Talk:Person of Interest (TV series)

Television C‑class High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plagiarized materials

The "plot" section was taken verbatim from the press release cited (which quotes the CBS.com page for the show at http://www.cbs.com/primetime/person_of_interest/video/ ). Samer (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Would it not also be considered science-fiction? There's not really a machine like this -- yet. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like a short story I wrote, the SF element is merely a device to make the plot tenable and nothing more. Whenever I advertise my story, I call it mainstream fiction with a SF element. I don’t know precisely how to characterize this show. It seems a cross between a private detective show and an espionage one. Maybe vigilantism, like another show of yore which title I can't recall right now? Anyway, it’s a great show. The chemistry between the two lead characters/actors is very good as is its writing.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The James Bond series is regarded as science fiction by scholars of film and literature, so yeah, this show would slot into that genre. 124.169.16.170 (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carter's name

In the December 9 episode, John calls Det. Carter by her first name near the end of the episode. It was very hard to understand (I ran the DVR back-and-forth several times trying to). Another poster feels it was Joss, and has added that, speculating it's short for Jocelyn. Although her dossier showed she is J. Carter, I'm not sure we can be entirely sure what we heard was her first name. I've reverted it, at least until we can discuss it a bit. I don't have enough confidence in what I heard to be sure we're accurate, and there's no way yet to verify her name with a reliable source. Given there's no burning need to have her name in the article, I thought there should at least be some effort at reaching consensus before it's added to it based on last night's dialogue. Drmargi (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carter's first name shouldn't be added to the article until there's a reliable source stating clearly what that first name is. Primogen (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carter's first name was confirmed in the episode "Risk" on February 24, 2012. She signed for the dry cleaning at the police station and then the camera zoomed in on the receipt that clearly showed her signature as 'Joss Carter'. Ksu6500 (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that "confirms" Carter's name, just that she uses the name Joss. We don't know whether it's her full name or a nickname. That said, it's sufficiently sourced to add it to the article. --Drmargi (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finch dead?

Having just rewatched the pilot, it was clear to me that there is nothing to suggest that Finch is dead, just that he is a semi-recluse, and probably has always been, given his own employees don't know who he is. His partner is dead (thus the bronze bust), which may have been the source of confusion. Consquently, I've removed the statements indicating Finch is dead. Drmargi (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the episode Foe, Reese says something like, "Will anyone remember us when we're dead?", to which Finch replies, "I thought we already were," implying that both are listed as being deceased. Primogen (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of a contradiction, enough that we're safer not saying one way or the other. In a couple episodes, notably the most recent one, they talk as though only Reese is believed to be dead. Clearly, Finch has been in touch with Ingram's son who knows he's alive. But he also clearly knows very little about Finch's work with his father. I think the contradictions are all part of the mystery Finch creates around himself. --Drmargi (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special Forces?

Are we so sure that Reese was in the Army? I know he was special forces because it's said over and over by many people, and well, normal guys don't fight like that. But, I don't remember him or anyone else saying that he was in the Army and not in any other US military service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel4433 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't sure. I think he was either in Delta Force or a Navy Seal. Since those two are recruited by the CIA and those two also only lets people in with E-4 and up (Sergeant). Since the title sequences list that Reese got the rank Sgt on September 15, 1998 . It is likely he was in either one of those two. I think Navy Seal is even more likely since the actor, Jim Caviezel, trained with with Navy Seal Team 1 for a month.Xitur (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We saw his uniform jacket in the pilot. It clearly identified his affiliation -- he was a Green Beret. (BTW, Caviezel still trains with the Seals to stay in shape.) Later, he was a CIA Field Agent, which is where at least some of the more specialized skills come from. --Drmargi (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I rewatched the episode and he was a Green Beret part of the ranger division.Xitur (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ingram and threat

Several editors have added a statement that the machine detected Ingram as a threat at the end of episode 11. I've removed the statement repeatedly because it's never accurate. The machine text is neutral: THREAT DETECTED, SUBJECT: Ingram, Nathan C. That doesn't say Ingram is a threat, just that a threat has been detected, and Ingram is the subject. If anything it's more likely saying that Ingram is the subject of a threat, particularly given what we know about Ingram's fate. The bottom line is we don't know which yet.

Moreover, the editors are adding the statement to a character sketch, which is designed to introduce the character to the reader without needing to be constantly updated; that raises a problem with in-universe writing. I would argue that exposition regarding Finch, Reese and Ingram's background should largely be avoided in the character summaries, and instead, belong in the episode summaries. Drmargi (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Kara Stanton

Another editor argued that the short description of the character of Kara Stanton should not include that the character was pictured as alive, citing "This is still a plot point that is evolving. Right now only we know she's alive, and it's still in-universe." In the spirit of trying to write a better article, I came here to get consensus regarding this question. I do not deny that her reappearance is a plot point but I'd like to argue that this is irrelevant. She has been shown to be alive - why and how are plot details that have no place in the description but that she is does imho. The character descriptions are meant to provide a basic overview of the facts to a new reader unfamiliar with the subject. Deliberately listing her as "believed to be dead" is imho a misinformation that is almost as if we were trying to avoid spoilers. As for "in-universe", all information about characters usually is - not only hers. As such, I'd like to change this description to read Reese's former CIA partner who was believed to be dead following their last assignment but who has since reappeared. This wording includes all the necessary details a new reader should know about the character but says nothing about any plot points, like how, why, when etc. Regards So Why 16:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a character's first sentence should list their status at the beginning of the show. Significant developments can be noted in additional sentences. For example - "Kara Stanton (Annie Parisse): Reese's former CIA partner, believed to be dead. In episode X it is discovered that Kara is not actually dead, but..." Doniago (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might go in a "list of characters" article, but not here. We describe the character in such a way that a viewer could "meet" the character at any point in the show's history and understand the character sketch; it should also not require constant updating or be biographical. The death part is what we call in-universe; that is, it makes sense at a certain point in the character's development but not before. It's also a plot point for a plot line that's still developing, all of which is reason it should be excluded. --Drmargi (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does Wikipedia care for still-developing plots? I agree that the characters should be described in a way that a viewer could understand them at any time in the show's history but that just proves my point. If we write "believed to be dead" despite her not being dead, we deliberately leave out significant information. I'm not arguing to include all details as they are revealed but I don't see a policy- or guideline-based reason to withhold that information. I still have no idea what you mean by "in-universe" in that context. All information on her - and any other character - is in-universe. Somehow, you also seem only to apply that reasoning to this specific character. The descriptions of other characters - like Carter and Fusco - also contain information that only "makes sense after a certain point in the character's development but not before" - like Carter working with Reese and Finch instead of pursuing Reese. Either we agree to remove all such information - which I would oppose - or we agree to include all significant information, even if it was revealed later. Regards So Why 08:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But not all character description is presented in an in-universe style. That's the issue. With two weeks to go before the season ends, I'm not sure there's a way to resolve this. I suggest we table the discussion until the season ends and we see how the plot line develops. That should inform better decision-making and avoid going in circles about what do to with an ongoing, but short-term plot point. --Drmargi (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can you explain your insistence on the "plot line"? How is that of any relevance to Wikipedia? I don't think there is a single policy or guideline that says we should take that into consideration. Yes, her reappearance is likely part of a plot line but that's not the point. No one is arguing for including any details on that - just that she is alive. As seen with the examples I mentioned, it is common to include major developments in those descriptions because the article should contain all significant information - not only information up to a certain episode. I don't think we should wait until the season ends because that would just reinforce the impression that we keep out significant information in order to avoid spoiling the plot. Regards So Why 13:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The season is over and the plot line was not picked up again. Now can we change that entry please? Regards So Why 16:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Root as a recurring character

A couple of editors have added Finch's adversary Root as a recurring character, the more recent one doing so because she's an important adversary. No one is doubting her importance to the story, but she's only appeared once, made her presence felt via voice and hands a second time, and that's all. She doesn't meet the conventional criteria for a recurring character yet. WP:MOSTV is clear that not every character who turns up has to be in the article, and I think we need to wait to see the second season premiere before we will have enough of a handle on the character to know if she will be recurring or whether we have a two-episode arc and we're done. --Drmargi (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Equalizer??

Is this show just the 2010s version of the above name series? A secret agent who by way of his experiences helps people in distress or foils criminality?

Doing a cursory search on Google reveals that many others kinda agree with my conclusion. Thus getting around the oft-mentioned WP:OR clause that Wikipedia has.109.150.239.53 (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceover sub-box

I noticed that as of the third season 2 episode "Masquerade", Finch's opening voice-over has changed slightly. This has got me wondering: should we change the quote on the article to match this most recent version, or leave it as it was throughout season 1? --MarioLOA (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]