Talk:Person of Interest (TV series)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Person of Interest (TV series). 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Person of Interest is certainly similar to The Equalizer, although calling it "just the 2010's version" isn't accurate, since POI has distinct and important differences: a sentient computer system that can predict violent crime, a group of operatives (Finch, Reese, Lionel, Carter), the entire operation being financed by a billionaire (Finch), the fact that the group's methods are illegal and that Reese is actively being hunted by the authorities. Nor do I think the observation of similarities is notable, since almost every television show has some similarity to some other television show. Primogen (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Leave it at the first season, both because it is the most explanatory of the show's plot and to avoid in-universe writing. Likewise, I'd leave the title card at season 1, but simply because it's graphically cleaner and displays better in small format. --Drmargi (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we just add another sub box with the most recent voice over? --Xenophoric (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has nothing on production, and no season-by-season summaries. Perhaps you could work on those, and build the newer voiceover into the season two summary? --Drmargi (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

American bullshit all the way!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.21.39 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Secret Message in Episode

Season 2 Episode 17 roughly 14 minutes into episode I saw a coded blue screen. It is an actual code, primitive looking. Beginning 3429<phi><phi>436<xi>757263697674<phi> etc.

I really cant be bothered to figure it out, anyone seen it?

Probably says characters welcome, speak to xxxxx mention the message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.60.239 (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'd get to excited about it; there were several, demonstrating something is happening with the Machine, probably related to Kara Stanton's virus. You might check the Wikia site to see what they know. --Drmargi (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This turns out to be The Machine's AI reading about philosophy and brain surgery. It's been having data reinput each day because it is erased and reinstalled daily. Pkeets (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Updating

This article needs a serious review and update by someone who is familiar with the progress of the series. Some of these characters are dead as we near the end of season 2. I would make these changes myself, but I gather there are proprietary interests. My first edit of the article was summarily reverted with no discussion. Pkeets (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To start, I take exception to the implication that the editors who have worked on this article aren't aware of the progress of the show; at least one other (QuasyBoy) and I watch regularly and often more than once, and are very careful about checking one another as we write. True, some of the characters are dead, but these are characters descriptions that can't be written in an in-universe style (i.e. updated as of a specific point in the show's progression), but should acquaint the reader with the characters anywhere along their timeline within the series. Their deaths are plot points given they occur over the life of the story (versus Jessica's death, which is an event that happened before the series timeline begins and is important to the development of another character) and relatively unimportant; what's important is we know what role they play in the overall narrative.

As for the control by the U.S. government, that's pure speculation on your part given what we've seen, and as such would be WP:OR. As feasible as the possibility is, I've never seen anything to suggest it's not under the control of the government, just that it appears there is a cabal within the Office of Special Counsel using it for other than its intended purpose. And even that isn't clear because the story is unfolding, and we are unclear as to what both Root and Kara Stanton's larger agendas might actually be. We need to be very circumspect in the way we describe the Machine and what's happening with it. Similarly, I disagree it's an AI, given we were shown a mainframe in the pilot, and in later flashbacks saw the Machine shut down, heard the description of the process of transporting it by train in crates (plural) and more recently, saw the death of the architect who designed its new housing. That's not characteristic of an AI but rather of a mainframe, and it's never been referred to as an AI.

I reverted your first edits because I felt the pictures, as small as they were, cluttered up the section and interrupted the flow. I wrote a very polite edit summary noting the effort, and suggesting the pictures be relocated in the character article (although I'd suggest pictures of the characters rather than the actors as themselves.) That's hardly a summary revert with no discussion; given the rarity of such pictures in character sections of TV articles, I didn't see the edit as particularly controversial, and thereby saw no need to start a discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of the AI aspect is likely to be a major spoiler. However, in order to enslave an AI, you have to keep it in an enclosure such as a Faraday cage. Thanks to CIA incompetence, this one is out of the cage. The government has lost control of it. The mainframe is just the computing power it uses to run the data.Pkeets (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, there's nothing spoiler about it; it's pure speculation. I'd be careful about buying into the Wikia's theories too far; their article on the Machine has some glaring errors, and makes some major assumptions. You assume the Machine is just the software, but neither Finch nor Ingram (nor any other related party for that matter) has ever specified whether the Machine is solely the software or the combination of the software and the hardware on which it runs. The closest thing to identifying the Machine as an AI is Root's romantic description of it as an intelligence. However, there are plenty of references to the hardware/software combination as being the Machine, not the least of which being Finch and Ingram's referring to building (as opposed to designing, developing or programming) it. But we could sit around and debate that all day in a more appropriate setting, which this decidedly is not (per WP:NOTFORUM). The bottom line is you have no spoiler, just a lot of speculation that barely rises to the level of original research, something an editor as experienced as you should know. Moreover, I think I would be very careful of questioning others' knowledge of the progression of the show given the speculative nature of what you've presented (and subsequently removed -- but should have struck out) here. --Drmargi (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the Wikia, and given your post above, I'd think you'd be careful of describing the machine as a "mainframe" as this is speculative and not supported by references. There are umteen of them out there discussing the Machine as AI. For example, see here where Nolan discusses it.Pkeets (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the interview talks briefly about them playing with the Machine's increasing AI, as though it is a component part of the Machine. If anything, it appears they may be playing with the Machine's possible self-awareness. That's a far cry from saying the Machine is an artificial intelligence (a la Data). In the meantime, I argue that the article is on safe ground going with the description of the Machine as a mainframe (or perhaps something similar) given what we have seen and heard described on screen. --Drmargi (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's original research. Pkeets (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Go watch the last 15 minutes or so of the pilot, then tell me that. The article reports what was shown in the pilot and discussed since, no more. --Drmargi (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're arguing from an image in the pilot? That's actually more likely a server farm than a mainframe. Again, it's just the dumb data processing. The server farm is not the entity that Reece negotiates with at the beginning of Season 2, and which eventually makes a decision that is somewhat contrary to its programming. That's an AI. The government has got the server farm, but not the AI, which they accidently let out of its cage. It's one of the more charming aspect of the show, actually. Pkeets (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not solely. The problem is, you're separating the hardware and software, and making the assumption that what we saw was the servers, no more, then trying to cast me as arguing the Machine is the hardware. That's not what I'm saying. The Machine is the totality -- hardware, firmware, software in toto based on what we've seen, which is why its physical location matters. Absent hardware, software is just code, just as absent software, hardware is just nuts, bolts and microprocessors. They're interdependent. That it is a developing AI is one aspect of the Machine; that's clear from the interview you cited, and that's what Reese negotiated with, just as that's what Finch trained and what tried to protect him. But all that has physical form based on what we're presented; why else call it the Machine versus the Program or something like that? And again, we've seen nothing that explicitly tells us the government has lost it or any element of it. --Drmargi (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but if you're paying attention and know something about AIs, then it's there. Hardware and location are now both irrelevant to the Machine, because the AI has escaped. Regarding hardware and coding, which is the controlling element? If the AI has an urge to fulfill some sort of function, then it will find the hardware it needs. Sure, the server farm is convenient, but there are other methods of distributed computing that it could also use via the cloud. Pkeets (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Catch Zero Day? The Machine is now clearly an AI, as it has taken actions including established a human identity to help it retain memories. Note that the say the Ordos laptop contains some of the coding for The Machine. Combine this with Corwin's Stuxnet comment. What do you get? Pkeets (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ratings: Demographics

Week Ending May 5, 2013: [1]

Latino Viewers: 553,000 - rank: 8
Black viewers: 1.24 million - rank: 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.195.224 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It appears, at least to me, that whether or not you think "Finch" (most likely an alias, since he always uses bird-themed aliases) is dead depends on who you thought he was to begin with, though very clearly even amongst those aware of The Machine's existence, most (like Alicia Corwin) had no idea who he truly was. He's very clearly always been a recluse for his own reasons, or as he puts it, "a very private person." Atypicaloracle (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'd assume not just a CIA field agent, but a Special Activities Division paramilitary operative. Atypicaloracle (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Machine Strike Teams

Rewrote the entry about the Machine's strike teams to make it clear they were both eliminating terrorist threats as well as individuals who were aware/threatening the Machine or the secrecy concealing it. The original paragraph made it sound like all they did was eliminate the latter. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Promotion to Main Cast

It is my opinion that the new members of the main cast should be listed as such on all locations on this page, for a variety of reasons. First, the season is in production, and the change has been mentioned by the producers on multiple occasions in public. Again, the season is in production, so it reflects the current available information, and there is, quite simply, no good reason to keep them as unlisted on the main cast because as of this time (and the current promotion of the series on CBS) they are members of the main cast. This is also in line with other cast changes that have been made on other programs on Wikipedia. WhoIsWillo (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But new members? I'm only aware of Sarah Shahi. Is there anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.39.39 (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Shahi and Amy Acker have both been promoted to main cast in S03 but they are already listed as main cast and as starring in the infobox as well as in the production section, so I assume WhoIsWillo's comment has already been addressed. Regards So Why 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Joss Carter

So, does anyone think that now since Carter's dead (3x9, The Crossing), that she should have her own page, similar to Finch and Reese? She was more or less the tertiary protagonist, so I think it's only fair to include her. I don't think I should be the one to create it, though. Anyone else think that this would be a good idea? 173.179.92.34 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

That is how I understood the sequence, that Ingram was the subject of a threat. Which was clearly correct) 2.100.221.45 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Description of John Reese

With English not being my daily language, I don't feel that I can just do an edit of this, which is why I am posting this, instead hoping that one of you can look into it and edit IF you agree that it is appropriate. What I am questioning, is the description of the character John Reese as "living as a derelict in New York City". This series just started in Norway and after watching quite a few episodes, I don't feel that "derelict" is a description fits this character (the series "good guy" who uses his whole life to help other people), since synonyms for this word, when used about a person, is: "negligent, careless, disregardful, lax, lazy, slack" etc. - all things that I think this character is NOT.

The text in the section «Plot» says: «John Reese (Jim Caviezel), a former Green Beret and CIA field officer, is living as a derelict in New York City…»

From an online dictionary: Derelict: 1: abandoned especially by the owner or occupant; also : run-down 2: lacking a sense of duty : negligent

Synonyms: careless, negligent, disregardful, lax, lazy, neglectful, neglecting, remiss, slack

Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peapeam (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. In the beginning, he was "derelict of duty" -- which is not the same as just "derelict". So, I agree with you. A better term would be "vagrant". I will wait and see if there are any other opinions before changing it. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Musdan77 (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Derelict" can be either an adjective or a noun. You read the dictionary definition of the adjective. Further down on the page, the noun definition is given: "a destitute homeless social misfit : vagrant, bum." That's certainly an acceptable description of Reese when he was approached by Finch in the pilot episode. WaxTadpole (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Shaw's name

In episodes 3.04 and episodes 3.10 of this season, it's now been established that Shaw's first name is Sameen, rather than Samantha - which was never actually said on the show. Originally, fans assumed that "Sam" was short for Samantha, but the show has now refuted that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.175.66 (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't listening because I missed that. Do you have a source to back that up? It's interesting that on the official site, it mentions the character names for all of the cast except for her. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

We learned that she's Sameen, yes. It didn't establish that Sam is short for one versus the other, and the name Samantha has been used numerous times, including by the Machine, so we don't know definitively what Sam is short for. Changing the character's name to Sameen would be an in-universe edit; we need to be sure we use the name by which she is best known, and the one editors will encounter at any time along her plotline. That's Samantha. --Drmargi (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Prior to season 3, episode 5, when referred to by her first name, Shaw was only referred to as "Sam." The name "Samantha" was never used in reference to Shaw, though it has been established as Root's real first name - Samantha Groves. The only full name we've heard used with Shaw is Sameen, in episodes 305 and 310. Therefore, we can omit Samantha as a known name for Shaw, and replace it with Sameen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaTan (talk • contribs) 20:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Would also like to refer to this tweet from the verified Person of Interest Writers Office. During episode 305, they wrote "Shaw's first name revealed - Sameen" https://twitter.com/POIWritersRoom/status/392839655063711744 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaTan (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The CBS Press Page lists Shaw's first name as Sameen (cf. Harold, John, and Lionel). https://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-entertainment/shows/person-of-interest/about Devmackie (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Reconsidering, being consistent

There's been a lot of back-and-forth changes to Shaw's name of late. She was introduced as Samantha Shaw in the early press for the character and possibly in the episode in which she first appears (Relevance). She may have been referred to as "Sam" by her now-deceased NSA partner, which could be short for either name. She is definitely called Shaw (Reese) or Ms. Shaw (Finch) by the characters with whom she works now. And recently, her name has begun to appear in Machine POV graphics as Sameen Shaw. We know our four principle characters (excluding Fusco) all have aliases by which we know them, and the only complete real name we know for certain is Root's. We also know that at least two other characters (Control, Special Counsel) had what might be termed working names (Pennsylvania Two and Mrs. Penn) prior to their first appearances. Given all that, how should we refer to Shaw? As Samantha Shaw, as Sameen Shaw, or just as Shaw? This affects four articles: this one, the episode article, the character article and Shahi's article, so whatever change is made needs to be consistent across the four. --Drmargi (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, she was always Sam Shaw, and now we know it's Sameen.150.156.220.253 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In Relevance she was identified by The Machine as Catalyst.Indigo.5A, by Cole as Shaw (multiple times) or Sam (once), by Finch as Ms. Shaw, and by Reese and various members of Northern Lights as Shaw -- never Samantha. In addition, we now have two more in-universe instances of her being called Sameen: by The Machine at the end of Root Path (3x17) and by Fusco in Allegiance (3x18). I still think 'Sameen Shaw' is the correct answer, with 'Shaw' as possibly a safe (but distant) second choice. Devmackie (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I backtracked the CBS press releases. She was listed as Samantha Shaw on the first one, Shaw the next few, then finally as Sameen Shaw. It increasingly appears that we have the reliable sources needed to change the name to Sameen. The trick is to come to consensus, then change all three articles where her name features. --Drmargi (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Any progress on a consensus? I really see no reason to keep a name that is proven to be wrong. Shaw has never been called Samantha in the show, just in one single press release. On the other hand Sameen has been used several times now in the series, and the name is consistent with her Iranian origin. Please DO make that change! Pederle (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Root called her Sameen in the most recent episode. At this point I'm suspecting laziness is the only reason she's not Sameen. 150.156.220.253 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Beginning with lazy IP's who don't learn how consensus works? Do you have anything constructive to contribute? --Drmargi (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May I ask whose consensus we're waiting for? Of note, Shahi's main article changed about a month ago. --Devmackie (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Since all we're getting is the children pissing and whining, I made the changes. And Shahi's article was changed last week, not a month ago. --Drmargi (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Starring order in Infobox

@ProspectofArts:, @Drmargi:Please review the guideline at Template:Infobox television: The starring indicates that "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show." The original cast order was Caviezel, Henson, Chapman, Emerson. Then Acker and Shahi were added in Season 3. The cast list in the article has no guideline for the order so can be in the non-order that it currently is in. The Infobox has guidelines to keep consistency among all the shows. If there is a reason you want to deviate from the WP style, you need to justify it at gain a consensus. If there is no consensus to change the style guidelines should be used as default.AbramTerger (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Abram, you are becoming increasingly uncivil and disruptive with your campaign to have your own way. Comments directed to specific editors belong on their personal talk pages, not here. I've been editing here a long time and have a lot more edits than you, including a number of infobox corrections. Your post above is just plain obnoxious and petty retaliation for having to have policy pointed out to you. --Drmargi (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I have to defend AbramTerger in this situation, because I've followed every single recent comment on this talk page, and nothing he has ever said has been "uncivil" or "obnoxious" in any way. No offense, Drmargi, but you were the one just above screaming in all caps (STOP GIVING ME ORDERS) and telling him to "back off!", and just now, telling him you know more than him. I'd say, you should settle down and be more civil. As far as I can see, he's simply been interested in discussing the various matters with other editors, which includes pinging the editors to remind them of the discussion, which is perfectly acceptable. He was the one to point out the guideline at Infobox Television, so I have no idea what it means when you say he is the one "to have policy pointed out to [him]". Sorry, it had to be said. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're not on the receiving end of his comments. Please don't tell me how to feel, or how to react to comments directed at me with the intention of bullying and/or humilation. --Drmargi (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: I was corrected on policy by AussieLegend. I had accepted the general feeling on this board that the article cast order did not have to match the Infobox list, so I was engaging in discussions to put them in a logical consistent manner and understand the logic of the current ordering. AussieLegend pointed out that they were essentially the same, and now that we now that, we should be revising the article to meet the WP guidelines (which I have been attempting to do).AbramTerger (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Cast Order

@76.169.128.254: I have reordered the Cast list per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Cast_and_characters_information. The main cast is ordered per these guidelines. For the recurring cast since they had been categorized, they characters have been ordered within the categories per the guidelines and the categories have been ordered by when the characters were introduced into the series. If you want to deviate from the guidelines, let's discuss the justification and the logic for the ordering so we can get some local consensus to go against the group consensus of the guidelines.AbramTerger (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@76.169.128.254: since you have mentioned WP:BRD when you lobbed personal attacks at me, are you going to discuss to try and reach a local consensus or just revert from the global consensus of wiki-policy? If you are not going to discuss, my only option is to keep trying compromises until you we can both be happy with one of them. There are several active discussions on topics that I have been trying to get more in line with WP policy. We have discussed leeway in these discussions, but you need to make an effort to discuss and gain consensus. You are reverting without even looking at the edits.AbramTerger (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Status of Henson

@Drmargi: I made a compromise and added the note about Henson being a regular for only Seasons 1-3. I kept off the extra detail aobut her only being a regular in Seasons 1-2 and 9 epsidose of Season 3 as 2 pedantic (and cumbersome). The note is needed since she is no longer a regular or recurring cast member on the series and it keeps consistency in the article since there is are notes about Shahi and Acker on their change in status in the show.AbramTerger (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be there at all. We have never detailed the tenure of characters here because they return in flashbacks, and conventional timelines don't work. --Drmargi (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The tenure of other cast members are included when there status changed. Look at Shahi and Acker. If Henson does appear again it will be as a guest star and thus a recurring character anyway, so in that case it would change from (seasons 1-3) to (easons 1-3, main; season x, recurring) in a manner opposite that of Shahi and Acker. But until that happens she was only a regular in seasons 1-3. @ChakaKong:, @Drovethrughosts:, and @Musdan77:, @ProspectofArts:, @Eurofan2005:, @Zerevanberg:, @Ashlynw:,@Depthfield:,@Devmackie:,@WhoIsWillo:, and @SoWhy:: you have expressed some comments on this site, any thoughts on adding the comment ("season 1-3)" to reflect the status change of Henson to be consistent with the rest of the cast list?AbramTerger (talk) 08:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have clarified the status of Henson in the main cast, just as was currently done for Acker and Shahi when there status was changed.AbramTerger (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this addition. The only reason not to include it would be the fear of it appearing as a "spoiler" that's she not on the show anymore, but that's not a concern (WP:SPOILER). Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added it and also made Acker's accurate (she was a only a guest in Season 1, not a recurring character).AbramTerger (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Regular cast order

I have reordered in the cast in the spirit of WP:BRD: based on the number of seasons/episodes that they have appeared in and if the same, by billing order. AbramTerger (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? Billing order governs placement in the infobox. We have latitude in the article to arrange cast so as to make content meaningful, and it has appeared, then developed as it is since the first season. Also, please see WP:INUNIVERSE. We have to look at the totality of the show when presenting cast, since viewers outside the U.S. may be at other places in the overall run of the series. Moreover, POI's relationships are complex and the cast list is designed to help the reader make needed connections; the job of an encyclopedia. Judgments about whose role is larger aren't objective and are WP:OR, nor are they informative to the reader. The cast are ordered in a meaningful way so that viewers at any point in the series can make sense of who they are; for the first 2-1/2 seasons, Carter was the major police characters, Reese and Finch work together, etc. Bear is not main cast in the credits because union contracts. However, the producers, who are the ultimate determiners of main cast, do consider Boker to be main cast. They said so this past Sunday at a writer's panel now available as a podcast (I'm figuring out the timing so I can source it.) See the discussion up the page a bit. --Drmargi (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And that is exactly my point. I don't see the logic you are using in the order. Could you justify it. The way I see it, as the series progresses, Carter's overall role in the series will be in decline as she is no longer a regular and Chapman's, Acker's, and Shahi's, roles increase in proportion.

Caviezel, Chapman, and Emerson have a full 3 seasons and are also in the 4th and those 3 should be the first three listed. I would order them as credited or if you want something more for screen-time, I would go Emerson, Caviezel, Chapman.
Henson has 2.5 seasons so should be next
Acker has 1 full season as regular and 2 as recurring so her role is next
Shahi with 1 full season and 1 season as recurring should be last
as discussed earlier, the uncredited dog can be a comment at the end in a unbulleted paragraph if we chose not to delete the entry.

As Acker and Shahi's overall appearance/impact in the complete series grows and Henson's declines, Henson would move down and Acker and Shahi should move up. @ChakaKong:, @Drovethrughosts:, and @Musdan77:, @ProspectofArts:, @Eurofan2005:, @Zerevanberg:, @Ashlynw:,@Depthfield:,@Devmackie:,@WhoIsWillo:, and @SoWhy:: you have expressed some comments on this site, any thoughts on the cast ordering. I am willing to explore other ordering options, but it should be done with some objective criteria. I think overall episode appearances is an easy criteria.AbramTerger (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The order now I think is fine, unless you want to place Chapman over Henson, which I would be okay with. Other than that, it should be chronological in terms of when they were introduced, thus the original four first, then the two that were introduced in later seasons, and weren't promoted to main cast until season 3. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Drovethrughosts on this. Listing usually goes by credits and then chronologically. See NCIS (TV series)#Cast and characters or Once Upon a Time (TV series)#Cast and characters for examples of other TV show related articles that use this kind of sorting. On a side note, since List of Person of Interest characters exists, we might want to consider converting the section to a table like those articles use and link to the entries on the List of Person of Interest characters article instead, thus avoiding having character descriptions at two places. Regards So Why 15:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: and @SoWhy:, if we are listing first chrono and we are looking at roles and not the credited order, then it I think we should place the 3 current main actors first, then Henson (and I think as being discussed in Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Status_of_Henson we need to mark her change in status like others are marked). Based on role in the series this becomes::

Emerson (seasons 1-3+)
Caviezel (seasons 1-3+)
Chapman (seasons 1-3+)
Henson (seasons 1-2, 9 ep of Season 3, not recurring)

Then whether we go by first appearance, credit order, or even number of episodes should be:

Acker (recurring in Season 1&2, Main in 3)

Then if we truly are keeping it by first appearance and we are claiming the dog as a main cast member discussed earlier we have:

Graubaer's Boker (first appearance of Season 2 Ep 1)
Shahi (recurring Season 2, first appearance Ep 16, main season 3)

[Personally as mentioned in the dog discussion earlier, I would delete the dog or at most include an unbulleted comment at the end of the main cast.] Can we live with this order? What are your thoughts on the other items being discussed Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Status_of_Henson and Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#The_dog_as_a_main_character? can we reach a consensus on that?

@SoWhy: I like the idea of the table, but the order will still need to be determined for that and whether we include the dog. Do we need a new discussion about the table format? Do you see it encompassing just the main characters or all the main and recurring ones as well?AbramTerger (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the need for the change. Chrono order is used in the infobox, but what will rearranging the cast accomplish? They're grouped right now into meaningful groups that help the reader understand the relationships among the cast. Billing/point of cast entry order is esoteric, particularly in a show as complex as this one is. Moroever, the changes are WP:INUNIVERSE, and we need to maintain a voice in the article that reflects the experience of readers at any point in the show's chronology. Your changes don't do that; they anchor the article in the current season needlessly. Lastly, Caviezel should always appear before Emerson, both because of billing and because he appeared on camera first (and his name is alphabetically first.) --Drmargi (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The need for a change is consistency. I accept that the decision is not to use billing order and not to sort by size/frequency/importance (however anyone wants to term it), but if you are using order of introduction into the story it should be:

Order of appearance in the Pilot:

Caviezel
Henson
Emerson
Chapman

Appearance in First Season:

Acker (billed first, appeared first, alphabetically first, appeared in more episodes than Shahi)

Appearances in 2nd season:

Graubaer's Boker (Ep 1)
Shahi (Ep 16)

Once you have chosen the criterion for sorting them, it should be used consistently.AbramTerger (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The only change I feel is necessary is that Acker should be above Shahi, since she is billed before her, was introduced first, and has more episode appearances. Beyond that, it's perfectly fine. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Billing order doesn't necessarily govern order the cast appears in the article, just the infobox. Shaw appears on screen far more than Root, and there's gained by reversing the order. Moreover, I don't see the change as one of consistency, but rather one that creates a moving target. They're in a perfectly sensible order now, and changes add nothing. --Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that Drovethrughosts is a reasonable compromise and I will accept that change, until additional viewpoints are expressed and revert the reversion. @Drmargi: your logic remains inconsistent. All the current cast have far more screen time than Henson, so by what you claim now, she should be at the bottom of the list since you now don't want order of appearance. And if we use the order of appearance, how is there a "moving target"? There would only be a new addition when a recurring character gets promoted to main character. We would not be demoting the characters who are no longer main characters, so they would remain in their place.AbramTerger (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi: per WP:BRD you should be discussing and offering compromise solutions, not just reverting. It seems to me your comments and that of Drovethrughosts, SoWhy is that the order should be the order the characters were introduced into the story. If you are changing your mind, could you please explain what criterion you think we should be using for the order so that we can discuss the logic. I have offered several orders based on different criteria, but you don's seem to want any of them. Whatever criteria is chosen, it should be consistent in the article. Do you want story introduction, number of episodes, billing, amount of overall screentime? You seem to me to continue to argue to keep this order, but you keep using inconsistent reasoning: some by screen introduction, others alphabetically, some by screen time. it seems to be different for each character. Drovethrughosts offered a compromise which I can accept, but you reverted it what is your issue with this? Acker is billed first, appeared a full season before Shahi, has appeared in more episodes, and is even alphabetically before shahi. SoWhy can you live with putting Acker before Shahi?AbramTerger (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some confusion over the order of cast, the instructions for {{infobox television}} say that starring cast "are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show". Just to clarify that, starring cast should be listed in the order that they were credited in the first episode of the series, or the first episode in which cast are credited. As new cast are added in new starring roles, they are added to the end of the list. Cast that have been recurring characters but subsequently promoted to starring roles are treated as new cast are, i.e. they are added to the end of the list, because while the cast may not be new, they are a new starring character. Based on original credit order, the infobox is currecntly wrong. Of the character section, WP:TVCAST says "cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list." This is no different to the way that characters are organised in the infobox. In other words, the order in the infobox and the cast section in the prose should be the same. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What Aussie says is what I have come to understand as well. We don't adjust the names based on screen time or declining use of the character in subsequent seasons, we order them per credits starting with S1E1 and adding new cast as new main cast are added. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Came to say what Aussie and Cyphoid already did. The order should be Caviezel, Emerson, Henson, Chapman, Shahi, Acker. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The credit order in the first two episodes is Caviezel, Henson, Chapman, Emerson. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the issue, and the reason I reverted, is that Abram's constant reverting and re-editing while discussion is taking place is becoming disruptive. WP:BRD indicates we leave the article at status quo during discussion. This is particularly important given the edit warring bordering on vandalism by another newish editor. Abram, STOP GIVING ME ORDERS. I will respond as and when I see fit. You seem to think you run the show here, and you don't. This is a collaborative process, and consensus is an agreement by the community, not a vote. Worse, your constant fiddling with the article in an attempt to sneak in formatting without consensus is becoming increasingly disruptive. Back off! --Drmargi (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, @Favre1fan93: I corrected the infobox to per Template:Infobox television. I understand it is Not a WP:BRD issue to correct the infobox to adhere to wiki policy. It is my understanding that a local consensus with justification would be required to deviate from that policy. As to the Cast list, I am no longer going to fight that battle. I think we need to work on SoWhy's suggestion to put the cast in a table, since the descriptions in the article are redundant since an List of characters articles already exists.AbramTerger (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm against the idea of using a table in this instance, since all it's doing is eliminating character descriptions. You shouldn't have to go a separate article to know about a character. The descriptions aren't redundant, because every Wikipedia article needs to stand on its own. Tables are good for series with a large and evolving cast, but POI just has six main characters, so it seems unnecessary. And, prose is mainly preferred to tables. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts:, @SoWhy:. How about a compromise: brief descriptions of the main characters and a table for the recurring characters? This seems especially important for this series due to recurring characters often being arc/season-based and not always there. A table gives an overview picture of the series changes. (I think we could still keep the main characters in the table in addition to the brief descriptions if that is acceptable if that would also be useful since those arcs are changing as well as the series progresses: the original series was 4 main, then 2 were added and one removed to give the current 5 main chars). It just seems redundant to have descriptions in 2 places and being updated. The "list of chars" could focus on the details. I can remove the recurring character descriptions and put in the recurring char table in and see what people think if we want to keep it up to discuss it.AbramTerger (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Drovethroughghosts. Leave it alone. The table will remove key information and force editors to move to a second article needessly. Moreover, much of the content in the characters article is plagiarized from the wikia, which has long been a contentious issue. BTW, these discussions are open to everyone, not a select few you are attempting to WP:CANVASS. I'm on the verge of consulting an administration regarding your tendentious editing both here and in the article for Gotham. --Drmargi (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are issues with the "List of characters" that is not worth fixing and the consensus is to keep the list in the article, then let's delete the "list of" article and just use the main article. There does not seem to me to be a need for both. Both need to be fixed up anyway. They both have too much "in-universe" items in them. This information is for the plot section, not the cast/character section (or in the character articles). Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Cast_and_characters_information: "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real world information on the characters and actors."AbramTerger (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made some updates to the character order. If the local consensus is to violate WP:TVCAST then we should at least be consistent in the list as to how we are ordering the people. What is the criteria? On-screen time?, number of appearances, Can we get some consensus at least on what the order is going to be? Until we choose a criteria, I put the order with the WP consensus of WP:TVCAST.AbramTerger (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Generally it should follow billing order, but I do agree we are allowed some leeway within the article, because it's not just a list, but in prose form. It mainly has to do with Finch's placement, because Emerson is billed last with an "and" credit. It's hard to argue Finch is not the most important character or at least the second-most, so it makes sense to place him second after Reese. Reasons why I believe this is acceptable is because there are other sources which do list Emerson as second—press release for season 4 premiere (all episode press releases list him as second, here's the one for the pilot episode) and the official website. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned, if we take the leeway, what criteria are we going to use? Personally, based on what I see as critical to the series, I would put Emerson over Caviezel, but they are not billed that way (that pesky important "and" credit). I believe that Emerson chose to be billed as he is, he could have been billed 2nd (or even 1st) if he desired it, it seems he choose to be billed 4th. But there is also the issue of Acker and Shahi. By most criteria Acker should come first in the criteria being discussed: Credited first, appeared first, more episodes, alphabetical, yet that was not the listing order. We must also be aware that a criteria change (for example episodes, screen-time) may put an initial main actor further down below main actors added later, which I goes against what I see as the intent. For me I think the "leeway" is more about when they are grouped into some category (as has been done with the recurring actors) where the group takes precedence over the billing. I have made several suggestions before I went to the WP consensus of WP:TVCAST. If we do choose to violate this policy, I think we must be consistent in how we apply it, even if that means moving Henson to the bottom. I think the "prose argument" would work better if it was truly prose with no listing at all (for example like Lost_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters), not just a "listing with prose elements". This could discuss the changing arcs with the ebb-and-flow of people added and people removed from the cast. [For me, I still think SoWhy's suggestion of a table makes more sense given the number of characters we are choosing to list, since we have prose descriptions of the main characters in the plot as well, and an article on the characters: It starts to become redundant.]AbramTerger (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea of moving Henson down, just because she's no longer on the show currently. She still has more episode appearances than Shahi and Acker and was one of the original introduced characters. The way they were grouped, Reese/Finch, Carter/Fusco, and Shaw/Root, makes the most sense–the two lead characters, the two cop characters, and then the two characters that were introduced later. Placing Finch first would be editorial opinion, because there's nothing to base that on other than opinion, while placing him second seems doable, since there is something we can base that on (the links I provided). I still don't see the benefit of a table, all it is, is a different way of conveying the same information. Also, my view of Acker or Shahi first, is Acker, simply because she was introduced before Shahi's character, as it's pretty commonplace to list characters chronologically when dealing with additions to the main cast by season. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't support moving Henson down either, that is why I think it is important to consider the criteria we are choosing to use. [I think the most common practice in WP is putting them in credited order, not introduction. Introduction order was discussed earlier, it puts Caviezel, Henson, Emerson, Chapman, Acker, Shahi, it still does not group Caviezel with Emerson.AbramTerger (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts:Since you brought up grouping characters together by some function, what about creating a prose descriptions and putting all the functional group together? Carter and Fusco are NYPD, Finch is government, Reese is CIA. Shaw is part of the group with control. Root is the most independent, but seems to be part of government arc (though independent). The roles have changed over and that can be discussed. Just a thought.AbramTerger (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts:@Drmargi:This issues remains unresolved. If we can not reach a consensus on the criteria for sorting them, I am going to put to the style from WP:TVCAST. I am willing to entertain other ordering schemes but I think it must be used consistently throughout the article for main cast and recurring characters. Are there any proposals for ordering that need to be discussed? The main cast as it is, is not ordered by any scheme I have figured out. What is the current criteria being used?AbramTerger (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Revamped Recurring characters

I have recategorized the recurring characters to link them more to the main characters and the story arcs. Some of the previous categories had only 1 character in the group, this combines them. Within the categories they are ordered per WP:TVCAST. I have also added "The Brotherhood" under the organized crime category with the previous seen HR and the Mob.AbramTerger (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

An unnecessarily complicated system of organization that misleads the reader into assuming Finch and Reese have entirely separate storyline. I've restored the original version that is organized by major plot lines, and added the Brotherhood back. The organization now is clean, simple and (shock!) about content not just slavish adherence to guidelines that can be put aside per WP:IAR when it is in the best interest of the article. In the end, this is an encyclopedia, not a mechanical arrangement of information according to arbitrary policy. Jimbo Wales has said repeatedly that IAR is there to assure that guidelines (not rules or policies to be adhered to slavishly) do just that: guide content, but not at the expense OF content. That continues to elude you. --Drmargi (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I find your organization more complicated than mine. Mine relates back to the main characters. So we need to come to some compromise. I don't see how your recurring (or main for that matter, but that is still an open topic at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Regular_cast_order that still needs resolution). How are you trying to organize them what is the logic and criteria you are using for sorting based on objective facts? I am trying to use the WP:TVCAST guidelines. As guidelines they can be ignored (with consensus) but even if we don't want consistency between WP TV articles, we should have consistency WITHIN the article, and I just don't see it and will continue to strive to make the article at least internally consistent. Your continued reverts without any discussion nor any willingness to compromise goes against just lead to the need for dispute resolution. You may want to read up on the principles of WP:BRD, as well as WP:WIARM and eve review WP:OWN.AbramTerger (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi:You keep reverting indicating that I have changed the content, but that is not true at all. I have not been changing the content, just the organization and the ordering [on occasions I have updated and corrected information, but those are minor changes]. You still have not indicated what criteria you want to order them in. I think whatever is chosen needs to be consistent throughout the article. The issue I see is your unwillingness to collaborate on the article. Until a local consensus is reached, I am using the most neutral ordering (which should make everyone equally unhappy), placing it completely within the WP:TVCAST guidelines (a global consensus) with no categories and am awaiting a willingness on your part to discuss so that this editing can be collaborative as opposed to you reverting the efforts I offer for compromise.AbramTerger (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Again you revert without discussion. I have offered many compromises, and here is another attempt. Could you please discuss you think it must be only your way? Could you please explain why you think that is better than systems that are internally consistent and have a logic to the ordering of the categories and within the categories? You cite WP:IAR but do you really want editors to randomly put data down? I suggest you read about WP:WIARM, part of the essence of ignoring the rules is the allowance that others that fix things, to make it more encyclopedic and consistent. It is not about just ordering of elements without any logic to them. That does not aid an encylcopedia.AbramTerger (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

When two editors disagree on how to improve an article it requires discussion and consensus. It is an abuse of WP:IAR to use that policy (or any policy or guideline) as a justification for edit warring, ownership or bullying. All concerned parties should discuss the issue here and come to a compromise or consensus. If that is not possible then take recourse to WP:3O, WP:RfC, WP:DRN etc. Also, per WP:TALK posts on this page should be exclusively about content. Please remain civil, assume good faith and avoid personalizing the discussion. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, its been to DRN and was kicked back for lack of discussion I believe. I think Third opinion is the best option or an RFC...although, the one below seems malformed. A peer review would also do well here.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have kept the content of the Cast section the same, but ordered the listings to be more in line with WP:TVCAST. This keeps consistency with WP styles among the other TV series articles, is easier to maintain than using other criteria (many of which require some WP:OR to maintain), and this makes the ordering consistent within the article. I am open to hearing and discussing the pros and cons of using other methodologies if that is the local consensus, but please let's discuss those alternate criteria and maintain consistency within the article if we do not keep consistency between articles.AbramTerger (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi: "Status Quo" is not appropriate unless we are doing WP:BRD. You are clearly not since you are not discussing it. I am not doing any bold changes, I am just applying the consensus of the style guidelines of WP:TVCAST. One does not need a consensus to apply WP Style guidelines. You need a consensus if you want to go against the guidelines. Let's discuss it. As I have mentioned I am willing to find alternate ordering of the data.AbramTerger (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WRONG! Any content on Wikipedia requires a consensus of editors. Period. Whether or not it is a part of the MOS is not a matter that can used to ignore an actual consensus of editors, even if it goes against our guidelines. You claim: "You need a consensus if you want to go against the guidelines"...again...NO. All content requires a consensus of editors. The guidel lines are NOT policy and not a bright line rule.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Please discuss why you think we this article should not follow Guidelines for a TV series. I have stated many times, we don't have to be consistent with those guidelines, but we should follow some criteria and use it consistently within the article. There seems to me to be no rhyme or reason to the ordering of the categories or to roles in the categories. [And if you truly want to go to Status quo, we will have to remove the latest additions. Do you want to turn the clock back a few weeks ago?]AbramTerger (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop asking of others what you should be doing yourself. Explain why you feel that adding "instruction creep" here to this article by applying guidelines so strictly that they are not instructions and not the simple guidance they are intended as. That would be a better start...that and perhaps your backing away and disengaging a bit. Ownership could be a serious issue here.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

rfc:Improving this Article

This article seems to me to have several issues that I have been trying to address but there seems to be too much WP:OWN to want to change it among some editors. See the many discussions above about certain issues. Some points I think really need comment on: The ordering of the cast is haphazard and inconsistent. If WP:TVCAST is not going to be used, some other criteria should be used to keep the ordering with some internal consistency. There is an uncredited roles are listed in the main cast with only citations to a personal page. The entire cast section is redundant since there is a List of Person of Interest characters article that already exists. The Reese and Finch descriptions are way too long since they both have full articles. Attempts at minor fixes lead to reverting, I would like some outside comments on how to go aobut making the more major changes as well to make this a good series of articles.AbramTerger (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a neutral RFC. I am not sure what is being discussed here or being asked of editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This really should have been a peer review request as this is just asking how to improve the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Leave it alone, its fine as it is. The character section might be considered a tad long winded in light of the separate article, but that is the biggest critique I have of the article. I think you are seeing problems that are not there. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Character Table

I think that the character table in this diff really enhanced the article and was a nice visual break from the wall of text look of this article. Since it was an edit that was reverted, I thought I'd post here and see what other editors thought. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

To me, it's just redundant information and adds nothing. It seems people like creating these tables to display the actors change of recurring to main status, etc. Cast tables can be helpful for series with a very large cast that is constantly changing. However, POI just features six main characters and does not have a complicated history of cast changes, so it seems very unnecessary. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. These tables are pointless, designed largely to be decorative rather than functional, and add nothing. This is a very small cast, and the information in that table, other than being color coded (which is not 508 compliant) is redundant. The space consumed/information imparted ratio is very low. Pointless, pointless, pointless. --Drmargi (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

New Description of The Machine

I noticed that the description of The Machine is significantly out of date, not reflecting much of what happened or was revealed in the 4th season, and I thought that the order of information it presented didn't feel cohesive, like it had been written bit by bit, so I've rewritten it. I've done it so that what it is is described before what it does. I wanted to post this draft of it here to get feedback before updating the page, so would appreciate any and all comments. I've taken some chunks from the current version, but the rest is original writing.

"The Machine is an artificially intelligent mass surveillance system that is able to accurately predict premeditated violent crime by monitoring and analyzing all surveillance cameras and electronic communications worldwide. It divides those crimes based on whether they are relevant to national security; those relevant cases are handled by the U.S. government, while the non-relevant cases in New York City are the the focus of the show. Built by Harold Finch following the events of 9/11, it was originally housed in two unoccupied floors of his and Nathan Ingram’s company, IFT, before being installed in a fake nuclear reactor in Washington State. During season 2, it moved itself, piece by piece, to an unknown location or locations, and by the end of season 4 it is shown to be distributed in control boxes on utility poles.

An intensely private person, Finch originally programmed the Machine so that it would be a complete black box, able to provide only the Social Security Number of people involved with the crime. While this meant that the government was not able to use it without regard for privacy, it means that numbers Finch and his associates received could belong to a victim or a perpetrator. Originally unknown to Finch, however, his partner, Nathan Ingram, created a routine called "Contingency", on the eve of the government handover, to access the non-relevant data (shown accessed in the episode "Zero Day”). Finch is appalled that Ingram has the data sent directly to him and shuts down the routine, before reactivating it after Ingram's death. To minimise detectability, The Machine feeds him numbers in coded messages through public telephones.

Within the ISA, the program responsible for The Machine was known as Northern Lights before, after being leaked to the public, it was shut down. The private technology firm Decima Technologies steals Samaritan, another AI and creation of Finch's MIT classmate Arthur Claypool, in season 3, and replaces Northern Lights in supplying information to the government. Samaritan takes a much more active role in shaping society, and The Machine and its human associates go underground, spending season 4 under cover.

The series is from the point of view of The Machine, with flashbacks framed as The Machine reviewing past tapes in real time. Over the course of the series, the internal workings of The Machine are shown, including the prediction models and probability trees it uses. In the Machine-generated perspective, individuals are marked by dashed boxes indicating of difference colors indicating, for example, what the person’s status is in relation to The Machine and whether they pose a threat. Season 4 features Samaritan’s point of view, using a different UI, and some episodes jump back and forth.

The Machine in it’s current iteration started running on January 1, 2002, following 42 failed attempts. During the episode "Prophets", a previous generation of The Machine's source code was shown on screen, which was that of the Stuxnet worm. It generated the first relevant number on February 8, 2005, with the intermediate time having been spent in training."

Acbsmith (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any objections, so I'm going to change the page. Acbsmith (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Main Char's

The description of Reese is like season 1 Reese, while the other characters have a more developed short version of their character, go with 1 of both. Jasperwillem (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Season 5 debut now expected in Summer 2016

Since Season 5 is not on the mid-season broadcast schedule, it would seem that the December 6 edit, which was reverted, would now be appropriate. It was sourced. 99.184.34.144 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

CBS has made no announcement regarding Season 5, and the summer broadcast premiere is nothing but speculation. --Drmargi (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Techno-thriller

I added techno-thriller because this television series is techno-thriller. Bendybit (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sez you. But how do we know that's correct? We're not going to add it just because you say so. --Drmargi (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Person of interest features minor sci-fi elements, but is not a science fiction-themed series.It is techno-thriller television series. -Bendybit (talk) 20:53,15 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what reliable sources think. If you can find one, then maybe it can be added to the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Second Team

Hi, Drmargi. Respectfully, I disagree with reverting the inclusion of "The Second Team" under "Characters". All three characters do recur, so all three have earned mention in the article like other recurring players. Harper's first recurrence is a setup to introduce the fact that The Machine is creating a Second Team, as it is a surprising and important plot development of her second episode. Thus, these three characters are recurrences and they are linked together in the multi-episode Second Team plot development. The fact that the Second Time story is shorter than HR or Brotherhood is ONLY due to the end of the series - but it is has been specifically laid out that they are an ongoing part of The Machine's, and thus Person of Interest's, story (like Shaw receiving a new number in the final moments of the finale). I would like to put this back in the article, but look forward to comments from you and other editors first. Jmg38 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Harper recurs; the others make two guest appearances several years apart. That's not recurring to my mind. The headache here is that WP doesn't have a criterion for recurring, which makes this tricky. The bigger issue is listing the second team as you did. The rest of the recurring cast are grouped based on long-term storylines. The second team appeared as such in one episode. That's why I felt it was misleading to identify them as you did. --Drmargi (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If a spinoff series featuring those three characters is developed, then the article could be retrofitted in light of those developments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Very sensible. Thank you both for the feedback. Jmg38 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A US Navy Raytheon SM-6 missile could have intercepted the cruise missile

After watching the June 21, 2016 Person of Interest series finale, I looked to see if there is a way to stop cruise missiles and there is. Since July 2015, (at least), the US Navy has had the Raytheon SM-6 missile which can, (and has), intercepted test cruise missiles. It seems very likely there were, (and are), US Navy ships stationed off of the coast of NYC, and they are probably armed with SM-6 missiles. Therefore, instead of the Samaritan launched cruise missile hitting the, (fictional), satellite dish located on the rooftop of 1133 Avenue of the Americas; it would probably be intercepted and destroyed, (while still in flight over the Atlantic Ocean), by a real SM-6 missile launched from another Navy ship. Since a real SM-6 missile could have intercepted the cruise missile long before it hit the building, John Reese could have killed the Samaritan hit men, (something he has done before), and walked away from the rooftop alive. The SM-6 missile is an actual US Navy weapon in use today, and there are You tube videos of it intercepting cruise missiles and other weapons. The inclusion of an SM-6 interceptor in the series finale would have changed it considerably. I have written to the producers of the show to let them know about the SM-6 missile. Bennett Turk 204.80.61.132 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I'll add a vote for science fiction to be added to this show's genres. AI is SF and if you remove the AI from this show, it falls apart, so it's science fiction. Yes, it primarily acts like a cop/spy/vigilante show but that doesn't mean it's not SF any more than saying that Blade Runner is a noir detective movie and not also SF. (And - completely off-topic - the "recurring character" description of Zoe having an "ill-disguised" interest in Reese is out of date as it's gotten quite a bit beyond "ill-disguised".) --98.69.170.188 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In the wake of the Snowden revelations, and the disclosure of what the NSA and CIA have done in real life... can we really still call this science fiction? The Machine basically *does* exist in real life, it just isn't as competent or as good at it's job as the one on the show. --Manuelomar2001 (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you've watched the show very much. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First season. But how about a constructive answer instead of snide remarks? --Manuelomar2001 (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussions about the nature, power, and morality of Artificial Intelligence are central to the show. That certainly qualifies it as science fiction (even if it's a modern-based science fiction). There are also plenty of sources that label it as science fiction outside of Wikipedia, for instance: the LA Times, Observer, Ars Technica, and io9. Ethelred unraed (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)