Talk:Breaking Bad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Did Saul, Gus and Mike became regulars in season 3 or 4?

Currently this page and the season 3 page says Odenkirk, Esposito and Banks all became regulars in season 3, however I'm almost certain this didn't happen until season 4 and they were still credited as guest stars during season 3. I don't actually have the DVDs on hand to check myself though, so I'm a little hesitant to edit the articles. But the IMDb episode cast lists seem to support me as they aren't credited in any of the episodes they don't appear in, whereas series regulars are always credited whether they actually appear or not. See the "Fly" episode page for example. I know IMDb isn't considered a reliable source though, so does anyone else know for sure? --DocNox (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:47 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Giancarlo Esposito is credited as a main cast member in the first episode of season 3, while Odenkirk and Banks are main cast in the second episode onward. In the case of "Fly", only the existing season 1 and 2 main cast is credited (Bryan Cranston to RJ Mitte). So Espo, Odenkirk and Banks are credited as main cast only when they appear. --URunICon (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Spanish-language remake

The "Spanish-language remake" section omits to mention that the series will be set in Colombia. See THR ref already in article. I think that's a fairly important fact. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

do we KNOW that Walter is dead?

the article says int he synopsis of season 5 that Walter "slowly succumbs to his injury as the police search the compound", and I saw the same thing, except I'm not aware that there was actual confirmation that he was dead. Seems to me they could write a sequel where the ambulance arrives, etc. No? Yes? 68.174.97.122 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, he absolutely died. If you think he survived, you missed the entire point of the final scene. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

... according to your original research because you got the point? what was the point? please add that to the article. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Walter is dead. Vince Gilligan has confirmed it.[1]. Walter surviving in an ambulance is a good idea for fan fiction, but in terms of the actual series, Walter died in the compound. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow... since you both dodged my question, I guess in other words, "No, there is no confirmation in the show that he died, we only have to assume it or label the possiblity as 'fan fiction' as if that somehow made it impossible for the studio to write such a sequel." 68.174.97.122 (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The show's creator Vince Gilligan himself confirms it, although we obviously don't see a scene at the coroner's lab. StarScream gave you the reference directly above. Please read carefully before going off the handle. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does say "succumbs to his injury". Not "dies". You could plausibly write a fanfic about how he survives. But everyone involved in the show said Walt is dead. 202.81.242.216 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception

Does the section need a rewrite? I sped-read it and couldn't find one negative comment. I'm not looking for negativity but it seems pretty biased to me - like a fan club section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.61.161 (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If there were negative comments it wasn't easy to find them at a glance. Ease of use is what an encyclopedia should provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.61.161 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the show has received many outright negative reviews. You can suggest reviews here to be added to the article if you like. --SubSeven (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

regardless, we should be steering away from fawning language like "universal acclaim" (used for seasons 4 and 5). That's literally impossible; it's hyperbole. Widely acclaimed is supported, widespread critical claim works fine. But universal? Find me a source that says no critic anywhere had any problems with the show.76.238.186.96 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you? Seeing as you're the only one who finds this statement inaccurate when every critical review throughout the series has received a mighty amount of praise worldwide. Rusted AutoParts 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree- In the top description of the show, someone had written that it IS one of the best shows of all time... This is extremely biased and unfounded, so I edited it to say that it is considered as one of the best shows of all time by some critics. To say it IS considered as one of the best shows of all time means EVERYONE thinks it is, like common knowledge, and that's extremely rude and biased. Mewpudding101 (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked the Sopranos article and found the following passage in the opening segment: "The Sopranos has been regarded by many as the greatest television series of all time." It has three sources attached. I can give you numerous sources for that claim being made in favor of Breaking Bad, all of them coming from reliable sources:

Associated Press: "This drama series retired undefeated as TV's best ever."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2013-brought-surprises-good-and-bad-viewers

Forbes Magazine: "Breaking Bad broke away from the pack and staked its claim to the title of television’s Best Show Ever."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenstjohn/2013/09/16/why-breaking-bad-is-the-best-show-ever-and-why-that-matters/

National Public Radio: "Vince Gilligan's AMC drama [...] arguably is the best TV series ever made."
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/23/255740346/2013s-best-dvd-box-sets-blasts-from-the-past-and-breaking-bad

Business Insider: "Breaking Bad Is The Greatest Show Ever Made."
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-breaking-bad-is-the-greatest-show-ever-made-2013-9

Yahoo: "This is the best show ever made."
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/2013-10-best-worst-tv-shows-good-breaking-213235107.html

The Wire: "That show, the best there ever was, is Breaking Bad."
http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2012/07/case-breaking-bad-televisions-best-show/54565/

The New Zealand Herald: "If we're taking a debate about the greatest TV show there ever is or will be seriously, there's only one contender: it has to be Breaking Bad."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11174575

Metro: "Breaking Bad is officially the greatest TV show of all time."
http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/05/breaking-bad-is-officially-the-greatest-tv-show-of-all-time-3951769/

The Toronto Sun: "On the eve of its finale, can we call Breaking Bad the greatest series television has ever produced?" [...] But if you define "great" as something that's never been done before, then I have to agree."
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/is-breaking-bad-the-best-show-ever

So I've changed the respective segment of this article to be at least on par with the one from the Sopranos article. Fischer47392 (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Combo Ortega

>>> Q - Not sure how to add this question to talk, so I'll do it here.

>>> Is the character who played the dealer killed, who was working with Jesse, credited? I don't think so. The characters name was Christian "Combo" Ortega and he was played by Rodney Rush. 108.49.75.241 (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Combo was a minor character, so I don't think it's necessary to mention him on an article about the entire series. He (Rodney Rush) is properly listed at List of Breaking Bad characters#Combo Ortega. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: The soundtrack list.

189.251.15.167 posted this comment on 27 October 2013 (view all feedback).

The soundtrack list.

There have actually been several readers who have commented about including some kind of information about the music used in the show. Any thoughts?

LHM 04:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions. While the season 1 and 2 articles have a section for music (largely the same for each season), I think there should be a section here for the entire series - at least discussing Dave Porter's involvement in the show. Perhaps an article could even be written for the Breaking Bad Soundtrack (allmusic.com link) which is mentioned in the first 2 season articles. I don't think we want a full-blown list like this, but certainly something should be added. Hoof Hearted (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary Western/Jane Margolis

The sources that are cited quote Gilligan as using the term "contemporary Western". Neo-Western might sound better, but we need to stick with how the show creator calls it. As for Jane, she is not the landlord - her father is; furthermore, "doomed" is anything but fit for a short character description. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

I wanted to add the relationship between Walter Jr. and Walter White in the "Devotion to Family" subsection. Originally, throughout the series, Walter Jr. seems to have a close relationship with his dad. However, when he finds out about Walter's alter-ego, he becomes distant. This is evident in season 5 as Walter and Skyler wrestle for a knife. Walter Jr. calls the cops on Walter, who he now sees as a maniac.

Spar369 (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You use the phrase "seems to", which is clearly your PoV, and you haven't cited any sources.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2014

I noticed bad info on Walter White's character. 68.64.52.170 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --ElHef (Meep?) 21:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

Please add:

In a Season One episode, Walt is shown giving a class to his students on enantiomers, molecules which come in left- and right-handed versions, often with different properties. This is highly relevant to methamphetamine, which has two enantiomers, levomethamphetamine (left-handed) and dextromethamphetamine (right-handed). Dextromethamphetamine is the more potent, although both are equally neurotoxic. However, in the episode the connection is not made, and it was presumably intended as an easter egg for chemists watching the show.

between the end of the "Scientific accuracy" sub-section and the beginning of the "Cast and characters" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.193.21 (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source that confirms this and post it here. Chunk5Darth (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source is http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.com/types-of-addiction/stimulants-types-of-addiction/types-of-methamphetamine/ This article refers to the two types as isomers rather than enatiomers. As the Wikipedia page on isomers explains, enantiomers is the more exact term, but "isomers" may be more acceptable as this is the word used in the source.

There is some disagreement in the sources as to whether levomethamphetamine is simply less potent than dextromethamphetamine, or whether it entirely lacks dopamine-stimulating properties. The above cited article suggests the latter, but elsewhere, e.g. http://www.neurosoup.com/methamphetamine/ (and in the Wikipedia article on methamphetamine) it is stated that levomethamphetamine is 2-4 times less potent than dextromethamphetamine. These contradictions may be resolvable: in http://www.livestrong.com/article/245534-side-effects-of-levomethamphetamine/, (quoting primary sources) it says that levomethamphetamine appears to have no psychoactive effect on the general population but can cause changes in mood and behavior in methamphetamine abusers similar to dextromethamphetamine, although the effects dissipate more quickly.

I have also noticed that levomethamphetamine has its own Wikipedia page.

Taking all this into account I would suggest amending the addition, to read as follows:

In a Season One episode, Walt is shown giving a class to his students on isomers, specifically, on molecules which come in left- and right-handed versions, often with different properties. This is highly relevant to methamphetamine, which has two mirror-image isomers, dextromethamphetamine (right-handed) and levomethamphetamine (left-handed). Dextromethamphetamine is the potent form in terms of dopamine-stimulation, although both forms are neurotoxic. However, in the episode the connection is not made: presumably it was intended as an easter egg for chemists watching the show.

Same position, i.e. at the end of the "Scientific accuracy" sub-section, before the beginning of the "Cast and characters" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.193.21 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not going to comment on merit since I don't edit these types of articles, but I'd forego the last two sentences if added. Toxicity and potency is more suited for the methamphetamine article. It would also require WP:MEDRS instead of WP:RS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite the specific episode name please? Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Episode 2, Series 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.193.21 (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Chunk5Darth (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

References

OR concerns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I removed this source because it appears to violate WP:OR where it says "cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The source does not mention the subject of this article. Ghostwheel ʘ 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The material being presented is the scientific accuracy of the chemistry aspect of the article, and the source directly pertains to it. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the topic of the article is the show Breaking Bad, and sources need to directly mention the topic. Ghostwheel ʘ 13:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the OR and have taken the issue to the NOR Noticeboard for discussion. Ghostwheel ʘ 13:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is especially concerning since the cited content is controversial and does not meet WP:MEDRS per this discussion. No way this should be in the article. Ghostwheel ʘ 13:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If your concern is MEDRS, then solve the issue on that noticeboard. This is not OR, as I explained. Don't call it OR and don't WP:CANVASS it on irrelevant discussion boards. Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Both OR and MEDRS are of concern; and if you think I'm canvassing, then take it up the chain, otherwise your comment is a worthless personal attack. Ghostwheel ʘ 13:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not OR, as I explained twice. Stop changing the info while the discussion is still in progress. I won't sweat over the Livestrong claim, but I won't let you remove the rest after it was proposed by the IP on the talk page and went through the proper process. Seriously. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You "won't let" me? Might want to review WP:OWN. And you'll have to pardon me if I doubt your explanations, consensus in both noticeboard discussions appear to be against your views, therefore it appears there's a gap in your understanding. I suggest you stop and let the noticeboard processes run their course. Ghostwheel ʘ 14:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Chunk5Darth, despite your opinion that it is not OR, Wikipedia operates on a consensus model and you have to respect consensus here. Several editors have chimed in that this material violates WP:OR. To reinsert it, you will need to find a secondary source that discusses it in relation to Breaking Bad. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What opinion? The first sentence of the NOR article clearly states: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Since reliable, published sources have been supplied, this is not OR. Seems simple, doesn't it? Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. There is no source stating how that material relates to Breaking Bad. That's why it's OR. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the source is supplemented for the statement, next to which the footnote is present. That's why it's not OR. Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: the material is presented in the episode, and the sources support the material. We are allowed to do this. Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The source does not discuss Breaking Bad, the subject of this article. Use of the source in this article is original research, specifically synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

From WP:These are not original research: "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia." Chunk5Darth (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That essay (policy > guideline > essay) starts with a header that states, "While this essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement the Wikipedia:No original research page, to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." Please note that WP:SYN, which I quoted, is part of "the Wikipedia:No original research page".

The very paragraph you are quoting continues, "Organizing published facts and opinions which are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic..." (emphasis added).

The WP:CONSENSUS, as demonstrated on this talk page and at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Breaking_Bad, is that this IS original research. WP:STICK comes to mind. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Some kind of stick comes to mind alright... Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This helps move the conversation about the editorial content of the article forward how? It's OR, period, stop your disruptive comments here. Ghostwheel ʘ 11:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. Stop your personal attacks this instant, period. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Chunk5Darth, you've implied at least twice that you intend to take a wikibreak or otherwise disengage from this and other disputes, and I strongly recommend that you do so. If you continue to fight and refuse to accept consensus, you may find yourself blocked and thus unable to contribute in any meaningful way. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model, meaning even if you vehemently disagree with a strong consensus, you can't simply cast it aside and continue doing what you want anyway. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

the page contains an error: seasons 5 and 6 have been conflated, and there is no head for season 6. (the page has changed since i visited it about a week ago.) Macevoy (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: That portion of the article seems to have been that way for much more than a week. The article talks of a fifth season which has two parts and spans two years. It talks of a multipart fifth season in reception as well. If you think this is an error, please find some reliable sources which clearly discuss a sixth season. You should probably use those here on the talk page to try to reach a consensus with the other editors before actually making any change. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

Please add the following text to the article;

On 30th May 2014, the ITV website (television site based in the UK) reported that Bryan Cranston was open to a further Breaking Bad installment. Following an interview on CNN where he was asked if Walter White was dead, Cranston said, "I don't know."

"You never saw bags zip up or anything, or anybody say... you know."

And asked if there could be another installment of the hit show, he said: "Never say never."

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-05-30/bryan-cranston-never-say-never-to-more-breaking-bad/ Furmedge (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I'm sorry. The first statement isn't supported by the source and everything after the first quote is word for word and not encyclopedic. The source basically says that Cranston suggested Breaking Bad may return some day. I don't think that vague of a claim has a place in an encyclopedia, but if you want to find a place in the article you think it would fit, you are welcome to open a new edit request. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Present tense in lead

Yes, the series ended/was cancelled/whatever. However, Wikipedia refers to TV shows in the present tense ("Breaking Bad is..." not "Breaking Bad was...") as the show still exists. Please see WP:TVLEAD. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Metástasis

Would it be appropriate to move Metástasis to its own page now because the show is in full swing and can contain more information separately from the Breaking Bad page. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would assume so. We have different articles for the U.S. and U.K. versions of The Office, the dozen or so versions of The Amazing Race, etc. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 02:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Reservoir Dogs has characters nicknamed White and Pink. Flight dispatcher Walter White is responsible for the 1986 Cerritos mid-air collision. Neither is mentioned in the article while even a Russian wiki (not Wikipedia) noticed it. Shame. The Other Saluton (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but without references it is original research. Willondon (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And more importantly, WP:TRIVIA. It's mostly unnotable, two characters in Reservoir Dogs known as Mr. White and Mr. Pink (not Pinkman) barely seems notable (in relation to Breaking Bad), and the plane crash info is interesting, but mainly reads like trivia. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And I didn't find any mention of Walter White, flight dispatcher in the article on the 1986 Cerritos mid-air collision, or the Mayday (TV show) article that was used as a reference. Not that Wikipedia is a valid source for verifying Wikipedia anyway. Willondon (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's mentioned here, in a quote that makes perfect sense:

"Someone had said that the finale reminded them of the ending of Reservoir Dogs, with Mr. Pink getting away and Mr. White taking the fall. Hmm … Could it be that creator Vince Gilligan had that in mind all along? PINKman and Walter WHITE?"

But I doubt this can pass as a RS. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Walking Dead (TV series)

Deliberate homages paid to The Walking Dead (TV series) has a Prequel have either been omitted or deleted, in particular the Sky Blue and Red Charger crossovers between the two series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.129.63 (talk) 02:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected

• I've fully protected the article; work it out here on the talk page or take it to WP:RS/N or WP:3O - follow WP:DR instead of edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 23:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we've been relegated to the sandbox. Mine has recently been sifted for foreign articles. Perhaps we can hack this section into shape there. I started it out with the section as it now stands.

Right now, it seems the main issue is how to move authors' details to the reference, while summarizing the content for an encyclopedia article. Willondon (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no issue with the in-text attributions, as demonstrated in the thread above this one. Chunk5Darth (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Abductive (reasoning) 19:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Greatest Series of All Time??

This phrase seems a bit polarising; Breaking Bad is widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time. It's a good TV series but I think if you asked the question of what's the greatest TV series of all time you'd get varying answers based on country, age etc. Surely this breaks the partiality rules? (86.3.238.222 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC))

The phrase "...is widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time" is backed up by several references from critics. It's not claiming that it is the greatest television series of all time, but is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"is backed up by several references from critics" : sorry but i don't see any refernce in this paragraphe (0 references actually). So add them or delete thisfan-statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.33.67 (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@213.39.33.67: The sentence in question appears in the lead. Per WP:CITELEAD,"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." The first sentence of Breaking Bad#Critical reception is essentially the same as the one in the lead and it is supported by multiple reliable sources (See reference no. 85); therefore, the sentence in the lead is indirectly, but still properly, supported by the same multiple sources used for the "Critical reception" sentence. I have suggested moving one or more of the "reference no. 85" sources to the lead, but that needs to be determined by consensus. Adding such a citation might improve text-source integrity, but it also could also lead to needless repetition. "WP:CITELEAD" also says "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." This balance is what needs to be carefully considered. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely then it would be better to phrase it as "many critics regard Breaking Bad as the greatest television series as all time" or "Breaking Bad is widely regarded by critics as the greatest television series of all time". You can't attribute a subjective claim this to a self-selecting bias of critics. (86.3.238.222 (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC))

I agree with the OP that the phrasing should changed as suggested, so there is clear attribution to claim "widely regarded as one of the best series ever".--Cojovo (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not just by critics, the information is also supported by polls and such. The original phrasing is perfectly fine. Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, the original wording seems fine to me, but saying that it's sort of WP:OR or sort of WP:Syn as currently written is not totally off the mark. WP:CITELEAD says the following:

Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

Since a few editors are challenging the "widely regarded as one of the greatest" claim and since on Wikipedia anything that may be challenged is considered to be "controversial", it does seem appropriate to discuss this. Just for reference, I googled "Breaking Bad Greatest TV Show of all time" and found the following:

• New Zealand Herald - "For and against: Is Breaking Bad the best TV show of all time?"
• The Hollywood Reporter -"The 'Breaking Bad' Legacy: Easily Among the All-Time Great Television Dramas"
• Variety - "'Breaking Bad’ Is Not the Greatest Show Ever … and That's OK"

There were more as well such as blogs, etc. but of the ones I saw the above seem to have, at least at first glance, a better chance of satisfying WP:RS. I think that Drovethrughosts makes a good point about the difference between claiming "it is the greatest or all time" and saying it is "widely regarded as one the greatest of all time" because in my opinion the later does imply that not everyone agrees (as shown by the Variety and NZ Herald cites above), but also recognizes that a (significant) amount of people, including critics, do (as shown by the "Hollywood Reporter" and other sources cited in reference No. 110. Maybe one possible solution would be to move one of the sources already used in the article or add a new source (perhaps one of those I have given above) per text-source integrity to the lead in order to more directly support this sentence. For example, both The Sopranos and The Wire make similar statements in their respective leads, but those claims are immediately supported by multiple sources. Anyway, just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

...which is why the current wording is "widely regarded" and not "universally regarded". This still works fine as is. Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't, do people in China or most of Asia think it's the best series of all time, what about people in the middle east or orthodox russians. The criterion for being widely regarded as the best series of all time is far to big a debate for Wikipedia to involve itself in, it's also a very current phrasing - something will replace it in it's supposed echelon of greatness and some point so the correct wording should be "western critics reviewing it at the time of it's popularity widely regarded Breaking Bad among the greatest TV series of all time.". I've resisted changing it so far but I'm still firmly off the belief Wikipedia should not use charged statements like "widely regarded as the best series of all time" in reference to any television program. (86.3.238.222 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC))

It doesn't say that, though ("widely regarded as the best series of all time"). It says "widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time". Not "the best", but "one of the greatest". It's important when criticizing the text to get it right; especially text that you've put in quotes. Willondon (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Willondon. There is a distinction between "considered one of the greatest" and "considered the greatest". The phrasing as currently written suffices.--Cojovo (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Willondon is right. For what it's worth 86.3.238.222, similar phrasing is used in other articles such as The Wire, The Sopranos, The Simpsons, etc. Some of these cite the sentence in the lead while others do not. "The Simpsons" is a FA article so if the wording was problematic (in Wikipedia's eyes) it would have been removed a long time ago.

Regarding it being a "subjective claim", WP:WEASEL says the following:

However, the examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view.

The sentence in question is more than sufficiently supported by citations in the article body (See reference #110) and accurately represents the opinions of those sources; therefore, it is not WP:OR, WP:SYN or WP:POV. I just suggested moving one of the existing citations to the lead to cite that sentence as a possible compromise to allay any concerns about neutral point of view, but I am not at all in favor of removing or rewriting the text. It may indeed be true that lots of people around the world do not regard the series as one of the greatest of all time, but in this case what can be "verified" outweighs what may be "true". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC+9)

Appears I stumbled into a dispute on this, it was clearly not cited to me and should be removed IMHO. If that's not consensus though, revert me. I would humbly submit "of all time" is pure editorial and stretching it. --WGFinley (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@WGFinley:The statement is not cited in the lead, but is cited by multiple sources in the "Critical reception" section. The cited sources are listed all listed in reference no. 85. Since the statement is properly cited elsewhere in the article, it does not need to be cited in the lead. Adding a citation to it may be a good idea, but that is something that needs to be determined by consensus per WP:CITELEAD. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

May I please ask that an uninvolved admin closes this silliness? The consensus is loud and clear - "widely regarded as the best series" is here to stay. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chunk5Darth: Not sure what an admin can do. Can admins close regular informal talk page discussions? WP:CLOSE#Which discussions need to be closed doesn't seem to apply here. Regardless, the statement is well supported by multiple references, though these do not appear until much later in the article, so re-adding is in accordance with policy. The problem seems to be that most of the people removing the sentence do not read any further than the lead. Annoying perhaps, but not necessary something done to be disruptive or in bad faith. So, it might be a good idea to add the sources in reference No.85 to the lead as well just so people do not have to scroll through the article to find them. Not something that has to be done, of course, but it might help. Another idea might be to add an invisible comment either right before or right after that sentence informing editors that the statement is properly supported by reliable sources cited later in the article. The statement does not need to be cited in the lead per "WP:CITELEAD". Editors can even be asked to refer to this talk page thread before making an edit. Again this is just another suggestion, but it might help eliminate anything other than obvious vandalism. For example,

<!-- NOTE: The statement "Breaking Bad is widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time" is properly supported by multiple reliable sources in "Critical reception". Per "WP:CITELEAD", statements in the lead do not need to cited if they repeat properly cited information appearing later in the article; Moreover, an editorial consensus needs to be reached before adding any citations to the lead. Please refer to "Greatest Series of All Time?? on Talk:Breaking Bad for a more detailed explanation.-->

For what it's worth, the same things could also be done for the Guinness Book sentence as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't need an uninvolved admin, like I said revert me (which someone did). It's not like admin edits carry more weight than any others. Relax, it's a TV show (and I should know better than to argue about fancruft). --WGFinley (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The trouble here is that you still don't get it... it's not fancruft, it's reliably sourced and notable information. This is what this discussion boils down to. Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add invisible comment to editing page

I've already asked this above, but perhaps it got buried among the other stuff. What about adding some kind of invisible comment to guide editors and ask them to refer to this talk page before editing that sentence in the lead. Maybe something like the following:

<!-- NOTE: The statement "Breaking Bad is widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time" is properly supported by multiple reliable sources in "Critical reception". Per "WP:CITELEAD", statements in the lead do not need to be cited if they repeat properly cited information appearing later in the article; Moreover, an editorial consensus needs to be reached before adding any citations to the lead. Please refer to "Greatest Series of All Time??" on Talk:Breaking Bad for a more detailed explanation.-->

The wording is just a suggestion, it can be shortened or changed as needed and as agreed upon. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: can we duplicate the comment to the "Critical Reception" section as well? Right now, MarnetteD and Winkelvi are changing the sentence over there, and the last thing I need (or anyone else, really) right now is an edit war. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Then don't edit war over it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chunk5Darth: That's not for me to say. Adding a note is something that should be determined by consensus. My suggestion is for all parties to leave the wording as is per WP:STATUSQUO and then discuss. I'm not sure how far we should go back but the last time I edited the page on November 7, the word used was "dramas". It was changed to "shows" with this edit by Joe2601. In addition, this November 18, 2013 version also uses "dramas" so it appears that the "dramas" version has been stable for some time. Wouldn't it be acceptable to leave it as the "dramas" version while all this is being discussed? It can easily be changed to "shows" or whatever after a consensus has been established. If a prior consensus for using "shows" in "Critical reception" has already been established, then it can be changed after it that consensus has been reaffirmed, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, what you just did is called edit warring. Marchjuly, the consensus was the statement "considered one of the best shows/TV series of all time", without challenging it or watering it down. That was the purpose of the consensus. It's not OK to break that consensus just because it's a different section. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chunk5Darth: I am not saying it's OK to break a consensus. All I am saying is that the "dramas" wording was added quite some time ago (apparently back in 2011) and seems to have been unchanged for the most part since that time. I'm not sure if that was before or after the consensus you are referencing. If it was before, then the wording was left as is despite the consensus. If it was after, then the change probably should have been challenged back then. The edit made by Joe2601 was bold, but the edit sum just said "adding content" which is not totally accurate. It was reverted once, re-added and then reverted again. At that point it probably would've been best for somebody to bring it to the talk page to discuss. Per WP:CCC, a consensus is not permanent and may change over time. So, all I was suggesting is to return to the version that existed before Joe2601's edit and then discuss what to do. Instead of just reverting back and forth, saying the edit is "against consensus" or " I concur with so and so", it would've been most helpful to everyone trying to follow along if a link to the concerned consensus or a relevant talk page discussion was provided so that people knew where to look or where to go and discuss. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Dramas" vs. "shows"

Here's a thought, Chunk5Darth, MarnetteD, and Calidum: Rather than edit war any further, let's break down the references in the reference section (that was) titled "...greatest television dramas of all time" (until POV edit warriors decided to be pointy and change it to match their POV). In other words, let's see if the references already present really support "greatest show" or not:

There are 8 references listed in this grouping, four of them don’t say it’s definitively TV’s greatest show, one of the eight is a repeat/mirror of another (so it cancels itself out as a "vote" for 'show'). That leaves four out of seven references that don’t say it’s definitively TV’s greatest show. The "don'ts" are as follows:

• "This drama series retired undefeated as TV's best ever. [2]
• The best — and biggest, and most recent — of the bunch is Breaking Bad: The Complete Series. Vince Gilligan's AMC drama, starring Bryan Cranston as a high school teacher turned criminal mastermind, arguably is the best TV series ever made" [3]
• "Breaking Bad," which comes to a conclusion tonight, is already considered one of the best television shows ever made." [http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-breaking-bad-is-the-greatest-show-ever-made-2013-9#ixzz3JHhD0MmX'
• "Breaking Bad" (returns Sunday, July 15 at 10 p.m. ET on AMC) is one of the great shows of television's Golden Age", [4]

So what are we to do now? Frantically try to find references that match our personal wording bias? No, certainly not. What should happen is the wording should change to "best television drama series" and let it go at that. Besides, "greatest show" sounds childish and immature - more like a fan magazine - and is really not encyclopedic in tone. "Best television drama series" is much more "mature" and encyclopedic in tone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the currently agreed upon version of the lead says Breaking Bad is widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time. while the "Critical reception" section says (or at least said until today) Breaking Bad has received widespread critical acclaim and has been praised by many critics as one of the greatest television dramas of all time. I think we need to consider three words: "dramas", "shows", and "series".

1. "dramas": This seems to have been the word used without much controversy for quite some time. It also is consistent with the wording used in note for reference No. 86 which says, "Sources that refer to Breaking Bad being praised as one of the greatest television dramas of all time include". This note, however, does not seem to reflect what's said in the titles of 4 out of the 8 cited sources and was added without discussion with this edit on May 1, 2014. So, on one hand, "dramas" appears to have been stable in the article for some time (it looks like it was added in October 2011 with this edit ), but, on the other hand, it does not seem to be a little more restrictive in meaning than the word "series" used in the lead.
2. "shows": This seems closer in meaning to the word "series" used in the lead, but does not match the wording used in the note given reference No. 86.
3. "series": This is the word used in the lead, so if it's acceptable for the lead, then it should also be acceptable for "Critical reception" as well, right? Not sure why we can't use in both places and just changed the note from "dramas" to "series". - Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wink. The first item you linked two is ambivalent --it could mean either drama or show. The other three all say one of the best/greatest shows, which is the wording you're arguing against. -- Calidum 02:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The majority opinion in the references given do not support "show", yet, that is the POV you and Chunk5 are promoting and pushing, regardless. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My take on this after skimming through all of the sources is that the word "drama" is being used to refer to the genre of BB. In other words, "drama" is being used to differentiate BB from other TV program genres. On the other hand, when the sources are referring to the shows place in TV history, they use either the word "show" or "series"; This is, in my opinion, because the words "series" and "show" show that BB is just not regarded as one of the greatest TV dramas of all time, but one of the greatest TV series of all times (regardless of genre). I am basing this on the follow extracts taken from the sources cited:

1. "2013 brought surprises, good and bad, to viewers": This drama series retired undefeated as TV's best ever.
2. "Why 'Breaking Bad' Is The Best Show Ever And Why That Matters": Sometime around that first commercial break, Breaking Bad broke away from the pack and staked its claim to the title of television’s Best Show Ever. and The Best. Show. Ever. And maybe too, one of the most important.
3. "Great New DVD Box Sets: Blasts From The Past And 'Breaking Bad'": Vince Gilligan's AMC drama, starring Bryan Cranston as a high school teacher turned criminal mastermind, arguably is the best TV series ever made.
4. "2013's 10 Best and Worst TV Shows, From Good 'Breaking Bad' to Bad 'Broke Girls'": Forget the best shows of the year. This is the best show ever made.
5. "In One Chart, Here's How 'Breaking Bad' Was Like No Other Show That Came Before It": "Breaking Bad," which comes to a conclusion tonight, is already considered one of the best television shows ever made.
6. "The Case for 'Breaking Bad' as Television's Best Show": We're just gonna come right out and say it: Breaking Bad is The Best Show. In this new era of television as high art, especially cable television, figuring out the acme of that art has been a task many have been eager to take on. We've mostly stayed silent, until now. That show, the best there ever was, is Breaking Bad.
7. "'Breaking Bad': Five Reasons It's One Of TV's All-Time Greats": "Breaking Bad," which comes to a conclusion tonight, is already considered one of the best television shows ever made."Breaking Bad" (returns Sunday, July 15 at 10 p.m. ET on AMC) is one of the great shows of television's Golden Age, (...)
8. Source no. 8 The Case for 'Breaking Bad' as Television's Best Show is exactly the same as source no. 6. Not sure if this was just added twice by mistake, or if it was edited and the link changed. Regardless, there's no need to cite the same article twice, so it should be removed.

I think this all depends on how we are defining the word "drama". Does "TV drama" mean "TV show" or "TV series"? If we say "BB is regarded as one of the greatest TV dramas of all times" does that include all genres or only dramas. Once again, in my opinion, the sources aren't saying "greatest drama", excluding all other genres, but rather they are saying "greatest show" or "greatest series", including all genres. The sources, in my opinion use "series" and "show" interchangeably, but treat them differently from "drama". Since the use of "shows" seems contentious and "series" is already considered acceptable by consensus for use in the lead, then I think it would be OK to use "series" in this instance too. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Marchjuly, thank you for reaching the same conclusion that was already reached all this time ago. This is why I was a bit harsh in my initial reaction. Surely you understand now which editors are WP:POINTY in this case. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify: either "series" or "shows" is acceptable, as they are both interchangeable. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chunk5Darth: I'm just offering my opinion and trying to discuss. I am fully willing to listen to all sides and not make any judgments about who is or isn't trying to push their own point of view. As I stated above, the "dramas" wording seems to have been the stable version for quite some time. I don't know whether that was before or after the consensus you are referring to, but the wording was added more a little more than three years ago and as far as I can see (I didn't check every edit during those three years of edits so I may be wrong) has been pretty much unchanged since it was added. So, it's not hard, at least for me, to understand how some editors might question the change made by Joe2601 to wording that seems to have been stable for so long. I'm not saying that the edit was wrong; I'm just saying it probably should have been discussed after the first revert and almost definitely should have been discussed after the second revert. Just my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: as I stated, I was a bit harsh, and for that I apologize. However, this whole drama (pun not intended) around "best show wording" has run its course a long time ago, and I see any further attempt to spawn more discussions around the same subject as nothing more than concern trolling. This is why I proposed to duplicate the note to begin with. Your time and energy could have been spared, and that is what I meant earlier. It goes without saying, though, that your part in this discussion is laudable. Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My point here is two-fold. Matters of opinion are not encyclopedic: period. Second point is about lousy citation. I once heard a man say "The Devil quotes scriptures rather well to his purposes." This statement does not belong in this article. It provides no salient information about the show, and makes the article look amateurish when it is otherwise excellently executed IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.80.203 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC+9)

You are not saying anything that hasn't already been said before, and your argument is invalid. The consensus still stands. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

His statement is invalid? Bull crap it's invalid. Who died and made you king of the article? No one? Correct: no one. So please stop with the ownership behavior and allow others to not only have an opinion different than your own but to express an opinion different than your own. An opinion different than the previous consensus. In fact, it seems to me that because there are three or more editors disagreeing with the consensus that it's time to seek a new consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Chunk5Darth that this has been argued before, and that the status quo is the consensus. Willondon (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, then. Can we please argue about "one of the greatest television series of all time", as the article currently has it, and not "the greatest show of all time", which seems to be the straw man attracting critical attention? Willondon (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Although "widely regarded" seems weaselly, such statements are allowable both in the lead and in the topic sentences of paragraphs per WP:WEASEL as long as they are properly supported later on by reliable sources and accurately represent the opinions of those sources. I think that is the case here and, therefore, the current wording is not a problem in my opinion. Citations are neither required or prohibited in the lead per WP:CITELEAD, but should be determined on a case-by-case basis through consensus. Per WP:CCC, consensus can change so I'm happy to discuss and listen to opposing opinions, but it think would be best if we stuck to Wikipedia policy/guidelines and avoided the other stuff as much as possible. So, let me ask this of those in favor changing the wording. Are you basing your desire to change the wording on policy reasons? If so, which policies? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe "one of the greatest television series' of all time" is preferable and is a good compromise. "...greatest shows of all time" is not encyclopedia worthy, in my opinion. As far as consensus changing: it does and should change. Nothing wrong with that happening, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support of the status quo. Willondon (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about the status quo. I do give a shit about "editors" exhibiting article ownership behavior, trying to bully others, and telling them their opinions are invalid. I also give a shit about articles being the best they can be. And if that means going against the status quo, that's what I do. If it means sticking with the status quo, then so be it. Now, can we please get past the petty b.s. and keep the commenting on editors down to below minimum? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'm down with that, my little black pot. Willondon (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you say you're down with it and then consciously return just a few minutes later to "add snark" (as your edit summary indicated), then obviously you are comfortable with lying. Not to mention intentionally being a WP:DICK. "Editors" like you are the reason why Wikipedia is losing good experienced editors along with brand new editors.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Pointing at the proverbial door.) Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you think I should leave, do you? Sorry, ain't gonna happen. If you think I've done something actionable, you've free to take this to AN/I or wherever, Chunk5Darth. If you do, it will be interesting to see what admins (and others in the community) think of your complaint. If you don't, then I will take that as a sign you are smart enough to know such a report will go nowhere because nothing has occurred that's actionable, censurable, or a violation of policy. Now, can the flinging of crap fest stop, or does anyone besides me want to see the drama and childish chiding stop on this talk page? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my contribution to an unpleasant editing environment. I expect to do better. (I may steal "childish chiding" for my own use in the future, though.) Willondon (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)