father of Alexander Gould (Shane Botwin) in the 2003 Pixar film Finding Nemo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.2.105 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Shane

Anyone else see a problem with the paragraph on him: "It has yet to be revealed whether Shane truly saw his father or not. It is stated that Shane was only pretending to speak with his father's spirit because he wanted to move to Pittsburgh." Seems kind of contradictory. -Tyreal

Furthermore, this information is entirely incorrect. Nowehere in the season does Shane, nor any other character, say that he was "pretending to speak with his father's spirit because he wanted to move to Pittsburgh." That is an assumption that some might make, but is not supported by anything in the TV show. If no one else wishes to change this, I will do so sometime later on next week. 66.207.82.237 (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Season 4

I was wondering if Elizabeth Perkins' character, Celia Hodes is on board for the 4th Season. Does anybody know more on this?

-Greg93

If you go to the official Showtime Weeds site, Celia's potential legal issues for season 4 are listed on the forums by an official moderator. One can only assume that she will be back. Her storyline with the grow house is not resolved and I doubt the writers would just drop that plotline. 66.207.82.237 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272620266.shtml seems she is definitely returning and maybe we could get more news from here? Zacanescence (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

conrad and heylia

they're not leaving, change the article, they have just been downgraded from series regulars to guest stars. http://www.buddytv.com/articles/weeds/weeds-recruits-boston-legal-ac-19809.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.208.229 (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Season 2 DVD

I don't suppose they used the term 'evil'... but according to this BBC article Season 2 is not available in the UK owing to a judgement by the BBFC that it (contained a scene that) promoted drug use http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7439740.stm . Hakluyt bean (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The story turns out to be even more pathetic than that: the DVD box set of Season 2 was banned because of a five-minute 'extra' on the DVD. It was a cookery-style sketch which extolled the virtues of various strains of dope. Not having seen it, I'm picturing something like the Python sketch on Australian table wines ('This is not a wine for drinking; this is a wine for laying down and avoiding').

For BBFC morons to be unable to distinguish between serious drug promotion and a small item - in a comedy series about suburban dope dealing, FFS - that spoofs food&wine experts is absurd. For them to claim that they were following guidelines against drug promotion in such a context is downright disgraceful.

The official BBFC adjudication can be found here --Cdavis999 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode Theme Song Listing

The list of who sings the theme songs seems incorrect for Episode 3-14. I was looking at the list and found it odd that I hadn't recognized Linkin Park. However, I played my copy of 3-14 and it is definitely not them. Is there a source somewhere for this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydpink (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is them. Official site source: http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/music_season3.do SynergyBlades (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I really feel like something is wrong there as well. I went to go listen to their version, and unless he is singing unnaturally high pitched, it really really sounds like a female vocalist. I went and checked adjacent eps as well just in case, and they also sound female.

Have added the three season music pages to the article. They both list the official CD track listings too, which could be added to the CD releases section, but I'm considering taking the track listings for the CDs off the article, as I don't think they're particularly noteworthy, unlike the opening theme listings. SynergyBlades (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Relevancy

How is the bit about The West Wing and Mary Louise Parker in any way relevant to this show? Random trivia?173.21.157.70 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pun on Mourning Weeds

Surprised we're having a problem here - Shorter Oxford Dictionary shows first-usage dates of 1536 & 1595. Certainly I've known the usage with widow's weeds as long as I remember. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard the term prior to its mention here, and I'm not so sure it's that widely known, you're welcome to revert my citation tag, I undid an anonymous edit with an asinine edit comment because it was just that. DaveWF (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, citation seems unnecessary to me. 145.116.8.231 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

removed cite tag from 9.2008 AND accompanying non-cited claim. while i can see that a couple editors were discussing the meaning and usage of the term "widow's weeds," that's not why the claim needed an inline citation. it needed a contextual in-line citation. the tag had nothing to do with the definition of this term and nothing to do with who's heard it or uses it and who hasn't...no one was debating that black clothing worn by women in mourning in the early 1900's (primarily in england) were called "widow's weeds." the citation was needed because an editor was stating that the title of "weeds" was deliberately chosen to be partly a pun on this term. not only is this unconfirmed, it doesn't make any logical sense. outside of nancy botwin losing her husband in the first season, this show is in no way a look at the mourning fashions of victorian-era british widows. and regardless - in the World of Wikipedia, verifiability is PARAMOUNT and this is just plain not a verifiable statement. i have looked all over the web and watched all the showtime interviews i can find and have been completely unable to locate a single statement that even MENTIONS this term. so, to try to put it more simply:

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT THE TITLE OF "WEEDS" WAS MEANT TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REFERENCE TO A SLANG NAME FOR MARIJUANA."

because this statement can NOT be verified, wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V) states that it should be removed from the article and that's what happened. that being said, if anyone is able to back this claim up with a reputable source and prove that someone connected to the creation of this television was actually trying to refer to "widow's weeds", then the fact should be re-added to the introduction...but ONLY with a citation attached!!! if you have an issue with this or believe that this is somehow not in keeping with WP's verifiability policy, please feel free to respond either here or on my user talk page. ocrasaroon (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be original research, but a copy of this wiki page was included on episode 5 season 7 - including the widows weeds section. Other items were altered, so imo this implicitly endorses the pun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.243.117.145 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I'll restore it and point to the episode. Also, ocrasaroon – this is a series about a widow who sells weed, do you really see no connection to widow's weeds? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Surprise! Found another source to back this up. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's really a surprise that a "Product Development Manager" in 2009 would source an earlier verion WP to crank out summary that seems to have no fact checking. Can you imagine a writer at the New Yorker explaining WP as the source for the pun, or an Australian hack who seems to have sourced WP, since no other source is findable. Now, if there is a script to go on, that is worth looking at, though it might qualify as original research, and since it purportedly appears in a season 5 show, that is a weak argument that the pun was intended five years earlier. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By all means, prove that the Sydney Herald have no fact checking, otherwise it's a baseless attack on a source that seems reliable by any standards. Your oh-so-civil expressions, such as "Australian hack", random speculation such as "seems to have sourced WP", and blatant removal of my request on your talk page, will be seen in quite a fascinating light by the complaints department. As for the first source that you dismiss as a "Wikipedia reference", it's actually a piece of text which was included in an episode of "Weeds" and is therefore sourced from the series itself. According to WP:FILMPLOT, what can be clearly seen on the screen does not need to be referenced by outside sources. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Season 4 and 5 shooting location?

If anybody has any details on where seasons four and five are being filmed, can you please add it to the article? I came here to see if they were shooting in San Diego, and the article is lacking that info. Thanks! 98.161.62.83 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Episode 507 titles

Can we mention that the titles for episode 607 were an amended version of this Wikipedia page ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This would seem to violate Wikipedia's copyright. In particular, no attribution was given on the title card, and the Wikipedia logo was removed. Perhaps there was attribution in the end credits, which I can't check at the moment. --IgnatiusMcgowan (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Im going to have to disagree, first off, its in keeping with the dmca and in addition to this, they mentioned wikipedia in the show, making it sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.69.223 (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This surely doesn't deserve a place in the article's introduction? While it is noteworthy it isn't so important that it should be included as the final paragraph of the first section. It's more Trivia than anything else. Anyone else agree? « TheSkyOrBust » (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New baby

Added new baby under supporting characters. Info from s05e08. Hebrew name from wikipedia articles on Avi and Melech. 206.55.187.178 (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

- Same guy, different IP. Updated more characters to reflect 5th season events. 75.73.50.113 (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Silas

The discription of Silas is inaccurate; he has never been shown to be athletic and there has not been any suggestion in the show that he plays sports actively. It needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.149.36 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Character Guide

The amount of Weeds information on the characters, really anywhere online, is pretty minimal. So lately I've been trying to add character info for some of the supporting characters -- i.e., Till, Esteban, Quinn. I'm pretty new at editing here but does anyone else think that we should have a separate "List of Weeds Characters" page with much more in-depth descriptions?

Mikeace47 (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that strongly. I think we could also put how many episodes each of the minor characters have been in, which I think would be more useful to know than it would be for the main characters, who does have that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.63.196 (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. 5 seasons worth of story merits it- its not like this is nurse jackie lol 206.55.187.178 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of these changes have been made. The bit about Stevie's bris should be added. Quinn Hodes should be left as is; however, an expended discussion of Celia can include information about her kidnapping. Counting the number of episodes that minor characters are in seems a bit much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I have no idea how to go about making a page but here's some of the old supporting character descriptions that were deleted in the past:

Captain Roy Till Jack Stehlin (2-5) Captain Till was the boss of Peter Scottson, Nancy's second husband, a DEA agent. Till investigates into Scottson's disappearance and eventually finds Nancy's growhouse at the end of the third season. He begins to suspect Nancy of drug trafficking and recruits Celia as a spy. His partner and lover, Agent Schlatter (Andrew Rothenberg), was mutilated and murdered by Guillermo's Mexican cartel, after which Till seeks personal revenge. This continues into the fifth season, when Till trails a pregnant Nancy back to her home in Ren Mar. Nancy catches him and, to ensure the safety of her unborn child, hands him over to Esteban. He is then killed by Esteban's men.

Lupita Renée Victor (1-5) Lupita served as the Botwins' housekeeper in their days at Agrestic. Eventually though, she discovers that Nancy is a pot dealer and uses this information as blackmail against Nancy so she doesn't have to work as much. She shrugs off her duties afterward, and is eventually fired when Nancy experiences money troubles because of U-Turn. Lupita later resurfaces when Nancy gives birth to Steven, and Lupita is hired as his official baby care-taker.

Ignacio Hemky Madera (4-5) Ignacio is one of Esteban's henchmen. He was first stationed in the back of the maternity store, guarding the tunnel to Tijuana. Later, he watches over the Botwins in Ren Mar and develops a friendship with Shane. He has a very violent side and enjoys watching bloody movies on his portable DVD player. He also actively participates in lucha libre tournaments as 'Perro Insano'.

Steven Ray Botwin (5) Steven Ray Botwin is the youngest son of Nancy Botwin, fathered by Esteban Reyes. However, Andy Botwin is named as his father on his birth certificate. He was given a bris and received the Hebrew name Avi Melech (אבי מלך), meaning "My father, the King".

Quinn Hodes Haley Hudson (1, 4-5) Quinn is the troubled older daughter of Celia and Dean Hodes. She dated Silas, but was sent away to boarding school by her mother after the pilot episode. She was rarely talked about by any of the characters until the conclusion of the fourth season, when Celia was persuaded to go south of the border and make amends with her daughter. Quinn, now in a relationship with self-proclaimed anarchist Rudolfo (Kevin Alejandro), takes her mother hostage and tries to harvest her organs which, she planned on selling in the black market for $100,000 so she could buy her beach house. However, due to Celia's breast cancer treatment, her organs aren't usable and Quinn leaves in frustration.

Mikeace47 (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Trivia~

On the outside of the motel Celia is staying at, it says "Free Showtime" on the sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blsupr (talk • contribs) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Black Comedy??

If this show's going to be listed under only two genres, then "Black Comedy" should certainly not be one of them. Opertinicy (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I added that because it's Rated M and is a comedy-drama, with vulgar language so I added that. Also seasons such as the second one, had a very dark genre. What alternative are you thinking of? ATC ^{. Talk} 16:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I did add that in the article, but were referring to the Infobox template, which I did not add there. ATC ^{. Talk} 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Black comedy-drama

The show uses black comedy for language and situations that encounter (*Note it's rated "M"), and its also a drama. I'm adding the genre back and if anyone has any questions please respond here and/or my talk page. ATC ^{. Talk} 16:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Weeds is definitely not a black(dark) comedy-drama. The word drama already entails that there is some emotional context to the tv series. If you have watched the show, it is definitely not 'black' by any means.Libertybrewcity (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At least one reliable source begs to differ. Weeds, a black comedy focusing on a suburban mother turned dealer Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Too much detail"

I disagree. For a series with six seasons of episodes, the Weeds entry is not detailed enough. Compare the page here to the pages devoted to Arrested Development, and you will see what I mean. However, I admit that is significant redundency in the article that can be eliminated.

Nancy, the Drug Dealer

The following text should be restored to Nancy's entry.

• When she first entered the drug trade, Nancy resisted the idea that she was a drug-dealer. "I'm a mother who happens to distribute an illegal product through a sham bakery." Through the first three seasons, her self-identity shifts until she finally admits, "I'm a drug dealer," at the end of season three.

This is a significant point of tension in the first three seasons before Nancy moves to Ren Mar. Nancy contends that she is not a drug dealer even as she is falling farther and farther into a life of crime. Other people in her life such as Doug, Conrad, U-turn, and finally Guillermo see her as a drug dealer. Also, her confession is a key step toward becoming a drug trafficer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Themes

I moved this from the main page to the discussion page so we can work on it before restoring to main page.

Ruined dreams

All of the main characters deal with end of their idealized lives. Nancy deals with setbacks at the end of each season. Andy loves Nancy in ways that she cannot reciprocate. Silas loses his dream of living with Megan in season two and then the closure of his pot store in season five. Celia and Doug are knocked down from their privileged live in Agrestic.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The importance of family

Nancy starts dealing pot to provide for her family. In season three, she demands that the entire family make sacrifices to pay off the debt with U-turn. After moving to Ren Mar, Nancy admits that she owes it to her family to "make a killing" while working for the drug cartel. Just before Esteban kills Capt. Till, he declares "that there is nothing nothing I wouldn't do" to protect Stevie Ray. Shane kills Pilar to protect the family, and Nancy agrees that it needed to be done.

Class and racial divides

This is displayed in interactions between Nancy and Heylia's family and in discussions over immigration during season four.

Moral relativity

This issue comes to a head at the end of season four when Nancy reports the existance of the tunnel to Capt. Till.

Death and grief

The Botwin family must deal with the death of Judah in season one, and Shane brings up the issue several times later during the series. Nancy's second husband dies at the end of season two. Esteban and Cesar have a cool approach to killing, and they can do it without blinking. Capt. Till's partner dies and causes him great grief. The fallout from Shane's murder of Pilar drives the plot of season six. --S trinitrotoluene (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Season 2 Synopsis Correction

"Silas and Megan's relationship threatens to split apart once she leaves for college (she, a very serious student, has gotten into Princeton, while mediocre student Silas is going to a local school)."

I was always under the impression that while it is true that Silas may not have been a good student that he was also a year younger than Megan and not that he was going to a "local school". This is evident when Silas tells Nancy that he's skipping his last year of school and that he is moving to New Jersey. KellanFabjance (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fictional characters in real life offices

When discussing Esteban, Vaughn Coleman, and other fictional characters holding real life offices, it is important to stress that they only hold those offices within the context of the series. See[WP:IN-U] —Preceding unsigned comment added by S trinitrotoluene (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers

Is it really necessary to have spoilers in the very first section of this article, before even the Contents? I'm watching the show now and I barely managed to look away in time. Spoilers should be in the synopses and nowhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.224.26 (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I've watched it all, but a plot summary for every single series, including the cliffhanger endings, in the introductory paragraphs is terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.95.230 (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lguilland, 29 March 2011

Change the line 'He begs her to tell him it will never happen' to 'He begs her to tell him that nothing will ever happen between them' because the way the sentence is written makes what he is asking (begging) unclear, and that actually is what happened :).

Lguilland (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done (diff) -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 12:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing black to dark in the lead section

Posted the following on User:Active Banana's talk page below:

Weeds (TV series)

Hi Active Banana,
my original proposal [1] discusses how I wanted to change "comedy-drama" to "black comedy-drama."
Although, black is sometimes substituted for dark, it is important to note that Wikipedia wants articles to be an easy read as the average person does not know the meaning for "black."
My point is I think it is easier to change it to say:
Weeds is a dark comedic television drama or Weeds is a dark dramedy.
I will put this up on the discussion page as someone wrote in the article the following:
black (Click edit to review the hidden text.)
Please reply with your opinion on the talk page.
Thanks!
ATC ^{. Talk} 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

......Add your opinions below..... ATC ^{. Talk} 22:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

erm, why? Most people know what black comedy is (hint, it is not a racial slur as some ill-informed editors seem to suggest) and it is also a drama. Dramedy is a terrible word presumably made up by the media. Not sure what you are intending to achieve in changing the existing "black comedy-drama" to something more awkward. Efficacious (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is clunky and weirdly piped. I am not sure that the above suggestion helps clarify the situation. Perhaps rather than gradual modifications a complete re-write of the lead is in order. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought about your comment more and realized you are right. I'm going to follow the same format that the Wiki featured article of the series, House, uses and do a major copyedit. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Satire and copyright

Sources predominantly call weeds a "satire." How "to makes ends meet" became copyrighted and unavailable to WP editors leaves me baffled. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

According to [2], it is also a dark comedy. [3] says it's a dramedy. Also, when Alexander Gould (who plays Shane on Weeds) was interviewed on the Wendy Williams Show, she said it was a dramedy. The producers have also said in article interviews how they mix the comedy with drama. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe Gould is not female. Had you read my entry above you would have noticed another point was made. BTW, who might own the "copyright" on "to make ends meet"?The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If you said "no one" owns it. Then never mind. Why are you questioning my edits, as they follow the format of House (TV series), a featured article? It mentions the executive producers and characters. BTW, I was referring to Wendy Williams, who is a "her." ATC ^{. Talk} 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also U.S. is redundant to American and you are not supposed to abbreviate words unless you mentioned it more than once according to Wiki policies. ATC ^{. Talk} 17:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, go and fix it then. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk)

Finally, I sourced two references with the accurate genre. You only sourced one. Can we get more opinions on this? I disagree with your edits. ATC ^{. Talk} 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Do a Google on "Weeds Satire", then "Weeds Dramedy" (ughh) and "Weeds Dark Comedy", notice anything in the frequency distributions, especially after non RSs are factored out? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Look here: [4], a previous archive of another featured article. It mentions the executive producers, ensemble characters, and former working credits. ATC ^{. Talk} 18:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Animaniacs and the other featured articles (mentioned above) shows the production companies that produces the series. ATC ^{. Talk} 18:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Everyone this is my last revision? What do you think versus the current version. ATC ^{. Talk} 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

SFGate is a reliable source. ATC ^{. Talk} 19:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also how is a radio interview with the producers not reliable? ATC ^{. Talk} 19:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question about my original written lead (which mentions the executive producers, ensemble characters, production companies, brief acting credits, and other channels that air the show) which is akin to House (TV series), Animaniacs, and the original 2006 revision of The Office (U.S. version). Note they are ALL featured articles. ATC ^{. Talk} 19:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll let go the "It depicts" to the one we have now the "central character". However, the show makes references to Shane getting a hand job where his uncle takes him to a parlor, cursing by the characters, Celia (Elizabeth Perkins) using the word "cunt". How is that not dark comedy? Plus, the podcast (which I originally sourced) with the producers, say it is both a comedy and a drama. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A reliable book source [5] proves it is a dark (or "black") comedy. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I brought up frequency distribution, but that seems to have gone unnoticed. By and large the show is refered to as a "satire" except by a few outliers.

A few comments

I've been asked to comment here and have a few observations:

• why are there so many citations in the lead? They're not necessary if the material is covered in the body of the article
• the plot section needs serious trimming
• other than the lead, the rest of the article seems to lack sources, or to be undercited

My suggestion would be to leave the lead alone at this point and to work on the other issues. When the page is written, see what's in it, and then make sure the lead fully covers the main points. Regarding the issue of satire/ black comedy, I don't really have an opinion because I'm not familiar with the show. That said, I'd suggest creating a "Genre" section and adding various viewpoint there, and then distilling those into the lead later. I'll add this page to my watchlist. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but its hard for me to figure out what to trim in the seasons as multiple plots take place throughout each season. Also, can you explain more what you mean by a "Genre" section? Thanks. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment here, but have no idea of what the dispute, if any, is about. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell it's to do with the genre as discussed in the section above. My feeling is that if the genre doesn't fit neatly into one category it might be worth devoting a section to it in the article itself. The edit warring in the section below seems to be a separate dispute. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well it is clearly a situation comedy, what is the problem with that? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Satire, or black comedy? Or a bit of both? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well as always, what do the sources say? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I suggested. I'm not familiar with it, but based on the thread above, it seems sources exist to support both, so I think it would be fine for them to add a genres section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

According to a reliable book source [6] it says it is a dark (or "black") comedy. Their are no sources that say it is a sitcom. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, how about we compromise for now in the lead? We all agree it is a comedy series. Why don't we go with that for now. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just thought I'd let you all know that you're edit warring, which is a bright line as far as being blocked. Please stop. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice will be heeded and I will let the discussion take its course. A 3RR notice will filed since an editor has made 4 reverts today. I just wonder why we should rely on a quick piece dashed out by a "Product Development Manager" as a RS. Oh, well, one hopes this point being brought up above will be acknowledged. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look at what's being used as a source. Obviously the title is a pun, and I wouldn't think it would be that hard to find a source but I could be wrong. I certainly would not support using the dictionary - that does nothing. Which point above? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I added sources twice today, I hope these are not plain consecutive reverts, but rather an attempt to stabilize the article while trying to satisfy all proper requirements. I have been trying really hard to remain civil, but sadly it is not the case with the other editor. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The dictionary links and the wikipedia link aren't necessary. The newspaper link does the job fine, as I indicated in the in-line comment.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As explained on your talk page, what you call "the Wikipedia link" is actually a reference to something that can be clearly seen in an episode, hence being reliable. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessary - and certainly not necessary in the lead. When I clicked it, it took me to a wikipedia page, so maybe it's just formatted incorrectly. But, really, you don't need it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, even though the source is unusable, what is "clearly seen in an episode", After that, why would this not be WP:ORThe Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a {{template:cite episode}}, of course it redirected you to the episode list – this is my point to begin with: it references the episode itself, which shows the text that talks of both meanings. This is a very strong source and is needed as such. It's not WP:OR no matter how you look at it, since it's a text that the makers of the series chose to display in an episode! How else should I put this to prevent further psychological exhaustion attempts??? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't use Wikipedia as a source. It's not necessary and certainly not in the lead. If it's already dealt with in the episode page, then the thing to do is to write a section about the title and create a direct wikilink to the episode. At that point you can take the newspaper source out of the lead and use it as the reliable secondary source in the title section. Does this make sense? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not using Wikipedia as a source. This is using the episode as a source. The wikilink is an integral part of the template used when citing episodes ({{template:cite episode}}), since linking to an actual video would constitute a possible copyright infringement. Does this make sense? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I do understand, but what's better is to find a secondary source that verifies what has been written in the lead. Since that requirement has been met with the newspaper article, I'd suggest leaving out anything else at this point. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am only insisting on this since the other editor chose to attack me and the secondary source. This is my way of replying with something along the lines of "here's an episode of Weeds that actually uses a piece of text that states the pun, can you see that even the makers of the series agree with it – therefore endorse the claim?" Otherwise, that editor can keep arguing over this silliness... sadly, I've encountered way too many similar cases. It's citing the series itself, what better source can you think of? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You stated in your edit summary: "...This is not a reference to Wikipedia, but to a piece of text that appears in an episode of the series, therefore serving as a very reliable source...". Can you dig up the script so we know what we are talking about? If so, that is a good source. But, the ref bounced to Wikipedia, and that's not a good plan. The other ref says: "...The weeds in question are cannabis and "widow's weeds" – mourning clothes – although matriarch Nancy Botwin doesn't seem to have mourned much since the death of her drug-dealer husband...", which is one person's opinion and not good enough in my opinion. Find the text from the script and you're golden. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:FILMPLOT, what can be verified by simply watching the episode does not need an outside reference. In spite of that, I have found a secondary source, but it's "not good enough in your opinion" – since when an editor's opinion can override a criterion? This is a quote from an article in a relatively known newspaper (not a yellow tabloid), therefore passes the WP:RS test. Nevertheless, the fact that the pun reference is shown in the series itself should suffice. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

More script, less war, please. Plus, if you don't like opinion, then you should question the source. It smacks of opinion to me. But that's just my opinion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot of the opening credits of that episode. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's all blurry so I can't read it. Plus, it looks like it's from a wiki. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no connection between that screenshot and "widows weeds" at all that I can see. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've suggested twice that you dig up the script that you say is proof. You haven't responded. Why? Do you forget which episode? You might be right, but please, this is a waste of keystrokes for everyone. If the content is solid, fine, but it is dodgy and several editors concur. Leave it out unless you can produce something solid. Period. Can we all get back to work now? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Hearfourmewesique is on a 3 day ban for making 6 reverts. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of the argument, Anna Frodesiak – in spite of pointing to the episode before, I'll tell you again: this is a screenshot from the opening sequence of episode 7, season 5. There is a sentence there that reads "The title is a play on words, referring to both the slang term for marijuana, and widow's weeds." I referenced the episode the proper way, by placing a {{template:cite episode}} which, of course, points to the Wikipedia entry on the episode. Can you tell me how on earth this can possibly not be considered a reliable source? Reminding you again, this is how television episodes are cited on Wikipedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"...For the sake of argument..."? I can't say I'm crazy about that motivation, which ends up sucking the projects resources at ANI, and other such backroom wastes of time.

I'm not saying the widow claim is untrue. I'm saying the onus of proof is upon you if you want to add it to the article. A blurry image with "take my word for what it says" isn't good enough. I cannot apologize for my position, nor will I apologize when you come up with the proof. Please, with respect, put up the evidence or leave it out. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That opening sequence is a screenshot of an old version of this page, more specifically somwhere between May 16, 2009 and May 20, 2009. But more importantly that specific sentence has a {{Citation needed}} tag just after it? So no, I would not count that as a reliable source. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. I thought it looked like a Wiki.

Hearfourmewesique: You added refs before to support this that bounced back to another Wikipedia article.

This campaign is wasting everyone's time. Please just drop it and edit constructively. Blocks, ANI, and drawing editors into these sorts of arguments is not helping the project. I remember that we've danced before, and it was the same thing. How about just building an encyclopedia? Drawing keystrokes onto talk pages is a drain. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to build an encyclopedia, and sometimes obvious is obvious. A TV series that revolves around a widow that sells marijuana (weed), and is called "Weeds" – this is an obvious pun. Nevertheless, I have made the effort to come up with sources, and brought you a screenshot from an episode. By the way, I can see the sentence in the screenshot quite clearly, therefore your eyesight problems should not count for reliability or the lack thereof. Your claims (both Anna and Xeworlebi) about the screenshot being from Wikipedia and having a {{citation needed}} tag is pure WP:SYNTH and as such, has no place here. The makers of the series decided to include the page, as it is in the screenshot, in the episode – who the hell is any of us to challenge them? I am really trying to edit constructively, and I am requesting your cooperation. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, Jenji Kohan mentioned it in an interview upon the release of the pilot episode, quote:

• "Besides the pot reference, the title refers to a lot of things," Kohan says. "Weeds are hardy plants that pop up everywhere and survive despite desperate climate and inhospitable environments. There is also the expression 'widow's weeds,' referring to a time when widows wore hats made of weeds. Mainly, though, it refers to hardy plants struggling to survive."

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The screenshot is identical to the old version of the page, whether you believe that's a synthesis or not doesn't really matter. The screenshot of the show itself, which you want to use as a reference, has the citation needed tag in it (that's a fact, look at it) making this hardly reliable, as you would say it 'the makers decided to take that image with the [citation needed] tag in it', but even without it I would find such a reference dubious. BTW, here's a sharper image of that opening sequence.

Without a source, a reliable one, what you say is WP:OR, whether it is correct or not, I'm not saying you are incorrect. But cultural references/puns/anything claiming to be the meaning of the creators/etc. are hardly common knowledge and the fact that people have disagreed with that reasoning supports the need for a reliable source making the same claim. Provide one and this will be over. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can drop the WP as RS dispute as a moot and focus on the the Jokersforum.com cut and paste inclusion from a Zap2it.com forum post. Though I can't find the original article (would Archive.org have it?), I can accept the source as valid, and the Kojan interview as helpful. We could add to the lead a line like "Kojan noted the expression 'widow's weeds" relating to the time when widows in mourning wore hats made of weeds, but the show's title, she said, refers mainly to "hardy plants struggling to survive." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The screenshot says "T.V." in the title not Wikipedia's "TV". Plus the "...Created by...". I've never seen the show, so I didn't know this is how the opening credits go. Pardon my lack of knowledge. I'm grabbing and copy of the episode now. If it's there, I will corroborate and we can add it to the article. Is that fair or still WP:OR? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood just what the screenshot was supposed to prove, and I am still wondering, what are we supposed to see in it? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it's a screenshot from an actual episode, created by the show, and not added on by some unknown party, and it says that the term applies also to widow's clothing, then, although a primary source, could support the claim. what do you think? I mean, if Cheers credits say "starring Ted Danson", then even as a primary source, it's pretty good. After all, that would be a rock solid place for secondary sources to get their info, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But the screenshot (is of Wikipedia and) has a {{Citation needed}} tag after that statement, if you want to go by the "the creators decided to put it in", then you also have to accept that they decided to leave that citation needed tag in place. Basically it would be like (but not at all actually, since these are not credits) if the credits said "starring Ted Danson (someone added him to the credits but we don't know were that info came from or if it's correct)". If someone would create a show with an opening sequence that said "This show is awesome." would we make the lead "Show name is an awesome show? There's already a reference in place and I object the addition of this one, you can't use the primary source to establish outside claims. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 05:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But the screenshot is not from Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit was just made on the grounds that the screenshot is Wikipedia, and therefore cannot be used as a source. Again, the screenshot is not from Wikipedia. It is something the show cooked up. Look at the title of the show in the image. It says "T.V.". The Wikipedia article says "TV". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what the screenshot is supposed to show, and since the Kohan interview is a source we seem to agree on, the screenshot is irrelevant. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, although I'm really am not thrilled with choosing a forum as a source, when the text strings from the interview don't seem to appear anywhere else. It could be bojang, but then I don't really know about the website. If I had to pick a source, it would be the actual screenshot from the show itself, making the waeds claim. The screenshot Hearfourmewesique provided is the actual opening credits of the show. It appears a few minutes in, after the first short scene. It's a rock. By the way, "waeds" was deliberate as it is the Old English to which Hearfourmewesique referred in his edit summary. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think the screenshot is not from wikipedia? The text is identical (minus the title text, which looks like a bad photoshop) to a version from between the May 16, 2009 version and May 20, 2009 revision. Which is from before the episode came out and around the time it would have been made. That would make this 1.448 character piece of text the most amazing, statistical defying, coincidence ever as it is identical to the letter. But even then, every episode has such goof openings, episode 2 of season 5 shows a beer: "imported – created by – Jenji Kohan – Extra Dry – Premium Beer" would that be an acceptable source to state that such beer exists? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. So, they grabbed it from Wikipedia, read it, no doubt, changed the title, and put it in the show. The image is technically a derivative image from a Wikipedia article. Even if we all assume that they read it and intended to display the widow's weeds fact, that would constitute OR on our part, right? So, I think you make a good case for disqualifying it as a ref for the article. That leaves zero refs for the widow's weeds ref. One is OR and the other a forum interview that may be bojang. Are we on the same page on this one? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You have just displayed a thorough self-analysis of what the writers "must have done" with the Wikipedia article. This is all WP:SYNTH. My point is simple: if the text is displayed in the show, it's reliable. If you think the makers of the show displayed this by error, WP:PROVEIT. I don't understand how far everyone is going here to avoid something so obvious. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Widows weeds

With no source but an Australian product development manager (hard to imagine any writer or editor preferring or at least accepting that official designation ever) We would have to qualify the ref with something like Though Nancy spends little time in mourning, the title may allude to "Widows Weeds" - clothing worn by newly widowed women." But is something that were uncertain about be included? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots of things can allude to lots of things. Below the bar for inclusion. I say leave it out and let's move on. Cheers to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless we see somewhere that someone actually involved with the origination of the show meant the title in that way, I agree, just leave it out as original research. Dayewalker (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I erased it a while ago from the lead and someone kept reverting it back. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of "...widow's weeds..." in article supported by episode itself

Support Yes. I just watched the first two minutes of the episode in question, and indeed the claim is supported. That's good enough for me. Primary yes, but horses mouth. If we all watch Obama say "...I'm a little nervous about visiting Dallas County...", we don't need a reporter to tell us he said that. I move for inclusion of "...The series' title is a double entendre: it plays on the word "weed", a slang for cannabis, but also refers to "widow's weeds", the black garment worn by mourning widows...", supported by the episode itself as a reference. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the interview with Kojan is a valid source, and I used it in the lead. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see this has been worked out. I thought a source probably existed and spent a little time looking, but honestly have been too busy to follow up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see everyone finally understands my original source, cited the proper way by using {{cite episode}}. But hey, citing the interview works even better, as it points out Kohan's intent to portray the Botwins as "weeds" that survive every scenario. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, please quit your tenacious reverts at once. You are now going against this consensus. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Widow's Weeds in the lede

Sorry to open a can of worms, but that's a pretty long bit for the first paragraph of the lead. I think it should be moved to the bottom of the lead, or somewhere in the body. After all, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The lead could say "The show's title refers mainly to the hardy tenacity of weeds." And then we could move the tangential info to the body, and expound on it more using RS's. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anna, it seems out of place where it's located now. Dayewalker (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you agree, The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous, why do you keep puffing that sentence with an unnecessary (and most likely untrue) explanation as for what constitutes widow's weeds, when the expression is already wiktionary-linked? Also, see the paragraph above. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Final settlement on Widow's weeds matter

This is in a few threads now. Can we consolidate the discussion here and settle this?

Three matters:

1. The content
2. The citation
3. The placement

Anna's suggeston: Use Hearfourmewesique's "double entendre" version from a few days back. (The show's creator in the possibly-fictitious interview refers it meaning "a lot of things". Well, add those things when we know.) Use the TV show as the source because the forum that doesn't google elsewhere is shaky. Place the content as its own paragraph at the end of the lead (because there's no section in the body that can accommodate it, unless you want an etymology-type section, which ain't worth it IMHO.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We await your suggestions below. (And for the last time, nobody is using WP as a source. The screenshot never had anything to do with WP.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering what Xeworlebi has pointed out above, (Sorry. You said it earlier but I didn't get it.) I think the screenshot ref is not eligible. Seeing that the forum ref is not reliable either, I think the whole widow's weeds thing should not be in the article until a good source is found. Sorry to change my position, but I think that's what one ought when learning new info. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly fictitious? One has be a real nutcase to go through the trouble to fake an interview... in the meantime, I have a recorded interview I'll go through, to see if the quote is taken from there. It doesn't Google anywhere else because it's from 2005, and some websites don't hold 6 year old records on archive. Why are we changing consensus again? Is anyone considering that {{cite episode}} is an actual reliable source on Wikipedia? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Although it's an original resource—and happens to be accurate, their is no way to prove it. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Then why is it a valid template, which has been used throughout WP for a pretty long while? Besides, anyone can verify it by watching the episode, but that's pretty obvious. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the internet. Nutcases and fiction abound. Besides, a forum as a ref? Not exactly a rock. More like jello.

Per ATC, the screenshot is true. It's from an actual episode. I saw the episode. No doubt the show's creator supports the claim in the quasi-pseudo-wiki opening credits. But the fact that it originated on Wikipedia makes it sort of circular. If we add it, it means we are assuming that the show read and supports the "widow's weeds" part. But that assumption would be OR.

There's nothing wrong with using the cite episode template, if we can agree that the episode's credits are a good source. The template isn't the issue. The issue is about whether or not the show meant to have "widow's weeds" appear in the credits, or were they all stoned and didn't notice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As answered in a thread above (geez, way too many of them), if it appears in the final cut then we should take it as a source. Assuming that they made a mistake or didn't notice, let alone "were all stoned" (tee-hee) is WP:SYNTH, unless it can be actually proven as such. According to WP:FILMPLOT, what can be seen on the screen is a cite by itself and does not require additional sources. But hey, this has all been already chewed to death, hopefully the point gets across this time. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, really. Honestly, screw the OR rules. It appeared in an episode, plain as day. That's evidence. Commons sense should triumph above Brazil-style 27b/6 thinking. My struckout suggestion above is fine by me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That it is in the show does not mean the creators endorse it, that would be like claiming that the creators endorse murder, theft, burning down a town, illegal activity etc. You can not know that that is the meaning or intention of the creators, that is your opinion. Referencing episodes is only done to back up plot information, not real world information. You link to WP:PROVEIT, but clearly haven't read beyond the first sentence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You are the one who wants to (re-)add this material and thus is it up to you to prove this, and you have failed to convince me. That would be like me referencing to an episode were someone gets killed and claim that the creators endorse killing, and then tell you that you must provide a reference that disproves this. You assume that this is obvious, but it is clearly not as shown by the objections here, you assume to know the intentions of the creators, you assume that the creators endorse anything that happens in the show. These are all assumption you make, valid or not. Episode content i not a valid source for real-world information, especially the ones claiming to know someones intentions and meaning. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 05:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"... episode were someone gets killed and claim that the creators endorse killing..." ????? We are talking about a written statement in the credits of a TV show. Assuming that the creators endorse what is written in the credits of their own show is reasonable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Same thing, it's just a screenshot of a website working in a funny opening of the show, it's only purpose is to have a visual, not make essays, and I do not believe that the background of a title screen is part of the credits. Besides, every episode has a different opening screen, making these could just as easily be some interns job. This entire thing is based on assumptions, that the creators intended that meaning, that they made that screenshot, that they read it, that they endorse it, etc. Making assumptions is never reasonable, it based on WP:POV and WP:OR. If this is true and it is so obvious then surely it must be easy to find a reliable reference for it, would it not? Even if it's just a reviewer making that same claim. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here's an example from another episode. It's a drawing of a vulva, instead of the clitoris it says "Created by Jenji Kohan" and instead of labia minora it says "Weeds". Should we assume that the show name is based on the non-existent nickname of the labia minora? It's just an image, not supposed to be true or otherwise be a statement by the creators. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's my point: we should not assume. If there was a text in the opening credits that read "The expression "Created by Jenji Kohan" is a known euphemism for the clitoris", you'd have me there.

Anna Frodesiak – thank you, and love the Brazil quote! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly we shouldn't assume, and that's why that is not an acceptable source for such information. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to think anymore. This whole thing is driving me crazy. I think I need to bail on this dispute. Hearfourmewesique: Nice to see we're on good terms. Of course, big sister will have to keep an eye on you. As you know, I'm a stickler for paperwork. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Xeworlebi, please stop playing these games with me, as they don't (and won't) work: we shouldn't assume the writers were wrong (or stoned), Wikipedia (and common sense) tells us to believe what our eyes see (be it a movie or a TV episode). I have already pointed to the proper essay several times. To quote another Wikipedia guideline, which many editors seem to avoid like hot lava – but I strongly endorse (sometimes): "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In a nutshell: what I meant above was we should not assume against common sense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The screenshot of the Wikipedia page from the TV show cannot be used as a source. If you go back to the history of the article, [7] that unsourced claim was in the article prior to the appearance on the screenshot on the show. To use the screenshot is clearly a WP:CIRCULAR and unallowed. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, in the commentaries, Kohan talks about the new opening credits as a way to have some additional jokes and humor in the show. The shot of Wikipedia, like all the other credit openings, is merely a gag related to events in the show and NOT any type of authoritative statement. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely you can prove that Kohan intended for the page to be a gag and does not endorse what's written in it, otherwise your claim is pure WP:OR. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've commented in previous threads, but if we're recapping all of this I'll do so again. Referring to a years-old Wikipedia page is not a reliable source in any way, shape, or form. If it's in dispute, leave it out. I'm not sure how much it adds to the article in any case, especially prominently displayed in the lead. Dayewalker (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont need to prove that it is not acceptable. You need to prove that it IS acceptable. All you have is that it appears in the show in the place where they place visual gags. That is enough evidence to show that it is not acceptable as a source. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've brought this issue up at WP:RSN, it is located at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Image of Wikipedia in series' opening. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your "understanding" of what's seen on the screen has no place here. For the 239846534539586932847653249586349853456823864738542th time, what is seen on the screen does not require outside sources. It really doesn't matter whether it's from Wikipedia or not. The only thing that matters is that it's a piece of text that is displayed in the TV series. I am fluent in two additional languages, would you like me to translate? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not only borderline uncivil, but also an incorrect reading of WP:TVPLOT. The plot of the show is easy to take from watching, but assuming that every single thing that appears onscreen is the gospel is assuming far too much. Dayewalker (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, Hearfourmewesique, mind your manners. There's no need for unfriendliness.

I shall butt back in for a moment. I had terrible trouble making up my mind on this, and for a good reason: A good argument can be made why it is not a valid source. You make good arguments why it is. But that means it is disputed. There was never resolution or clear consensus.

Dayewalker's point that since it is disputed, it should not be used as a source, is good. "When there is doubt, leave it out."

Active Banana's "circular" point makes an extremely strong argument to disqualify it as a source.

The onus remains upon you to make a case for the source to be used, and then get consensus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Source

Here's a source [8]. If it's not highlighted, it's in the fourth column, middle of the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding to this - the text that was in the article but taken out is too closely paraphrased and was probably at some point taken from this source. The lead should only say that the title refers to weeds (the plants), weeds (the drug), and widows weeds. Any elaboration should go in the body of the article and be attributed and probably quoted. I'm on modified wiki-break and haven't had time to chime in. Certainly I believe this is an RS and that it can be used to cite the claim. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice digging. The article is Aug 7, 2005. Versions of this article at that time or before don't mention "widow's weeds", so how could it have been taken from this source? Am I mistaken? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not really important. I just think it needs to be succinctly stated in the lead, and then as ATC & Active Banana say, if necessary developed more in the body of the article. At any rate, a good source exists now, so hopefully this will end. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I actually stated above in "Widow's Weeds in the lede" that it was a little chubby to be in the first paragraph of the lead. Stick it anywhere out of the blazing sun. I am delighted to see a source that puts this to rest. Ahhhhh. Sweeet resolution and a sense of moveonedness. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But "moveonedness"? Here's hoping that unpoetic word circulates no more, even if spelled as moveonness. (I say, dear chap, is that the moveonness monster one sees in the lake there?) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the source! I will note that I dont really see anything that is leadworthy, but since there doesnt appear to be a "production" or "development" or "analysis/reception" section, I dont object to placement in the lead until a more appropriate section is developed. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. That should go underneath "development". For now it should go in production. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, as (hopefully) is this discussion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nancy's last name when describing the series as a whole

It should be the latest name she goes by – Reyes née Botwin, since it's stated (can't recall the exact episode) that she changed her name to Reyes upon marrying Esteban. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I recall no episode where she used Reyes as a last name (other than perhaps as a joke) Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And the official website does not call her that. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake and I apologize. Still, reverting without an edit summary after I've given mine, is akin to vandalism in my book when I know the exact reason you reverted me this way. I'll revert it back. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. Nancy never changed her name after marrying Esteban to Reyes. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nancy and Esteban talked about Nancy taking the name "Reyes" late in season five. They agree that her last name will remain Botwin.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do Weeds and Ideal reach the same conclusion?

Weeds - which I always enjoy watching due to the amazing performances and the movie-quality production values - reminds me slightly of the BBC comedic drama Ideal. I am sure that there is no overlap between them, but they both seem to be modern parables about illicit drugs. In both shows, drugs destroy the lead characters and their loved ones. In Weeds, Nancy very quickly loses her big house and her faux friends and is forced to move to a much more modest residence and live a life nobody would ever choose to live; while in Ideal, Moz loses the love of his life (Jenny) when she is accidentally fatally shot. It seems to me that both writers (Jenji Kohan and Graham Duff) took very different roads in their writing, but it is an interesting coincidence that they both ended up at the same destination: doing or even dealing drugs will kill you, or at the very least, those around you. Maybe worth mentioning? 81.164.152.54 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Evolution of acceptance

Now that the series is approaching its conclusion, perhaps a section should be added (properly cited, of course) about the evolution of acceptance of the series. When it first started it was quite controversial as it was seen as promoting drug use (scroll up this page to see how the Season 2 DVD was even banned in the UK), while defenders said it promoted drug use the way Dexter promoted serial killing. Now that the series is approaching its end (and even without knowing any spoilers for Season 8 the conclusion of Season 7 suggests a happy ending is not guaranteed), how have people's views changed? Are people still offended by the series, or do they get that it's not a pro-drug series at all? Obviously this discussion won't be possible if it falls into WP:NOR, but surely a series as respected and acclaimed as this will have articles on its impact written by not only reputable media but scholarly media as well and I'd be surprised if this topic wasn't touched upon. A related topic is whether the series has had any impact on public opinion re: legalization of drugs (which, it has been shown, is often considered a separate issue from whether one personally approves of drug taking or not). 70.72.215.252 (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Edits

I think I'm right in saying this: if you are planning on editing several things, please try to do it in as few edits as possible. I don't appreciate the history page to be full of 10+ edits by one editor in an hour timeframe. No offense, but I'm talking about you ATC. -PUNKMINKIS (TALK) 23:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Music

No mention of the very prominent use of songs such as "You Fucked Up" and "Girl Anachronism" to accompany the end-of-season cliffhangers. I haven't actually watched the show or bought DVDs of it for several years now, so I dunno if this was the case with every season. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers again

As mentioned earlier, we don't need spoilers in the lead. Thankfully, I don't think this series is my cup of tea, but it would be somewhat ruined if it was. Unless anybody objects, I'll go ahead and remove them in a couple of days. WykiP (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Weeds (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070106141558/http://www.showcase.ca:80/weeds/ to http://www.showcase.ca/weeds/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

today thing are good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.194.88.227 (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Weeds (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120321021810/http://www.emmysfoundation.org/2010-panelist-bios to http://www.emmysfoundation.org/2010-panelist-bios

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Weeds (TV series). 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/music_season1.do
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/music_season2.do
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/music_season3.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426124046/http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/home.do to http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/home.do

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) 17:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Andy as lazy?

I agree with most descriptive words of these characters, but one I do not is calling Andy "lazy" towards the beginning: "Featured in the ensemble cast are her lazy, wisecracking brother-in-law Andy Botwin..." He worked as a chef, business entrepreneur, restaurant owner, porn actor, drug dealer, and more, and was seen rising before others in the Botwin household to cook breakfast. He stepped up to be a father figure, though a questionable one at times. But he was probably the most interesting character in this series. He is a lot of things, but lazy is not one of them. I would take out "lazy" to just refer to him as "wisecracking" since his character is adequately explained later on in this page. Or add a better adjective there, perhaps "fun-loving." Justdoit345 (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)