![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
According to BarneyFife.com George Lindsay, who played Goober in the series said, "One of the incredible things about every single episode is that Andy insisted each show have a moral point, something good, lofty and moral. It’s a shame current shows on TV don’t adopt that high road."
Also from BarneyFife.com
The show becomes a source of common ground to attract people from all religious backgrounds and walks of life. Basically, it offers a casual, non threatening atmosphere for people to get together, have fun, and think about how we handle certain situations in life.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~thefanns/class3.htm points out Mr. Jackson's disrespect for Andy's authority, but the site seems oblivious to Barney's constant disrespect for Andy's authority, and their disrespect for the authority of others.
Other Relevant links.
http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issues/06_04/06-04-mayberry-bender.htm
http://www.needcoffee.com/html/dvd/agshow1.htm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/010/15.27.html
HACKWRENCH -- This "controversy" does not meet the Wiki NPOV "Undue Weight" test:
When an arts subject's controversy is at all noteworthy, articles will cite notable sources. Compare your effort with the
Harry Potter article. Note that the opinions that are documented all have prominent adherents. That's why they're noteworthy.
If every possible subjective opinion on every possible subject was touched on, Wikipedia wouldn't resemble an encyclopedia at all -- it would be more like the Yahoo! forums. Either agree (and learn) to write like an encyclopedist or just stop it. 24.85.49.66
So a POV can only be presented if a famous person has it? Sounds ridiculous to me. Yahoo! forums is a completely different format. POVs aren't summarized and collated. That is all I ask from an Encyclopedia. Not my fault if there is a handful of others wanting something different. First you are going to have to convince me that what you expect an encyclopedia to be is best, Mr. 24.85.49.66.
Hackwrench
22:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not about what some individuals consider to "best" for an encyclopaedia. It's the Wikipedia charter. (Quite apart from being a commonsensical editorial position.) Encyclopedias should stick to the unadorned facts wherever possible. Sometimes, various opinions about a subject are significant and useful facts, when the subject is a significant source of controversy. There are millions of opinions on every subject. It is obviously impractical to present them all, so there has to be some test as to whether or not an opinion. If particular opinions haven't been discussed by notable people, then they aren't notable opinions. If the values of The Andy Griffith Show were of significant import, then public figures or academics who are concerned with ethics and values would naturally comment. But it's not important. You are fixated on this topic, but few people who want information about The Andy Griffith Show are going to share your preoccupation, regardless of whether they consider the show to be "Morally Upstanding" or "Morally Questionable."
There is far more controversy over who's the more attractive girl on
Gilligan's Island, Maryanne or Ginger. People jaw about this all the time. That doesn't mean that several paragraphs dedicated to why some people think Ginger is the one and other's support Maryanne would be useful information. It's just opinion. If it became a significant source of controversy, and something that was hotly debated in all earnestness, then it would be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It's not, though. Cluttering up articles with "Some people feel X, while others feel Y" is something that should be avoided, unless the way people feel about the subject is itself noteworthy. If people's feelings are noteworthy, then you can expect that they'll have been, you know, noted. By notables.
The Andy Griffith Show has never been a significant source of controversy, so dedicating half an encyclopaedia article to various opinions about it is off topic. There is no reason to drag ideological viewpoints into the article -- that's not writing about The Andy Griffith Show, it's writing about how conflicting ideologies apply to it. If you start doing this, then every article becomes about ideologies, rather than the original subject of the article. This is counter-productive and absurdly redundant.
The article on
Eggs Benedict does not dwell on the fact that some people consider eating it to be morally wrong, while other people think it's a wholesome start to the day. It just describes what it is, and leaves the ideological stuff where it belongs. If people want to know about how people feel about the morality of eating back bacon with breakfast, they will read the articles on
kosher,
halal, and
vegetarianism. There's no need to drag these beliefs into every article they can be applied to -- unless it met the test. If a radical Imam happened to declare a fatwa that was directed specifically against restaurants that served Eggs Benedict, and there was plenty of public discussion about this, than a subheading for "The Eggs Benedict Fatwa" would be in order. In the meantime, NPOV requires that people stick to the subject without commenting on peripherally related opinions.
Larry Mudd
21:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
He may have also lived in Manteo, but the town most closely associated with Griffith is Mount Airy, so I changed the reference to say that he had lived there. Someone who knows more details may want to clarify. Mark Foskey
Wasn't Goober Pyle Gomer's cousin, rather than his brother? Rlquall 02:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ee60640 and 65.42.89.35 have their own ideas of what belong in a encyclopedia article. What they do not seem to realize is that they are not authorities on what belongs in an encyclopedia article. 65.42.89.35 seems to think portions are incoherent. Just because you don't understand something doesn't automatically make it incoherent. Hackwrench 18:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Most of the article was about how the show was 'Morally Questionable'. Not sure why these opinions would belong in an encyclopedia article.
I hope that I can help you to understand what's happening. The folks who keep redacting your contributions to this article have good reason to: Your writing is objectively inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. Not only is it subjective opinion, but it's extremely eccentric subjective opinion. You clearly have strong personal feelings about this forty-year-old sitcom. You have made more than half of the entry a rant about how you feel that it represents bad morality. This is not information, it's opinion. If you wish to disseminate your opinion or frame a debate about whether or not this light entertainment series represents a solid and consistent system of values, you ought to create a personal webpage to do so. The author of an encyclopaedia article should be invisible. The Neutral Point of View should not be difficult to maintain in an article about a light entertainment program. A couple of lines about how many people consider the program to be "wholesome" entertainment, followed by a "but..." that takes up more space than all of the factual information about the show itself is not a neutral point of view.
In addition to the basic unsuitablity of your contribution to the article in the context of an encyclopaedia entry (due to its pronounced and peculiar bias,)the writing itself is incoherent to the point of incomprehensibility. It is loaded with spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Even if we ignore the fact that an encyclopaedia article is not the place for a debate about the morality of a spectacularly uncontroversial TV show, your capsule synopsis of several episodes under the "Morally Questionable" subheading are rambling and often pointless. For example:
'In "High Noon At Mayberry", Lou Comstock sends Andy a letter saying that he's coming to Mayberry "to set things straight." Barney manipulates Andy into thinking that Lou's coming to shoot Andy because of the time that Andy shot him in the leg during a hold-up.'
How do you consider that this indicates a moral weakness of the program? The overriding quality that Barney Fife possesses is that he is an incompetent simpleton. This is a source of comedic tension. It drives the plot in each episode. Nobody is asked to emulate Barney's behaviour -- he is a figure to be pitied, and of course to laugh at.
The subsections "Attitude towards weapons" and "Attitude towards women," are particularly bad. Of course Aunt Bea doesn't like weapons. She's a remarkably nervous old woman. Barney's enthusiasm for his gun doesn't frame weapons in a bad light -- it frames Barney in a bad light. It's not guns in-and-of-themselves that attract him -- it's the associated authority -- which he is manifestly unfit to represent. The show doesn't have a pertinent philosophy with regard to firearms. Your section seems to imply that you believe that guns should, of necessity, be portrayed in a positive light. As for the "attitudes about women," what are you trying to say? You mention one episode in which a character encourages another character to be more feminine, "against her father's wishes." What is the attitude toward women that this represents? That they should all be girly-girls? That they should be tomboys? That they should submit to patriarchal authority? That they should resist patriarchal authority? That they should do what feels right? What? Never mind, because it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article about a light entertainment program.
If you want to write a thesis about the values of 1960s middle-America, or Hollywood, or whatever, and their relative worth measured against your own philosophy, do it somewhere else -- and you might want to hire an editor, if you want anyone to be able to make out what you're trying to communicate.
Your contribution is incoherent in the most objective sense. Your english is difficult to parse -- not because the concepts are high, but because your use of the language is very poor. If your contribution contained useful information that was germane to the article at all, then I'm sure that people would be happy to spruce up your spelling, grammar, and punctuation. As it stands, the only thing to do is to remove it altogether. As long as you keep reinserting it, people are going to continue to "clean up the page" by removing it -- not because of any ideological opposition, mind, but because it's simply out of place. Don't single out the people who've removed it so far -- it's the natural decision for anyone who's trying to edit the page to conform to standards. Larry Mudd 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
You don't seem to have read wikipedia's NPOV article. Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. By deleting the point of view I have presented, a view is not represented. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I have. I don't think you understand it very well. The article doesn't have a neutral point of view with your revisions. You have made 50% of an entry for an uncontroversial television show an argument that it's "morally questionable." Yes, before you added that text, you inserted a preamble that amounts to "Many people believe that The Andy Griffith Show is wholesome entertainment." That doesn't make the article neutral.
Percentages are irrelevant. What is relevant is that sides get expressed. I would really like the case for it being morally upstanding to be fleshed out, but I don't really understand the moral code of the people that find it that way, therefore I am a poor candidate to flesh it out. Most of the content under Morally Upstanding was already part of the previous article.
Consider this: Everything is morally questionable. Every single blessed thing. Certainly all entertainment. An encyclopedia entry is simply not the place to hash it out. A show like ">M*A*S*H is certainly more controversial than The Andy Griffith Show -- yet its entry retains a neutral voice. Yes, some people consider that M*A*S*H propounded good values. M*A*S*H (TV_series) Other people found those values offensive. That does not mean that an encyclopedia entry on the show should index all the things that people considered admirable or offensive about the show -- rather, it should just give us a clear, concise description of the show and provide us with useful information about it. Everybody has an opinion. If all the articles about entertainment were cluttered up with arguments for whether the subject of the article was "good" or "bad," this whole endeavour would be useless.
Why would it be useless. You aren't making a case for it, you just state it as if it is the most obvious thing in the world. I would be interested in reading such views when going to a Wikipedia article, which is why I write. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Your entries do not maintain neutral voice. You are clearly arguing against the morality of the show, and not terribly well. You list a series of incidents that bother you as evidence that the show itself is "morally questionable." For instance, Opie's teacher makes an error and gives him an "A" in math instead of his deserved "F," and the boy is rewarded with a bike. Imagining for the moment that it was appropriate to hijack an article about a TV show with a long essay on whether or not it should be considered morally "right," how do you imagine that this represents the show's turpitude? Is this represented as a good thing? Do you think that it is meant to encourage people to fudge report cards? To lie? Hint: The episode is titled "Opie's Ill-gotten Gain."
No, it promotes poor accounting, the likes of Enron and MCI. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, it's neither here nor there; an encyclopaedia article is meant to present a concise digest of pertinent information about a particular subject -- not a debate about its ethics. Of course, some subjects are practically defined by the contention surrounding them. (eg; abortion or the Israel-Palestine conflict.) It's doubtful that anyone is neutral about such subjects, if they are familiar with them at all. In these instances, we do our best to represent conflicting ideas neutrally.
Who told you what an encyclopedia article is meant to present? Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
In the case of a show like The Andy Griffiths show, (or The Mary Tyler Moore show, or whatever) the subject is not defined by debate. The proper approach is to represent what the show is objectively about -- not how some individuals may react to it.
Why? Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
If it was made to conform to the style of a concise, neutral encyclopaedia article, your whole contribution to the article could be ideally be rendered thus:
Many people consider The Andy Griffith show to be an idealized depiction of simple, small-town values. Others may feel that these values are dated and out of touch with modern ideals.
Even that is really not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Try for: "Just the facts, ma'am." Why is half of the article about how unethical you think some of the actions portrayed are? It's a TV show. Entertainment. Notice that the Law & Order entry doesn't include itemized list of morally questionable things that the main characters have done. Why? Because it's not relevant.
I am not trying to cast my position as "modern ideals". There is no one group of values shared by all modern people or all small towns. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The Law & Order entry doesn't include itemized list of morally questionable things that the main characters have done because no one yet places the value of writing such a piece over other uses of their time.
Everybody has an opinion. Neutral point of view doesn't mean including opposing points of view for everything. Take a look at the articles on major ethical systems. They just say what they're about. They don't include lengthy rebuttals. It's ridiculous that you keep appending a lengthy rebuke of the "morals" of TAGS to this article. Why not append everything you don't like about every show ever created to each wiki article? Because it's opinion, and doesn't belong here.
I intend to. Heve to start somewhere. Plus, watching episodes of shows I don't like the values of in order to express an informed position takes time. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What have I misspelled? What is wrong with my grammar? As for puncuation, the rhetorical question could stand to have a question mark, but what else is wrong. Just saying I have poor spelling, grammar and punctuation doesn't make it so. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Look, I honestly don't mean to be insulting, but where to start? Even after your revision, it's a mess. I'm not inclined to proofread your entire text, as I don't think there's much point in it. Fixing the grammar, spelling, and punctuation will not make it appropriate. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of what commas are for or how to make proper use of parentheses. 154.5.44.35 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You are correct that the difficulty is not due to the concepts being high. However, part of the difficulty comes from the fact that you are not used to reading terse matter, part from your own eccentric and peculiar point of view, and part from your balkanized mindset. By the way, English is capitalized, "at all" is superfluous. Hackwrench 01:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
My reading comprehension is fine, so long as the writing is comprehensible. This is not:
In one episode, a heavy-handed state police inspector, attempts to order state police reinforcements with weapons to handle a person who Andy allows to be a repeat offender and is firing a gun to miss.
First, your use of extraneous commas is jarring. Is "a heavy-handed police inspector" an independent clause? The reader can only parse this as an instance of a parenthetical phrase. Of course, it doesn't make any sense at all that way. So we conclude that the second comma is there for no good reason at all and mentally edit it out. We sense that the writer is aware that they're over their punctuation quota, though -- because the rest of the run-on-sentence is as gleefully free of punctuation as portions of Finnegans Wake, and just about as easy to work out. How many times does the subject change in that sentence? What's modifying what? Luckily, we can rely on grammatical number to make inferences about when you're talking about reinforcements and when you're talking about the "person" -- although we shouldn't have to. We can't tell exactly what's happening, though, because that remarkably long sentence still manages to be incomplete. What is this person's offense? Who's firing to miss? (I'm fairly sure you mean that the "person" is.) What or who is being fired on or around? I can work out what you're trying to say (I think) but there are blanks to fill in. Someone has done something. You're saying that it's Andy's fault he's at large. The police inspector wants to call in armed state troopers to subdue the person. Either Andy is shooting in his general direction, or (more likely) the person is shooting in the direction of someone else, likely Andy, the inspector, or the pair of them. This is not "just saying" your grammar and punctuation are lacking. Anyway, if you'll allow me a brief digression from grammar to ask you about the reason for that sentence's existence:
Here's the question: What does this tell us about the show's Attitude towards Weapons? Something, right? That is the subheading, so there's got to be an attitude towards weapons in there somewhere. What is it? Imagine that your reader hasn't seen the episode and doesn't know what you're thinking, but leaving unsaid. We don't know the resolution. Guns are bad? Guns are necessary to protect people from dangerous offenders? From jaywalkers? Guns are neutral, and it's better if good guys wield them than bad guys? What? Knowing a little about The Andy Griffith Show, I assume that Sheriff Taylor talked the guy out of whatever he was doing, or found some non-violent solution. We shouldn't have to make assumptions though, or guess about your meaning. You're not being terse. Far from it. You are relating things that happened in the show and assuming that your point is taken. You relate a long summary of episode involving Andy and his son doing without Aunt Bee for a time and having housecleaning issues. You invite the reader to conclude that the show promotes weak moral values, based largely on its appearance under the heading "Questionable Morals." Your other synopses are the same. Why are they there? Far from terse. Terse would be good. 154.5.44.35 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Reviewing my work, I did find typing errors. Corrected, in as much as I found them, also did some cleaning up. The wikipedia textbox is not the greatest composition environment. Hackwrench 01:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You could stand to review a lot more. You caught some of the typos, but there are still plenty of spelling and punctuation errors -- and honestly, most of the grammar demands a rewrite. Random selection:
By calling their combination Police office and Jail, a Jail they deempasize the police aspect of their work, and Berney Fife, expresses the notion that having prisoners looks good.
Three punctuation errors. Two spelling errors. One typical sentence.
I don't want to get into a flame-war with you. The portions you've added just stuck out as not being anywhere near up-to-par. I will not remove them again, since it's clear that you're going to just keep putting them back and I've (thankfully) got more pressing things to deal with than making sure that the Wikipedia entry for an old sitcom is tidy and informative.
That being said, it's only a matter of time (and not much of it, I'd wager) before someone else comes along and says "What the!? That clearly doesn't belong here." and wishes it into the cornfield again. I would respectfully suggest that you not keep stubbornly putting it back just as it was. Spend some time looking at other entries for tv shows. Note that they don't read like middle-school debate club notes. If other people find your contribution valuable, they'll put it back. I don't think you've got enough objectivity to really "get" why it keeps getting nixed. 154.5.44.35 Larry Mudd 04:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice Twilight Zone reference. Did you see the follow-up episode on the new Twilight Zone series?
The fact that you think that the section seems to imply a belief that guns should, of necessity, be portrayed in a positive light, says more about you than the section. It doesn't. However the show consistently portrays guns in a negative light.
Further telling your warped sense of reality is that you think that any remarkably nervous old woman wouldn't like weapons. A remarkably nervous old woman is just as likely to keep a gun for comfort as to dislike them. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not as clear as you think why Barney likes guns. He claims to have been in the United States Army where foot soldiers are more likely than ranking officers to have weapons prominent. Barney shows enthusiasm not just for his gun, but for the rifles in the station as well. As you say, the overriding quality that Barney Fife possesses is that he is an incompetent simpleton. Liking guns will not cast him in any less of a light. However, the reverse is not true.
The 'lady driver' episode shows an attitude towards women as bad drivers.
It isn't just a character that encourages another character to be more feminine, it is a main character that encourages a character that exists for the sole purpose to be influenced by the main character to "be more feminine". The "against her father's wishes" was to hint at the fact that the episode goes against the right of a parent to raise their child as the parent sees fit.
As far as I can see the 'standards' you talk about are made up inside your head. Feel free to point me to a standards document to prove me wrong. I have already pointed you to the Wikipedia NPOV document.
I am not alone in reverting back to my changes. GregAsche reverted my changes back, and others have made changes without touching mine. Therefore it isn't a "natural decision", but merely a not too uncommon one.
If you were in fact using a NPOV I would have no problem with your contributions. However you seem to have a misunderstanding of the word neutral. Everything you have written comes from a biased POV. You do understand the difference between neutral and biased, don't you? Clearly the show is dated and has attitudes that are out of touch with current view points on various issues. This is true of almost ANY television program that is 40 years old. Are you now going to go into the pages for I Love Lucy, The Dick Van Dyke Show, etc. and vandalize those pages in the same way you have with this one? You have made it clear you have a problem with this show. Fine. However, in addition to being poorly written your comments are not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. For an opinion piece or critical analysis of the program, yes. But not in something that is supposed to convey basic information. ee60640 11:17 AM 10/08/05
As I demonstrated in an earlier post, what I am doing is not vandalism. I understand the meaning of the word neutral. You however do not seem to understand Neutral as it modifies POV in the Wikipedia context. From the NPOV article:
The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.
My content is an unbiased account of a POV regarding the show. It is not meant to indicate that that view is correct. I have not deleted any POV. Other POVs need to be presented.
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
I don't see it as nonsense. Also from vandalism: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
Maybe this will help you - from the NPOV page. Try to read it and see if you can understand it.
"A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."
-- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder
Did that penetrate your skull or not? ee60640 11:57 AM 10/08/05
Yes, and I am writing about what people believe about the show, while you are writing about what is so about the show. Hackwrench 15:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
You have completely missed the point here. YOU are writing about what YOU personally believe about the show in a manner that presents these opinions as something that is "so" about the show. The idea of NPOV that you seem to not get is that it should be those things all reasonable people would agree is true about something without personal opinions about that thing being inserted. In addition, the opinions that you insist on inserting here are poorly written semi-coherent thoughts. If you were to label most of what you have written with qualifiers such as "some people believe" or some similar phrase instead of presenting it as fact, you would probably find that your contributions would run into less resistence from others. ee60640 14:47 CST 10/09/05
Hackwrench, having read your current revision of the page it appears you have made an attempt to make your contributions conform to what NPOV should be. However, you still have a number of spelling and grammatical problems present. In addition, I think if you were to read the following from the Wikipedia guidlines you would find that this material does not serve a purpose in this article.
The most readable articles contain a minimum of irrelevant (or only loosely relevant!) information. While writing an article you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who aren't interested won't be distracted by it.
You seem to want to present an analysis of this show in light of current societal attitudes on those topics. You have also indicated above that you intend to do so with other television shows. Ok, fine. But that would be more appropriate in a seperate article. In this context the ideas you are interested in are, at best, loosely relevant to an entry about this show. ee60640 10/09/05
This discussion has ended up being about personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. The "Morally Questionable" section is unsustainable if it can't be changed to report real-world discussions of these issues - X said Y about this aspect or episode. (And of course X would need to be someone reasonably notable.) There's a reason these types of article on Wikipedia are usually short (and factual) - because otherwise it ends up in this sort of situation, which isn't terribly productive, never mind encyclopedic. Rd232 20:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, particularly concerning the "Morally Questionable" section and the need for this sort of entry to be short and factual. This is what I have been advocating. Hopefully, Hackwrench will realize you are correct as well.
ee60640
21:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The more concise summary of the debate over the show's value is better (and is at least framed coherantly) but it still isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. The best way to maintain NPOV is to leave opinion out altogether. The only time "presenting all points of view" is desirable is when the topic is notably controversial, in that the controversy is a large part of the subject. (eg; abortion.) Otherwise, every article would degenerate into a back-and-forth over people's opinions about incidental things. This is a TV show, not a system of ethics. Inclusion of sections positing that it is "moral" or "immoral" are off-topic. We manage to keep articles about things which inspire strong pro and con opinions utterly neutral. The article on steak, for example, is strictly about steak, as it should be. It's not about the various ways that people feel about steak. Many, many people have strong feelings about whether or not it is "moral" to eat steak -- but an encyclopedia article about steak is not the place to get into "Steak is nature's perfect food and necessary for life" vs "Meat is murder!" These are opinions. They belong in their own articles. Same thing here. "Fans & Detractors" is more readable than "Morally Upstanding & Morally Questionable," but it is still out of place in an encyclopedia entry. 154.5.44.35 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is out of place for this type of entry. My reason for putting it in was to bring this revert war to an end. Hackwrench has not seen fit to revert this to the longer, off-topic and rambling entry previously here. Anyone who feels the need to make this entry more concise will find no resistance from me. Ee60640 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
A bit silly, but this is clearly not going to be solved one way or the other until we ask for an authoritative opinion, and a month of reverts is probably enough. Larry Mudd 06:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[ Link to RfM]
Hackwrench, I understand that the intent of your last edit was to remove all trace of POV from the article, but you have removed plenty of useful information which is based on verifiable fact and conforms to NPOV, apparently because you think it represents the show positively.
The notation that people travel to North Carolina looking for "Mayberry" is not an opinion -- it's a fact. Why have you removed it? Because it indicates that some people like the show a lot? (Let's ignore for the moment that it also suggests that some viewers of the show aren't very bright. Heh.)
Andy Griffith was a well-known actor before the show started. (That's why it was called The Andy Griffith Show, and not "Life with Sheriff Taylor.") He did receive an ovation when he made his appearance on The Danny Thomas Show. This is not a subjective opinion, it's a relation of something that provides some context for why the program was a hit with its audience from the very beginning.
You removed simple, accurate descriptors of characters. These are not opinions, they're character attributes.
Unless those character description are Canon and not Fanon then those desriptors are opinions. [Hackwrench]
Give me a break. "Floyd the barber is absent-minded" is canon. You know what "absent-minded" means, right? He misses out on details and is very forgetful? A quality of his character that is used repeatedly as a plot device and consistently as a gag? Can you name an episode in which Bass appears that doesn't revolve around the idea that he's a wildman and a hell-raiser? Some secret episode you're aware of where he sips tea and reads a book? This is the way the characters are consistently portrayed. It is not opinion, and certainly not something that fans made up. Seriously, what the hell? Larry Mudd 16:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't name an episode in which Bass appears. I did watch a number of episodes of Andy Griffith with which to come to understand the moral implications involved, and depended on summaries for more perspective. "hell-raising" has a wide variety of implications. Surely you don't mean that every episode Bass appears in a dead body is the result. If not, I don't see a clear claim can be made that he is a hell-raiser. Hackwrench 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
You also introduced spelling and grammar errors into the text with your edits. Larry Mudd 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hackwrench, on the RfM page, you wrote:
To help determine whether or not it was one viewpoint that the other side was trying to quash I removed all veiwpoint material. The non-impartial websites they cite are "fact" but regarding the websites I cited, "Satirical magazines and web reviews don't qualify" Why not? Satire is a valid form of criticism. Christianity Today is a mainstream Christian magazine. The review is more than just a review. It comes at the show from a distinct POV.
Let me help you out here. Taking Modern Drunkard at face value and using it to support the view that a significant amount of people find The Andy Griffith Show morally questionable isn't terribly convincing, because most people can tell that the authors of Modern Drunkard aren't making a serious argument. You don't think they really think that there are secret episodes involving Satanism, right? You don't think that they're seriously arguing that boozing is good for athletes, that being a wino is an attractive career option, or that drinking alone aids personal development, do you? Drollery is a signature of Modern Drunkard, and its humour depends on the incongruity between the article and the reader's expectations. If you have to rely on this sort of thing to support the idea that The Andy Griffith Show is a significant source of real controversy, your position isn't very strong. Larry Mudd 07:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
As for the web review, in what way is it "more than a review?" It's somewhat less than a review, in that it's just the personal opinion of one random person on the internet. There are mllions of personal opinions on the internet. Larry Mudd 07:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The Christianity Today article is slightly weightier, since there have been a couple of "Bible Study Guides" published that are based on The Andy Griffith Show. Personally, I don't think that this merits much comment in an article on the show itself. The Simpsons also has a couple of these types of publications attached to it, and the only attention that they receive in the article is single lines acknowledging their existence in a larger section on academic works that have been written about the show. This sort of thing doesn't warrant a special section to devoted to arguments about varying opinions about the morality of the show, because it's off-topic, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Larry Mudd 07:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The following comments by Larry Mudd and Ee60640 were first posted at the top of this talk page. I moved them because I understood most recent remarks should be posted at the end of the page. Ee60640 07:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's an idea that might resolve this conflict to everyone's satisfaction:
For most people, The Andy Griffith Show is simply light entertainment, not an ethical outlook. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to devote any discussion to its morality in a general article about the show. How about creating a seperate article that addresses the topic of the minority view that the show is a model of ethics, and including a link to it? Maybe a single line noting the existence of books like The Way Back to Mayberry and The Mayberry Bible Study Guide, linking to an article which would represent this POV and whatever criticisms there are of it? Larry Mudd 17:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Larry Mudd and thought I had made a suggestion along these lines earlier. However, my main reason for coming in to post this is to suggest that since this has been submitted to the Mediation Cabal we all take a cooling off period. Personally there are many other things here in Wikipedia that I am interested in working on and this has already become much more elaborate and involved than I ever thought possible. Ee60640 23:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
A good idea. It's fairly obvious that the argument is going nowhere, and is only becoming increasingly surreal. (And I'm sorry that I forgot that you had made that practical suggestion ages ago. There has been so much err, interesting discussion since then that it slipped my mind.) Larry Mudd 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone mentioned that The Andy Griffith Show was light entertainment. At the time, I thought the term "light entertainment" was ill defined, but having discovered the wikipedia article, I have found that that concept is useful to the discussion. The article there describes "light entertainment" as "bloated", "uninspiring" and "complete lack of intellectual stimuli". This appears to be my trigger regarding shows of this type, as well as their weak attempts to move from this state. Also according to the article such shows "seemed to have a vice like grip on peak time schedules, particularly on Saturday and Sunday evenings." The article further says "it provokes no awkward questions when the viewing is shared by different generations of the same family"
In the past, different generations (of Americans at least) were more alike than generations today. This may be one of the causes, in addition to the above, of the lack of controversy raised at the time by such shows.
Ideally, the characters of a show should each have their own individual pages, or at least the major ones. The Sheriff Andy Taylor page was an attempt at such a page for the character Andy Taylor of this show. {{User:CantStandYa|CantStandYa]] made it redirect here. What are people's opinions on the subject. Hackwrench 20:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I could go either way on this. The show page could serve as the page for the main character and I wouldn't have a problem with it. Ee60640 22:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
added comments at [ Mediation Cabal#Comments from an outsider-Steven McCrary]
Steven McCrary 16:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Major resturcturing of this article was long overdue. The article was almost entirely one long, long section, ironically called "Overview". I completely restructured this article to be more in line with the common Wikipedia structure used for other television programs. Most notably The Simpsons and M*A*S*H (TV series) were used as examples of shows that were very popular and well organized. I attempted to use logic in the categries and their order. This reorganization was definitely needed, but it meant a lot of the content had to be moved around but I did not remove any content (yet) (except for correcting the episode of The Danny Thomas Show as being the pilot. It was the basis for the a new show, possibly categoried as a spin-off, but it wasn't a pilot episode of TAGS).
I added some new content but I did not remove existing content because I figured this restructuring was such a major change that I figured to take one step at a time. Please note that I did not move everything. All content that was not moved (most of it) was left where it was but the section was renamed "Commentary". I did not want to change too much all at once. Much of that content is indeed commentary (not strictly factual) but some of it is still needs to be moved to more appropriate sections or deleted if duplicate information. Fife Club 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The list of Andy Griffith episodes was apparently started in October 2005. Many different people have worked hard on it, and it has always been the only episodes list linked to from The Andy Griffith Show.
As I was revising the structure of The Andy Griffith Show (see above) I noticed that the list of episodes was actually misnamed. It is, and has always been, located at List of Andy Griffith Show episodes. Please notice that the mistake is that the word "The" was missing from the title (The name of the show is "The Andy Griffith Show"). Noticing this I decided correct the problem by moving the article to include the word "The" in the title, and I later planned on correcting the link on the main show's article. However when I tried this I was surprised to discover that I couldn't do that because another article was already named List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes (with the "The).
Through dumb luck (or bad luck) I discovered that another user had started creating an list of Andy Griffith episode on their own, under their username where nobody else knew it existed. This article was started after the original and was basically hidden from others. Just this month the user that created the alternate episodes list moved their article to List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes, although the main show's article still doesn't point to it.
So there's the situation. We've got two lists of episodes. What to do? Pros and Cons while staying neutral: The original list is mistitled but has always been the only list linked to from the main article at The Andy Griffith Show. Because it was always public more different people have worked on it. The newer article is almost as old but it was "hidden" in a user area until just this month. I will admit that the newer article looks nicer in style, structure, colors, etc. but IMHO I think the descriptions are better in the older, public list, plus it's not really fair to just throw away everybody eles hard work. And to flip again, since the correct title of the article must include the word "The", it doesn't seem fair to throw away this other user's hard work either.
Now there's another dimension to this problem, other than the fact that there's two lists. One list (the only list that has ever been used by The Andy Griffith Show) is in production order. The new, unlinked list is in broadcast order. Until recently, the production order was almost univerally used instead of broadcast order. The main reason is because that is how the syndicator, Paramount Pictures, has them ordered. In just the past few years this has become an issue because the DVD's recently release have gone by the original broadcaster order, and cable reruns on TV Land have decided to use this original order too. (Once again, all local stations have used the Production order for decades). Complication level three: I have screen shots of most episodes ready to upload to the episode list. I plan on asking permission from Paramount first (yes, I know them enough to ask), but neither list's formatting is right for screen shots. I think the format used on The Simpsons works best.
Production # | Broadcast # | Airdate | Title | Screenshot |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | October 3, 1969 | The New Housekeeper |
![]() |
Sheriff Andy Taylor (played by Andy Griffith) and his young son Opie (played by Ron Howard) are in need of a new housekeeper. Andy's Aunt Bee (played by Frances Bavier) looks like the perfect canidate and moves in, but her presence causes friction with Opie. |
Production # | Broadcast # | Airdate | Title | Screenshot |
---|---|---|---|---|
220 | 220 | September 11, 1967 | Opie's First Love | Image not uploaded yet |
Mary Alice Carter accepts Opie's invitation to a party then decides to go with another boy at the last monent. |
Nothing major really, but removed duplicate information, and moved a lot of stuff around.
I consolidated the "Synopsis" and "Overview" sections, since they both basically said the same thing, with a few variations. I took the left over info and moved some to the introductory segment at the beginning of the article (seems to fit better there, than in an "overview" description of the show) and moved remaining info to Synopsis section. Also, gave a brief sentence describing the show in the introductory paragraph.
Moved some chunks of the "Commentary" to their own sections: "Reaction" -- a paragraph following the Synopsis and Origins, which goes into a little detail about the show's reception and fan reaction. Also there was about three paragraphs that described the color seasons, the exit of Don Knotts, and eventual leaving of Andy Griffith, that seemed to fit better towards the end of the "beef" of the article, so I put them together into a section I called "The later years." Moved the remaining commentary (basically in-depth details about the characters and plotline of the series) in between the two. Enjoy. Wavy G 05:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hear ye, hear ye. For those who may be interested, I created (at least one) TAGS related Userbox for your User Profile. Here's an example.
TAGS | This user is a fan of The Andy Griffith Show. |
Go here if you're interested.
If Andy worked for the Town of Mayberry, why is he a Sheriff? A sheriff's office belongs to the county, not to the city or town. Isn't this a contradiction? Or is there something different about North Carolina? As far as I know, the sheriff's office is an entity of the county in all states. Any input will be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.9.132.191 ( talk • contribs) 20:06, June 8, 2006 (UTC)
is an episode where the script seems self-contradictory about whether various cities are in other counties.
list of The Andy Griffith Show episodes January 18, 1965 The Rehabilitation of Otis
Otis rides into Mayberry on a cow under the impression it is a horse. Barney takes on the task of curing Otis' moonshine habit.
On what map is it West Los Angeles? A century or so old? How about Hollywood District {Despite this page that claims Portland, I'm referring to neither Oregon nor Maine.}?
I am very familiar w/ a lot in Hollywood, near Hollywood Park Cemetery; there may be another in Culver{?}. { Hollywood Forever Cemetery, Hollywood Memorial Park Cemetery, Hollywood Forever Memorial Park Cemetery.}
The TV show itself was filmed entirely in Hollywood, at Desilu Productions on the former RKO Pictures lot (now merged with the Paramount Pictures lot in West Los Angeles)."
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is the short list of the regular cast put into a separate article, while the long list of guest stars is kept here? It should be the other way round. Any objections to doing this? Clarityfiend 08:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know exactly where this needs to go, so please excuse me if I add it in the wrong place. But shouldn't the list of "Recurring Characters" include Ernest T. Bass and the Darlings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.33.83 ( talk) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:The Andy Griffith Show is being proposed for deletion. You may comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 7#Category:The Andy Griffith Show -- rogerd 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Andy Griffith Show1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the debate about trivia and pop culture sections is still highly debated, I decided to remove the cultural references section from this article. As interesting as the facts may be, they don't add anything more to the article and since they are unsourced, it makes more sense to get rid of the section until the statements can be properly sourced. By that time, I hope the trivia debate will be resolved. Leaving it in as it was only leaves the article tagged for no references and having a trivia section, two tags that no article needs. Pinkadelica ( talk) 10:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this of any real importance in an article about TAGS? Should this sort of info be carried over into every article about a television show? Shouldn't these accomplishments be noted on individual pages for each person rather than in a section of TAGS? Just a thought. TimmyTruck ( talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
User:TimmyTruck and I disagree on his 6:26, November 26 addition to the section, specifically the layout of the town, so I would like to get other editors' opinions. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
These apparently come from IMDb. Does anybody know how accurate they are? Clarityfiend ( talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the statements in this section are unnecessary. Almost no shows that aired prior to 1968 had any mention of Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, Hispanics, Homosexuals, divorced people, children out of wedlock, or anything but a generic treatment of religion. The fact that this show also didn't mention these things is completely unremarkable. -- rogerd ( talk) 19:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Kinda related to the above discussion. I have no issue with the fact that women are not portrayed in a more modern liberated light, but the Gender Politics section is blatantly not NPOV. Very insulting to men, draws conclusions, and the writer has a definite feministic axe to grind. It needs to be cleaned up a bit, but unfortunately I haven't seen all the episodes so I don't want to make any changes. -- Doctorcherokee ( talk) 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
-->This whole discussion about TAGS and culture (race, gender, etc) teeters on the line of original research as well as NPOV. If it's notable, then cite it's notability. Don't cite random nuggets of info and facts from the show and draw conclusions about their relevance to contemporary culture. That's what blog are for, not wikipedia. Bwilder1998 ( talk) 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I was fine with a section on minorities, but I think the article's detailed description of every conceivable aspect of the show, the characters, Mayberry, and the architecture is getting out of control. Someone commented above that "WP wants detailed articles". That may be true, but WP wants quality articles that say a lot in a few words more than WP wants endless detail. If we stay on the current trajectory, soon we'll have sections on "Squad car models", "Civic organizations in Mayberry", "Miss Crump's lesson plans", "Opie's fashion sense", and "Floor plans of the jail cells". I'm not entirely opposed to additions to the article, but can we please start tightening up, condensing, and integrating before we add any more? Ward3001 ( talk) 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's about time for a vote, so here goes:
Please do not use this article to make claims about Mayberry or other fictional sites on the show being based on actual locations. No evidence exists in the show or in real life to support such claims. They are speculation and do not belong in this article. TimmyTruck ( talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments are solicited. The second section in particular is a little underdeveloped.
thumb|right|Rockne Tarkington. Minorities rarely appeared on the show, and, when they did, were generally treated briefly and in a stereotypical manner somewhat atypical of 1960s television. Although the program was produced during the civil rights era, African Americans were, with one exception, seen only in the background as part of the crowd. Only Rockne Tarkington had a speaking role, as Opie's football coach in a seventh season episode. Other minorities were equally scarce. A Japanese actor appeared as a martial arts instructor in one episode and two Chinese men join Aunt Bee in opening her "Canton Palace" restaurant.
Women play a subordinate role in Mayberry, unlike contemporary programs such as The Donna Reed Show. For example, when Ellie Walker and Aunt Bee run for the town council, they are not taken seriously.
Teenagers are for the most part strangely absent from the show. None are seen on the streets of Mayberry or get in trouble with the law. Nor are there any teen "hang outs" in town, like malt shops and hamburger joints. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I forgot about the religion section. Here's my take on it:
Religion was more than a minor thread in the show – a situation not typical of other sitcoms during the period. In Leave It to Beaver for example, anything remotely related to religion is rarely mentioned. Not so The Andy Griffith Show. The Taylors attend All Souls Church regularly; Aunt Bee sings in the choir, Opie yawns in the front pew, and Andy serves on the church's finance committee.
Some Christian viewers feel the show has a moral backbone virtually unrivaled by other television sitcoms and have singled out episodes for use as instructional and inspirational tools for their congregations. [1] Others question the use of the show for Christian instruction. [2]
Since the title "Portrayal of religion, minorities, women and children" seems a little unwieldy, I would prefer to put this in its own section.
I leave it to somebody else to figure out how to integrate Opie's "Maw". I'll wait a few days for further comments before making these changes in the article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please add info to this section. Thanks! TimmyTruck ( talk) 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just read the sections entitled "XXXXX in Mayberry." That is horribly POV. Someone needs to get off their soapbox. All of those sections are almost entirely someone's opinion. Clinevol98 ( talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Update for "Unseen characters".
Awaiting feedback before adding to article.
The Andy Griffith Show is peopled with countless unseen characters who add color and depth to the show. Three are notable:
EatNoPig ( talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
According to BarneyFife.com George Lindsay, who played Goober in the series said, "One of the incredible things about every single episode is that Andy insisted each show have a moral point, something good, lofty and moral. It’s a shame current shows on TV don’t adopt that high road."
Also from BarneyFife.com
The show becomes a source of common ground to attract people from all religious backgrounds and walks of life. Basically, it offers a casual, non threatening atmosphere for people to get together, have fun, and think about how we handle certain situations in life.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~thefanns/class3.htm points out Mr. Jackson's disrespect for Andy's authority, but the site seems oblivious to Barney's constant disrespect for Andy's authority, and their disrespect for the authority of others.
Other Relevant links.
http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issues/06_04/06-04-mayberry-bender.htm
http://www.needcoffee.com/html/dvd/agshow1.htm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/010/15.27.html
HACKWRENCH -- This "controversy" does not meet the Wiki NPOV "Undue Weight" test:
When an arts subject's controversy is at all noteworthy, articles will cite notable sources. Compare your effort with the
Harry Potter article. Note that the opinions that are documented all have prominent adherents. That's why they're noteworthy.
If every possible subjective opinion on every possible subject was touched on, Wikipedia wouldn't resemble an encyclopedia at all -- it would be more like the Yahoo! forums. Either agree (and learn) to write like an encyclopedist or just stop it. 24.85.49.66
So a POV can only be presented if a famous person has it? Sounds ridiculous to me. Yahoo! forums is a completely different format. POVs aren't summarized and collated. That is all I ask from an Encyclopedia. Not my fault if there is a handful of others wanting something different. First you are going to have to convince me that what you expect an encyclopedia to be is best, Mr. 24.85.49.66.
Hackwrench
22:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not about what some individuals consider to "best" for an encyclopaedia. It's the Wikipedia charter. (Quite apart from being a commonsensical editorial position.) Encyclopedias should stick to the unadorned facts wherever possible. Sometimes, various opinions about a subject are significant and useful facts, when the subject is a significant source of controversy. There are millions of opinions on every subject. It is obviously impractical to present them all, so there has to be some test as to whether or not an opinion. If particular opinions haven't been discussed by notable people, then they aren't notable opinions. If the values of The Andy Griffith Show were of significant import, then public figures or academics who are concerned with ethics and values would naturally comment. But it's not important. You are fixated on this topic, but few people who want information about The Andy Griffith Show are going to share your preoccupation, regardless of whether they consider the show to be "Morally Upstanding" or "Morally Questionable."
There is far more controversy over who's the more attractive girl on
Gilligan's Island, Maryanne or Ginger. People jaw about this all the time. That doesn't mean that several paragraphs dedicated to why some people think Ginger is the one and other's support Maryanne would be useful information. It's just opinion. If it became a significant source of controversy, and something that was hotly debated in all earnestness, then it would be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. It's not, though. Cluttering up articles with "Some people feel X, while others feel Y" is something that should be avoided, unless the way people feel about the subject is itself noteworthy. If people's feelings are noteworthy, then you can expect that they'll have been, you know, noted. By notables.
The Andy Griffith Show has never been a significant source of controversy, so dedicating half an encyclopaedia article to various opinions about it is off topic. There is no reason to drag ideological viewpoints into the article -- that's not writing about The Andy Griffith Show, it's writing about how conflicting ideologies apply to it. If you start doing this, then every article becomes about ideologies, rather than the original subject of the article. This is counter-productive and absurdly redundant.
The article on
Eggs Benedict does not dwell on the fact that some people consider eating it to be morally wrong, while other people think it's a wholesome start to the day. It just describes what it is, and leaves the ideological stuff where it belongs. If people want to know about how people feel about the morality of eating back bacon with breakfast, they will read the articles on
kosher,
halal, and
vegetarianism. There's no need to drag these beliefs into every article they can be applied to -- unless it met the test. If a radical Imam happened to declare a fatwa that was directed specifically against restaurants that served Eggs Benedict, and there was plenty of public discussion about this, than a subheading for "The Eggs Benedict Fatwa" would be in order. In the meantime, NPOV requires that people stick to the subject without commenting on peripherally related opinions.
Larry Mudd
21:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
He may have also lived in Manteo, but the town most closely associated with Griffith is Mount Airy, so I changed the reference to say that he had lived there. Someone who knows more details may want to clarify. Mark Foskey
Wasn't Goober Pyle Gomer's cousin, rather than his brother? Rlquall 02:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ee60640 and 65.42.89.35 have their own ideas of what belong in a encyclopedia article. What they do not seem to realize is that they are not authorities on what belongs in an encyclopedia article. 65.42.89.35 seems to think portions are incoherent. Just because you don't understand something doesn't automatically make it incoherent. Hackwrench 18:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Most of the article was about how the show was 'Morally Questionable'. Not sure why these opinions would belong in an encyclopedia article.
I hope that I can help you to understand what's happening. The folks who keep redacting your contributions to this article have good reason to: Your writing is objectively inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. Not only is it subjective opinion, but it's extremely eccentric subjective opinion. You clearly have strong personal feelings about this forty-year-old sitcom. You have made more than half of the entry a rant about how you feel that it represents bad morality. This is not information, it's opinion. If you wish to disseminate your opinion or frame a debate about whether or not this light entertainment series represents a solid and consistent system of values, you ought to create a personal webpage to do so. The author of an encyclopaedia article should be invisible. The Neutral Point of View should not be difficult to maintain in an article about a light entertainment program. A couple of lines about how many people consider the program to be "wholesome" entertainment, followed by a "but..." that takes up more space than all of the factual information about the show itself is not a neutral point of view.
In addition to the basic unsuitablity of your contribution to the article in the context of an encyclopaedia entry (due to its pronounced and peculiar bias,)the writing itself is incoherent to the point of incomprehensibility. It is loaded with spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Even if we ignore the fact that an encyclopaedia article is not the place for a debate about the morality of a spectacularly uncontroversial TV show, your capsule synopsis of several episodes under the "Morally Questionable" subheading are rambling and often pointless. For example:
'In "High Noon At Mayberry", Lou Comstock sends Andy a letter saying that he's coming to Mayberry "to set things straight." Barney manipulates Andy into thinking that Lou's coming to shoot Andy because of the time that Andy shot him in the leg during a hold-up.'
How do you consider that this indicates a moral weakness of the program? The overriding quality that Barney Fife possesses is that he is an incompetent simpleton. This is a source of comedic tension. It drives the plot in each episode. Nobody is asked to emulate Barney's behaviour -- he is a figure to be pitied, and of course to laugh at.
The subsections "Attitude towards weapons" and "Attitude towards women," are particularly bad. Of course Aunt Bea doesn't like weapons. She's a remarkably nervous old woman. Barney's enthusiasm for his gun doesn't frame weapons in a bad light -- it frames Barney in a bad light. It's not guns in-and-of-themselves that attract him -- it's the associated authority -- which he is manifestly unfit to represent. The show doesn't have a pertinent philosophy with regard to firearms. Your section seems to imply that you believe that guns should, of necessity, be portrayed in a positive light. As for the "attitudes about women," what are you trying to say? You mention one episode in which a character encourages another character to be more feminine, "against her father's wishes." What is the attitude toward women that this represents? That they should all be girly-girls? That they should be tomboys? That they should submit to patriarchal authority? That they should resist patriarchal authority? That they should do what feels right? What? Never mind, because it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article about a light entertainment program.
If you want to write a thesis about the values of 1960s middle-America, or Hollywood, or whatever, and their relative worth measured against your own philosophy, do it somewhere else -- and you might want to hire an editor, if you want anyone to be able to make out what you're trying to communicate.
Your contribution is incoherent in the most objective sense. Your english is difficult to parse -- not because the concepts are high, but because your use of the language is very poor. If your contribution contained useful information that was germane to the article at all, then I'm sure that people would be happy to spruce up your spelling, grammar, and punctuation. As it stands, the only thing to do is to remove it altogether. As long as you keep reinserting it, people are going to continue to "clean up the page" by removing it -- not because of any ideological opposition, mind, but because it's simply out of place. Don't single out the people who've removed it so far -- it's the natural decision for anyone who's trying to edit the page to conform to standards. Larry Mudd 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
You don't seem to have read wikipedia's NPOV article. Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. By deleting the point of view I have presented, a view is not represented. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I have. I don't think you understand it very well. The article doesn't have a neutral point of view with your revisions. You have made 50% of an entry for an uncontroversial television show an argument that it's "morally questionable." Yes, before you added that text, you inserted a preamble that amounts to "Many people believe that The Andy Griffith Show is wholesome entertainment." That doesn't make the article neutral.
Percentages are irrelevant. What is relevant is that sides get expressed. I would really like the case for it being morally upstanding to be fleshed out, but I don't really understand the moral code of the people that find it that way, therefore I am a poor candidate to flesh it out. Most of the content under Morally Upstanding was already part of the previous article.
Consider this: Everything is morally questionable. Every single blessed thing. Certainly all entertainment. An encyclopedia entry is simply not the place to hash it out. A show like ">M*A*S*H is certainly more controversial than The Andy Griffith Show -- yet its entry retains a neutral voice. Yes, some people consider that M*A*S*H propounded good values. M*A*S*H (TV_series) Other people found those values offensive. That does not mean that an encyclopedia entry on the show should index all the things that people considered admirable or offensive about the show -- rather, it should just give us a clear, concise description of the show and provide us with useful information about it. Everybody has an opinion. If all the articles about entertainment were cluttered up with arguments for whether the subject of the article was "good" or "bad," this whole endeavour would be useless.
Why would it be useless. You aren't making a case for it, you just state it as if it is the most obvious thing in the world. I would be interested in reading such views when going to a Wikipedia article, which is why I write. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Your entries do not maintain neutral voice. You are clearly arguing against the morality of the show, and not terribly well. You list a series of incidents that bother you as evidence that the show itself is "morally questionable." For instance, Opie's teacher makes an error and gives him an "A" in math instead of his deserved "F," and the boy is rewarded with a bike. Imagining for the moment that it was appropriate to hijack an article about a TV show with a long essay on whether or not it should be considered morally "right," how do you imagine that this represents the show's turpitude? Is this represented as a good thing? Do you think that it is meant to encourage people to fudge report cards? To lie? Hint: The episode is titled "Opie's Ill-gotten Gain."
No, it promotes poor accounting, the likes of Enron and MCI. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, it's neither here nor there; an encyclopaedia article is meant to present a concise digest of pertinent information about a particular subject -- not a debate about its ethics. Of course, some subjects are practically defined by the contention surrounding them. (eg; abortion or the Israel-Palestine conflict.) It's doubtful that anyone is neutral about such subjects, if they are familiar with them at all. In these instances, we do our best to represent conflicting ideas neutrally.
Who told you what an encyclopedia article is meant to present? Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
In the case of a show like The Andy Griffiths show, (or The Mary Tyler Moore show, or whatever) the subject is not defined by debate. The proper approach is to represent what the show is objectively about -- not how some individuals may react to it.
Why? Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
If it was made to conform to the style of a concise, neutral encyclopaedia article, your whole contribution to the article could be ideally be rendered thus:
Many people consider The Andy Griffith show to be an idealized depiction of simple, small-town values. Others may feel that these values are dated and out of touch with modern ideals.
Even that is really not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Try for: "Just the facts, ma'am." Why is half of the article about how unethical you think some of the actions portrayed are? It's a TV show. Entertainment. Notice that the Law & Order entry doesn't include itemized list of morally questionable things that the main characters have done. Why? Because it's not relevant.
I am not trying to cast my position as "modern ideals". There is no one group of values shared by all modern people or all small towns. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The Law & Order entry doesn't include itemized list of morally questionable things that the main characters have done because no one yet places the value of writing such a piece over other uses of their time.
Everybody has an opinion. Neutral point of view doesn't mean including opposing points of view for everything. Take a look at the articles on major ethical systems. They just say what they're about. They don't include lengthy rebuttals. It's ridiculous that you keep appending a lengthy rebuke of the "morals" of TAGS to this article. Why not append everything you don't like about every show ever created to each wiki article? Because it's opinion, and doesn't belong here.
I intend to. Heve to start somewhere. Plus, watching episodes of shows I don't like the values of in order to express an informed position takes time. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What have I misspelled? What is wrong with my grammar? As for puncuation, the rhetorical question could stand to have a question mark, but what else is wrong. Just saying I have poor spelling, grammar and punctuation doesn't make it so. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Look, I honestly don't mean to be insulting, but where to start? Even after your revision, it's a mess. I'm not inclined to proofread your entire text, as I don't think there's much point in it. Fixing the grammar, spelling, and punctuation will not make it appropriate. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of what commas are for or how to make proper use of parentheses. 154.5.44.35 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You are correct that the difficulty is not due to the concepts being high. However, part of the difficulty comes from the fact that you are not used to reading terse matter, part from your own eccentric and peculiar point of view, and part from your balkanized mindset. By the way, English is capitalized, "at all" is superfluous. Hackwrench 01:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
My reading comprehension is fine, so long as the writing is comprehensible. This is not:
In one episode, a heavy-handed state police inspector, attempts to order state police reinforcements with weapons to handle a person who Andy allows to be a repeat offender and is firing a gun to miss.
First, your use of extraneous commas is jarring. Is "a heavy-handed police inspector" an independent clause? The reader can only parse this as an instance of a parenthetical phrase. Of course, it doesn't make any sense at all that way. So we conclude that the second comma is there for no good reason at all and mentally edit it out. We sense that the writer is aware that they're over their punctuation quota, though -- because the rest of the run-on-sentence is as gleefully free of punctuation as portions of Finnegans Wake, and just about as easy to work out. How many times does the subject change in that sentence? What's modifying what? Luckily, we can rely on grammatical number to make inferences about when you're talking about reinforcements and when you're talking about the "person" -- although we shouldn't have to. We can't tell exactly what's happening, though, because that remarkably long sentence still manages to be incomplete. What is this person's offense? Who's firing to miss? (I'm fairly sure you mean that the "person" is.) What or who is being fired on or around? I can work out what you're trying to say (I think) but there are blanks to fill in. Someone has done something. You're saying that it's Andy's fault he's at large. The police inspector wants to call in armed state troopers to subdue the person. Either Andy is shooting in his general direction, or (more likely) the person is shooting in the direction of someone else, likely Andy, the inspector, or the pair of them. This is not "just saying" your grammar and punctuation are lacking. Anyway, if you'll allow me a brief digression from grammar to ask you about the reason for that sentence's existence:
Here's the question: What does this tell us about the show's Attitude towards Weapons? Something, right? That is the subheading, so there's got to be an attitude towards weapons in there somewhere. What is it? Imagine that your reader hasn't seen the episode and doesn't know what you're thinking, but leaving unsaid. We don't know the resolution. Guns are bad? Guns are necessary to protect people from dangerous offenders? From jaywalkers? Guns are neutral, and it's better if good guys wield them than bad guys? What? Knowing a little about The Andy Griffith Show, I assume that Sheriff Taylor talked the guy out of whatever he was doing, or found some non-violent solution. We shouldn't have to make assumptions though, or guess about your meaning. You're not being terse. Far from it. You are relating things that happened in the show and assuming that your point is taken. You relate a long summary of episode involving Andy and his son doing without Aunt Bee for a time and having housecleaning issues. You invite the reader to conclude that the show promotes weak moral values, based largely on its appearance under the heading "Questionable Morals." Your other synopses are the same. Why are they there? Far from terse. Terse would be good. 154.5.44.35 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Reviewing my work, I did find typing errors. Corrected, in as much as I found them, also did some cleaning up. The wikipedia textbox is not the greatest composition environment. Hackwrench 01:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You could stand to review a lot more. You caught some of the typos, but there are still plenty of spelling and punctuation errors -- and honestly, most of the grammar demands a rewrite. Random selection:
By calling their combination Police office and Jail, a Jail they deempasize the police aspect of their work, and Berney Fife, expresses the notion that having prisoners looks good.
Three punctuation errors. Two spelling errors. One typical sentence.
I don't want to get into a flame-war with you. The portions you've added just stuck out as not being anywhere near up-to-par. I will not remove them again, since it's clear that you're going to just keep putting them back and I've (thankfully) got more pressing things to deal with than making sure that the Wikipedia entry for an old sitcom is tidy and informative.
That being said, it's only a matter of time (and not much of it, I'd wager) before someone else comes along and says "What the!? That clearly doesn't belong here." and wishes it into the cornfield again. I would respectfully suggest that you not keep stubbornly putting it back just as it was. Spend some time looking at other entries for tv shows. Note that they don't read like middle-school debate club notes. If other people find your contribution valuable, they'll put it back. I don't think you've got enough objectivity to really "get" why it keeps getting nixed. 154.5.44.35 Larry Mudd 04:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice Twilight Zone reference. Did you see the follow-up episode on the new Twilight Zone series?
The fact that you think that the section seems to imply a belief that guns should, of necessity, be portrayed in a positive light, says more about you than the section. It doesn't. However the show consistently portrays guns in a negative light.
Further telling your warped sense of reality is that you think that any remarkably nervous old woman wouldn't like weapons. A remarkably nervous old woman is just as likely to keep a gun for comfort as to dislike them. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not as clear as you think why Barney likes guns. He claims to have been in the United States Army where foot soldiers are more likely than ranking officers to have weapons prominent. Barney shows enthusiasm not just for his gun, but for the rifles in the station as well. As you say, the overriding quality that Barney Fife possesses is that he is an incompetent simpleton. Liking guns will not cast him in any less of a light. However, the reverse is not true.
The 'lady driver' episode shows an attitude towards women as bad drivers.
It isn't just a character that encourages another character to be more feminine, it is a main character that encourages a character that exists for the sole purpose to be influenced by the main character to "be more feminine". The "against her father's wishes" was to hint at the fact that the episode goes against the right of a parent to raise their child as the parent sees fit.
As far as I can see the 'standards' you talk about are made up inside your head. Feel free to point me to a standards document to prove me wrong. I have already pointed you to the Wikipedia NPOV document.
I am not alone in reverting back to my changes. GregAsche reverted my changes back, and others have made changes without touching mine. Therefore it isn't a "natural decision", but merely a not too uncommon one.
If you were in fact using a NPOV I would have no problem with your contributions. However you seem to have a misunderstanding of the word neutral. Everything you have written comes from a biased POV. You do understand the difference between neutral and biased, don't you? Clearly the show is dated and has attitudes that are out of touch with current view points on various issues. This is true of almost ANY television program that is 40 years old. Are you now going to go into the pages for I Love Lucy, The Dick Van Dyke Show, etc. and vandalize those pages in the same way you have with this one? You have made it clear you have a problem with this show. Fine. However, in addition to being poorly written your comments are not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. For an opinion piece or critical analysis of the program, yes. But not in something that is supposed to convey basic information. ee60640 11:17 AM 10/08/05
As I demonstrated in an earlier post, what I am doing is not vandalism. I understand the meaning of the word neutral. You however do not seem to understand Neutral as it modifies POV in the Wikipedia context. From the NPOV article:
The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.
My content is an unbiased account of a POV regarding the show. It is not meant to indicate that that view is correct. I have not deleted any POV. Other POVs need to be presented.
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
I don't see it as nonsense. Also from vandalism: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
Maybe this will help you - from the NPOV page. Try to read it and see if you can understand it.
"A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."
-- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder
Did that penetrate your skull or not? ee60640 11:57 AM 10/08/05
Yes, and I am writing about what people believe about the show, while you are writing about what is so about the show. Hackwrench 15:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
You have completely missed the point here. YOU are writing about what YOU personally believe about the show in a manner that presents these opinions as something that is "so" about the show. The idea of NPOV that you seem to not get is that it should be those things all reasonable people would agree is true about something without personal opinions about that thing being inserted. In addition, the opinions that you insist on inserting here are poorly written semi-coherent thoughts. If you were to label most of what you have written with qualifiers such as "some people believe" or some similar phrase instead of presenting it as fact, you would probably find that your contributions would run into less resistence from others. ee60640 14:47 CST 10/09/05
Hackwrench, having read your current revision of the page it appears you have made an attempt to make your contributions conform to what NPOV should be. However, you still have a number of spelling and grammatical problems present. In addition, I think if you were to read the following from the Wikipedia guidlines you would find that this material does not serve a purpose in this article.
The most readable articles contain a minimum of irrelevant (or only loosely relevant!) information. While writing an article you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who aren't interested won't be distracted by it.
You seem to want to present an analysis of this show in light of current societal attitudes on those topics. You have also indicated above that you intend to do so with other television shows. Ok, fine. But that would be more appropriate in a seperate article. In this context the ideas you are interested in are, at best, loosely relevant to an entry about this show. ee60640 10/09/05
This discussion has ended up being about personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. The "Morally Questionable" section is unsustainable if it can't be changed to report real-world discussions of these issues - X said Y about this aspect or episode. (And of course X would need to be someone reasonably notable.) There's a reason these types of article on Wikipedia are usually short (and factual) - because otherwise it ends up in this sort of situation, which isn't terribly productive, never mind encyclopedic. Rd232 20:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, particularly concerning the "Morally Questionable" section and the need for this sort of entry to be short and factual. This is what I have been advocating. Hopefully, Hackwrench will realize you are correct as well.
ee60640
21:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The more concise summary of the debate over the show's value is better (and is at least framed coherantly) but it still isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. The best way to maintain NPOV is to leave opinion out altogether. The only time "presenting all points of view" is desirable is when the topic is notably controversial, in that the controversy is a large part of the subject. (eg; abortion.) Otherwise, every article would degenerate into a back-and-forth over people's opinions about incidental things. This is a TV show, not a system of ethics. Inclusion of sections positing that it is "moral" or "immoral" are off-topic. We manage to keep articles about things which inspire strong pro and con opinions utterly neutral. The article on steak, for example, is strictly about steak, as it should be. It's not about the various ways that people feel about steak. Many, many people have strong feelings about whether or not it is "moral" to eat steak -- but an encyclopedia article about steak is not the place to get into "Steak is nature's perfect food and necessary for life" vs "Meat is murder!" These are opinions. They belong in their own articles. Same thing here. "Fans & Detractors" is more readable than "Morally Upstanding & Morally Questionable," but it is still out of place in an encyclopedia entry. 154.5.44.35 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is out of place for this type of entry. My reason for putting it in was to bring this revert war to an end. Hackwrench has not seen fit to revert this to the longer, off-topic and rambling entry previously here. Anyone who feels the need to make this entry more concise will find no resistance from me. Ee60640 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
A bit silly, but this is clearly not going to be solved one way or the other until we ask for an authoritative opinion, and a month of reverts is probably enough. Larry Mudd 06:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[ Link to RfM]
Hackwrench, I understand that the intent of your last edit was to remove all trace of POV from the article, but you have removed plenty of useful information which is based on verifiable fact and conforms to NPOV, apparently because you think it represents the show positively.
The notation that people travel to North Carolina looking for "Mayberry" is not an opinion -- it's a fact. Why have you removed it? Because it indicates that some people like the show a lot? (Let's ignore for the moment that it also suggests that some viewers of the show aren't very bright. Heh.)
Andy Griffith was a well-known actor before the show started. (That's why it was called The Andy Griffith Show, and not "Life with Sheriff Taylor.") He did receive an ovation when he made his appearance on The Danny Thomas Show. This is not a subjective opinion, it's a relation of something that provides some context for why the program was a hit with its audience from the very beginning.
You removed simple, accurate descriptors of characters. These are not opinions, they're character attributes.
Unless those character description are Canon and not Fanon then those desriptors are opinions. [Hackwrench]
Give me a break. "Floyd the barber is absent-minded" is canon. You know what "absent-minded" means, right? He misses out on details and is very forgetful? A quality of his character that is used repeatedly as a plot device and consistently as a gag? Can you name an episode in which Bass appears that doesn't revolve around the idea that he's a wildman and a hell-raiser? Some secret episode you're aware of where he sips tea and reads a book? This is the way the characters are consistently portrayed. It is not opinion, and certainly not something that fans made up. Seriously, what the hell? Larry Mudd 16:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't name an episode in which Bass appears. I did watch a number of episodes of Andy Griffith with which to come to understand the moral implications involved, and depended on summaries for more perspective. "hell-raising" has a wide variety of implications. Surely you don't mean that every episode Bass appears in a dead body is the result. If not, I don't see a clear claim can be made that he is a hell-raiser. Hackwrench 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
You also introduced spelling and grammar errors into the text with your edits. Larry Mudd 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hackwrench, on the RfM page, you wrote:
To help determine whether or not it was one viewpoint that the other side was trying to quash I removed all veiwpoint material. The non-impartial websites they cite are "fact" but regarding the websites I cited, "Satirical magazines and web reviews don't qualify" Why not? Satire is a valid form of criticism. Christianity Today is a mainstream Christian magazine. The review is more than just a review. It comes at the show from a distinct POV.
Let me help you out here. Taking Modern Drunkard at face value and using it to support the view that a significant amount of people find The Andy Griffith Show morally questionable isn't terribly convincing, because most people can tell that the authors of Modern Drunkard aren't making a serious argument. You don't think they really think that there are secret episodes involving Satanism, right? You don't think that they're seriously arguing that boozing is good for athletes, that being a wino is an attractive career option, or that drinking alone aids personal development, do you? Drollery is a signature of Modern Drunkard, and its humour depends on the incongruity between the article and the reader's expectations. If you have to rely on this sort of thing to support the idea that The Andy Griffith Show is a significant source of real controversy, your position isn't very strong. Larry Mudd 07:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
As for the web review, in what way is it "more than a review?" It's somewhat less than a review, in that it's just the personal opinion of one random person on the internet. There are mllions of personal opinions on the internet. Larry Mudd 07:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The Christianity Today article is slightly weightier, since there have been a couple of "Bible Study Guides" published that are based on The Andy Griffith Show. Personally, I don't think that this merits much comment in an article on the show itself. The Simpsons also has a couple of these types of publications attached to it, and the only attention that they receive in the article is single lines acknowledging their existence in a larger section on academic works that have been written about the show. This sort of thing doesn't warrant a special section to devoted to arguments about varying opinions about the morality of the show, because it's off-topic, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Larry Mudd 07:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The following comments by Larry Mudd and Ee60640 were first posted at the top of this talk page. I moved them because I understood most recent remarks should be posted at the end of the page. Ee60640 07:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's an idea that might resolve this conflict to everyone's satisfaction:
For most people, The Andy Griffith Show is simply light entertainment, not an ethical outlook. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to devote any discussion to its morality in a general article about the show. How about creating a seperate article that addresses the topic of the minority view that the show is a model of ethics, and including a link to it? Maybe a single line noting the existence of books like The Way Back to Mayberry and The Mayberry Bible Study Guide, linking to an article which would represent this POV and whatever criticisms there are of it? Larry Mudd 17:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Larry Mudd and thought I had made a suggestion along these lines earlier. However, my main reason for coming in to post this is to suggest that since this has been submitted to the Mediation Cabal we all take a cooling off period. Personally there are many other things here in Wikipedia that I am interested in working on and this has already become much more elaborate and involved than I ever thought possible. Ee60640 23:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
A good idea. It's fairly obvious that the argument is going nowhere, and is only becoming increasingly surreal. (And I'm sorry that I forgot that you had made that practical suggestion ages ago. There has been so much err, interesting discussion since then that it slipped my mind.) Larry Mudd 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone mentioned that The Andy Griffith Show was light entertainment. At the time, I thought the term "light entertainment" was ill defined, but having discovered the wikipedia article, I have found that that concept is useful to the discussion. The article there describes "light entertainment" as "bloated", "uninspiring" and "complete lack of intellectual stimuli". This appears to be my trigger regarding shows of this type, as well as their weak attempts to move from this state. Also according to the article such shows "seemed to have a vice like grip on peak time schedules, particularly on Saturday and Sunday evenings." The article further says "it provokes no awkward questions when the viewing is shared by different generations of the same family"
In the past, different generations (of Americans at least) were more alike than generations today. This may be one of the causes, in addition to the above, of the lack of controversy raised at the time by such shows.
Ideally, the characters of a show should each have their own individual pages, or at least the major ones. The Sheriff Andy Taylor page was an attempt at such a page for the character Andy Taylor of this show. {{User:CantStandYa|CantStandYa]] made it redirect here. What are people's opinions on the subject. Hackwrench 20:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I could go either way on this. The show page could serve as the page for the main character and I wouldn't have a problem with it. Ee60640 22:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
added comments at [ Mediation Cabal#Comments from an outsider-Steven McCrary]
Steven McCrary 16:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Major resturcturing of this article was long overdue. The article was almost entirely one long, long section, ironically called "Overview". I completely restructured this article to be more in line with the common Wikipedia structure used for other television programs. Most notably The Simpsons and M*A*S*H (TV series) were used as examples of shows that were very popular and well organized. I attempted to use logic in the categries and their order. This reorganization was definitely needed, but it meant a lot of the content had to be moved around but I did not remove any content (yet) (except for correcting the episode of The Danny Thomas Show as being the pilot. It was the basis for the a new show, possibly categoried as a spin-off, but it wasn't a pilot episode of TAGS).
I added some new content but I did not remove existing content because I figured this restructuring was such a major change that I figured to take one step at a time. Please note that I did not move everything. All content that was not moved (most of it) was left where it was but the section was renamed "Commentary". I did not want to change too much all at once. Much of that content is indeed commentary (not strictly factual) but some of it is still needs to be moved to more appropriate sections or deleted if duplicate information. Fife Club 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The list of Andy Griffith episodes was apparently started in October 2005. Many different people have worked hard on it, and it has always been the only episodes list linked to from The Andy Griffith Show.
As I was revising the structure of The Andy Griffith Show (see above) I noticed that the list of episodes was actually misnamed. It is, and has always been, located at List of Andy Griffith Show episodes. Please notice that the mistake is that the word "The" was missing from the title (The name of the show is "The Andy Griffith Show"). Noticing this I decided correct the problem by moving the article to include the word "The" in the title, and I later planned on correcting the link on the main show's article. However when I tried this I was surprised to discover that I couldn't do that because another article was already named List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes (with the "The).
Through dumb luck (or bad luck) I discovered that another user had started creating an list of Andy Griffith episode on their own, under their username where nobody else knew it existed. This article was started after the original and was basically hidden from others. Just this month the user that created the alternate episodes list moved their article to List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes, although the main show's article still doesn't point to it.
So there's the situation. We've got two lists of episodes. What to do? Pros and Cons while staying neutral: The original list is mistitled but has always been the only list linked to from the main article at The Andy Griffith Show. Because it was always public more different people have worked on it. The newer article is almost as old but it was "hidden" in a user area until just this month. I will admit that the newer article looks nicer in style, structure, colors, etc. but IMHO I think the descriptions are better in the older, public list, plus it's not really fair to just throw away everybody eles hard work. And to flip again, since the correct title of the article must include the word "The", it doesn't seem fair to throw away this other user's hard work either.
Now there's another dimension to this problem, other than the fact that there's two lists. One list (the only list that has ever been used by The Andy Griffith Show) is in production order. The new, unlinked list is in broadcast order. Until recently, the production order was almost univerally used instead of broadcast order. The main reason is because that is how the syndicator, Paramount Pictures, has them ordered. In just the past few years this has become an issue because the DVD's recently release have gone by the original broadcaster order, and cable reruns on TV Land have decided to use this original order too. (Once again, all local stations have used the Production order for decades). Complication level three: I have screen shots of most episodes ready to upload to the episode list. I plan on asking permission from Paramount first (yes, I know them enough to ask), but neither list's formatting is right for screen shots. I think the format used on The Simpsons works best.
Production # | Broadcast # | Airdate | Title | Screenshot |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | October 3, 1969 | The New Housekeeper |
![]() |
Sheriff Andy Taylor (played by Andy Griffith) and his young son Opie (played by Ron Howard) are in need of a new housekeeper. Andy's Aunt Bee (played by Frances Bavier) looks like the perfect canidate and moves in, but her presence causes friction with Opie. |
Production # | Broadcast # | Airdate | Title | Screenshot |
---|---|---|---|---|
220 | 220 | September 11, 1967 | Opie's First Love | Image not uploaded yet |
Mary Alice Carter accepts Opie's invitation to a party then decides to go with another boy at the last monent. |
Nothing major really, but removed duplicate information, and moved a lot of stuff around.
I consolidated the "Synopsis" and "Overview" sections, since they both basically said the same thing, with a few variations. I took the left over info and moved some to the introductory segment at the beginning of the article (seems to fit better there, than in an "overview" description of the show) and moved remaining info to Synopsis section. Also, gave a brief sentence describing the show in the introductory paragraph.
Moved some chunks of the "Commentary" to their own sections: "Reaction" -- a paragraph following the Synopsis and Origins, which goes into a little detail about the show's reception and fan reaction. Also there was about three paragraphs that described the color seasons, the exit of Don Knotts, and eventual leaving of Andy Griffith, that seemed to fit better towards the end of the "beef" of the article, so I put them together into a section I called "The later years." Moved the remaining commentary (basically in-depth details about the characters and plotline of the series) in between the two. Enjoy. Wavy G 05:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hear ye, hear ye. For those who may be interested, I created (at least one) TAGS related Userbox for your User Profile. Here's an example.
TAGS | This user is a fan of The Andy Griffith Show. |
Go here if you're interested.
If Andy worked for the Town of Mayberry, why is he a Sheriff? A sheriff's office belongs to the county, not to the city or town. Isn't this a contradiction? Or is there something different about North Carolina? As far as I know, the sheriff's office is an entity of the county in all states. Any input will be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.9.132.191 ( talk • contribs) 20:06, June 8, 2006 (UTC)
is an episode where the script seems self-contradictory about whether various cities are in other counties.
list of The Andy Griffith Show episodes January 18, 1965 The Rehabilitation of Otis
Otis rides into Mayberry on a cow under the impression it is a horse. Barney takes on the task of curing Otis' moonshine habit.
On what map is it West Los Angeles? A century or so old? How about Hollywood District {Despite this page that claims Portland, I'm referring to neither Oregon nor Maine.}?
I am very familiar w/ a lot in Hollywood, near Hollywood Park Cemetery; there may be another in Culver{?}. { Hollywood Forever Cemetery, Hollywood Memorial Park Cemetery, Hollywood Forever Memorial Park Cemetery.}
The TV show itself was filmed entirely in Hollywood, at Desilu Productions on the former RKO Pictures lot (now merged with the Paramount Pictures lot in West Los Angeles)."
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is the short list of the regular cast put into a separate article, while the long list of guest stars is kept here? It should be the other way round. Any objections to doing this? Clarityfiend 08:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know exactly where this needs to go, so please excuse me if I add it in the wrong place. But shouldn't the list of "Recurring Characters" include Ernest T. Bass and the Darlings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.33.83 ( talk) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:The Andy Griffith Show is being proposed for deletion. You may comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 7#Category:The Andy Griffith Show -- rogerd 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Andy Griffith Show1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the debate about trivia and pop culture sections is still highly debated, I decided to remove the cultural references section from this article. As interesting as the facts may be, they don't add anything more to the article and since they are unsourced, it makes more sense to get rid of the section until the statements can be properly sourced. By that time, I hope the trivia debate will be resolved. Leaving it in as it was only leaves the article tagged for no references and having a trivia section, two tags that no article needs. Pinkadelica ( talk) 10:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this of any real importance in an article about TAGS? Should this sort of info be carried over into every article about a television show? Shouldn't these accomplishments be noted on individual pages for each person rather than in a section of TAGS? Just a thought. TimmyTruck ( talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
User:TimmyTruck and I disagree on his 6:26, November 26 addition to the section, specifically the layout of the town, so I would like to get other editors' opinions. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
These apparently come from IMDb. Does anybody know how accurate they are? Clarityfiend ( talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the statements in this section are unnecessary. Almost no shows that aired prior to 1968 had any mention of Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, Hispanics, Homosexuals, divorced people, children out of wedlock, or anything but a generic treatment of religion. The fact that this show also didn't mention these things is completely unremarkable. -- rogerd ( talk) 19:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Kinda related to the above discussion. I have no issue with the fact that women are not portrayed in a more modern liberated light, but the Gender Politics section is blatantly not NPOV. Very insulting to men, draws conclusions, and the writer has a definite feministic axe to grind. It needs to be cleaned up a bit, but unfortunately I haven't seen all the episodes so I don't want to make any changes. -- Doctorcherokee ( talk) 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
-->This whole discussion about TAGS and culture (race, gender, etc) teeters on the line of original research as well as NPOV. If it's notable, then cite it's notability. Don't cite random nuggets of info and facts from the show and draw conclusions about their relevance to contemporary culture. That's what blog are for, not wikipedia. Bwilder1998 ( talk) 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I was fine with a section on minorities, but I think the article's detailed description of every conceivable aspect of the show, the characters, Mayberry, and the architecture is getting out of control. Someone commented above that "WP wants detailed articles". That may be true, but WP wants quality articles that say a lot in a few words more than WP wants endless detail. If we stay on the current trajectory, soon we'll have sections on "Squad car models", "Civic organizations in Mayberry", "Miss Crump's lesson plans", "Opie's fashion sense", and "Floor plans of the jail cells". I'm not entirely opposed to additions to the article, but can we please start tightening up, condensing, and integrating before we add any more? Ward3001 ( talk) 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's about time for a vote, so here goes:
Please do not use this article to make claims about Mayberry or other fictional sites on the show being based on actual locations. No evidence exists in the show or in real life to support such claims. They are speculation and do not belong in this article. TimmyTruck ( talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments are solicited. The second section in particular is a little underdeveloped.
thumb|right|Rockne Tarkington. Minorities rarely appeared on the show, and, when they did, were generally treated briefly and in a stereotypical manner somewhat atypical of 1960s television. Although the program was produced during the civil rights era, African Americans were, with one exception, seen only in the background as part of the crowd. Only Rockne Tarkington had a speaking role, as Opie's football coach in a seventh season episode. Other minorities were equally scarce. A Japanese actor appeared as a martial arts instructor in one episode and two Chinese men join Aunt Bee in opening her "Canton Palace" restaurant.
Women play a subordinate role in Mayberry, unlike contemporary programs such as The Donna Reed Show. For example, when Ellie Walker and Aunt Bee run for the town council, they are not taken seriously.
Teenagers are for the most part strangely absent from the show. None are seen on the streets of Mayberry or get in trouble with the law. Nor are there any teen "hang outs" in town, like malt shops and hamburger joints. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I forgot about the religion section. Here's my take on it:
Religion was more than a minor thread in the show – a situation not typical of other sitcoms during the period. In Leave It to Beaver for example, anything remotely related to religion is rarely mentioned. Not so The Andy Griffith Show. The Taylors attend All Souls Church regularly; Aunt Bee sings in the choir, Opie yawns in the front pew, and Andy serves on the church's finance committee.
Some Christian viewers feel the show has a moral backbone virtually unrivaled by other television sitcoms and have singled out episodes for use as instructional and inspirational tools for their congregations. [1] Others question the use of the show for Christian instruction. [2]
Since the title "Portrayal of religion, minorities, women and children" seems a little unwieldy, I would prefer to put this in its own section.
I leave it to somebody else to figure out how to integrate Opie's "Maw". I'll wait a few days for further comments before making these changes in the article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please add info to this section. Thanks! TimmyTruck ( talk) 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I just read the sections entitled "XXXXX in Mayberry." That is horribly POV. Someone needs to get off their soapbox. All of those sections are almost entirely someone's opinion. Clinevol98 ( talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Update for "Unseen characters".
Awaiting feedback before adding to article.
The Andy Griffith Show is peopled with countless unseen characters who add color and depth to the show. Three are notable:
EatNoPig ( talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)