Talk:Burn Notice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Season 2?

Now that USA has signed season 2 (quite a while ago, actually) and commercials for it are airing, should something be put in about that? Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Like the second sentence of the article? You are welcome to expand on it though. Blackngold29 05:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gabrielle Anwar's Irish accent

Is there a correct way to note in the main article that Gabrielle Anwar has a terrible Irish accent? -- Horkana 02:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore she doesn't. For some reason she speaks with an American accent now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.139.26 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 15 July 2007

It was explained in the 2nd episode, that Fiona is faking a more American accent now that she's in America. Ytoabn 02:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Car

I think I remember hearing it's a Charger, from back when they were good, but does anyone know what year? Just curious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedalfax (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 July 2007

They just showed a shot of the car with people standing in front of the grille, But I noticed two headlights, not hidden. According to Dodge Charger (B-body)#1971-1974, that option came in 1971. Same with that Pontiac style grille that I could barely see. Those, plus my obsessive want for everything to fit nicely, and the use of a 1971 Plymouth 'Cuda in Nash Bridges, makes me suspect it's a '71. --Kedalfax 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Numberplates

Has someone a reasons why many cars have no numberplate? Some do have one in the back but none in the front...? seb 210.10.162.25 (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Some states require license plates in the front and back, and some only in the front. FL may only require back. --Drmargi (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, private vehicles in Florida are only required to have a license plate in the rear. Front is optional. JDS2005 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael's home town

Do we really need SIX references to prove Michael's home town is Miami Ytoabn's Blog: http://ytoabn.blogspot.com/ 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I've removed the piece of trivia about the episode Identity, and moved it to the Identity page (Ytoabn's Blog: http://ytoabn.blogspot.com/ 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

Yogurt?

What the hell is up with the yogurt? Every episode seems to have at least two references/shots of yogurt...am I missing something? JDS2005 01:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's simply a running gag. A treat for consistent fans Ytoabn's Blog: http://ytoabn.blogspot.com/ 02:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IMDB Link wrong

Links to Kieran Smyth who is nm0810788 instead tt0810788 which is burn notice

don't know how to change it

thanks! Nachoherrera (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. 82.82.57.204 (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Fiona's accent

I've rewritten the explanation of the change in Fiona's accent. Her dialogue in Ep. 2 indicates she changed her style of dress and accent to blend into the Miami milieu more fully, and to distance herself from her past associations, but there was no mention of her making the change to maintain "her cover." Moreover, Fiona does not live with Michael; we saw she has her own apartment, so I have removed the statement she stays with Michael, as well as anything treating her presence in Miami as temporary. That runs counter to her first scene with Michael, where she tells him she's ready for a change and has decided to settle in Miami. --Drmargi (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Production?

Does anybody know if this is a single camera or multi-camera setup? Looks like a single camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehavana (talk • contribs) 05:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, while the infobox says Multi-camera, that doesn't seem right. a source would be nice k thx riffic (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of episodes

Template:Infobox Television#Usage states that this field is number of episodes produced (not aired). An episodes existence does not depend on our having seen it. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Then get the correct number of episodes produced, which is more than 20, and be able to source it reliably. BN and most TV shows work several episodes ahead (based on casting announcements, they're working on at least number 12 of season 2 at present, which would bring the total to 23 already produced and the 24th in production.) 20 is the number of episodes for which the show has released summaries to the media, but that's all. The form around here is to add episodes to the total once they are broadcast. You're using poor wording that better applies to completed seasons to add inaccurate information. Drmargi (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is a source 23 or 24 episodes already produced for Burn Notice then they should be added to the episode list and the episode count. Regardless we do know there are at least 20 episodes produced which is what the Infobox usage guide says to use. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The page you cite is not a rule (it's a help page). As far as I am aware it has always been standard to list the episodes broadcast to date. Fix the help page, save the world. Matthew (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Casting notices are the best way to track which episode is in production, but are problematic at best for our purposes. They don't always include accurate episode titles, and represent episodes at the very beginning of production. As such they are very iffy sources, and that's if they're on the web to source according to Wikipedia's standards. Forget that. To say we know at least 20 are produced and suggest that's the number we list is both inaccurate and could arguably be considered original research. It's also misleading to add more than what's been broadcast. The most accurate, supportable number we have is 19 episodes already shown. Drmargi (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 06:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Drmargi (talk)

The issue is clearer for shows that are no longer in production. For example if a show had 13 episodes produced, but only 11 were aired the article should still list 13 episodes (and discuss later the status of the unaired two). For current shows we can either update the number each time an episode airs, or each time we have a valid source for number produced. For better or worse, the latter is the Wikipedia standard. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Go back and look at the help page. It says number of seasons/series produced and number of episodes aired. Drmargi (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Only because User:Matthew just changed it from "episodes produced" to "episode aired", hardly a valid basis for your position. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since that's the first time I looked at the page you cite as support for your position, I can't address myself to if/when it was changed (there's nothing in the history of the page you've linked to showing a change after August 24). My previous comment was just that, a comment, not an argument. The fact remains: you cannot provide a reliable source that there are 20 and only 20 episodes produced. Therefore the only accurate information we can reliably source is that there have been 19 broadcast as of last Thursday. As Matthew states below, the standard to my experience has always been episodes broadcast, and I've often found editors increasing that number reverted on the basis of WP:CB. Drmargi (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Usage guideline for Template:Infobox Television is transcluded from Template:Infobox Television/doc (as noted on the former page itself), the history of the later page shows how and when it was changed today. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you're stating "the latter is the Wikipedia standard". I've actually found it to be the opposite... that each time an episode airs the count is updated (examples: Lost, Desperate Housewives and Smallville (all have hidden notes)). Matthew (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I could add "The Closer" "ER" and "In Plain Sight" to that list. I can't recall ever seeing anyone go by any other standard, especially one as difficult to source reliably as episodes produced unless the series in toto or latest season had ended. Regardless, it's a guideline, and the practice for "Burn Notice" has always been episodes broadcast in the US. Drmargi (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

By standard I meant what the guideline had (until changed during this discussion) stated for a long time, not what certain editors might do on their own. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment The long-standing practise is to update totals to reflect what has aired, not what has been produced. It is very difficult to verify what has been completed and what has not, especially given that many episodes are often completed within a few days of airing. Further to this, the "Doc" page is not a guideline; it is merely an instruction page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A valid source is a valid source. If there has been a such a story/interview etc. where production information has been given than that should be used. If 13 episodes have finished production than that is how many episodes there are, regardless of whether or not they ever air. That's one of the reasons for episode lists, and for those lists to have airdates. Obviously if we do not have a good source on production, than the number known to be produced would be the number aired. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 11:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing in the abstract about never-to-be shown episodes; stick to the situation that confronts us. "Burn Notice" is an ongoing series currently airing. Any decisions need to be made accordingly. The validity of sources is not the Wikipedia standard. Validity is highly subjective. A source for episode number must be reliable. If you can figured out what constitutes produced (i.e. principle photography finished versus rough cut versus broadcast ready cut), and, more power to you, find an accurate, consistent and reliable source for the actual number of episodes produced at any given time, go ahead an post it. But be prepared to be reverted under WP:CB. In the meantime, the most reliable, and frankly the most sensible source we have is the number of episodes broadcast. Drmargi (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Valid/Reliable is just semantics, I meant a source considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. For this show and many others there are reliably sourced interviews with cast and crew, and articles on production. From such sources come the episode lists, and reliable numbers for episodes produced. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Do a bit of homework. Far from semantics, validity and reliability are entirely different concepts. Bottom line: you've got neither except for episodes broadcast. End of discussion. Drmargi (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I intended no difference between "valid source" and "reliable source" in my comments above. I am sure that there are reliable sources for show production, which is always in advance of airing due to a number of factors. As for locating such a source for this series; one does not pop up immediately in a Google search, and unfortunately it is not worth my time to dig deeper than that now that I am back at work. All that being said, if I (or anyone else) has such a source (trade magazine, paper, etc.), than the number of episodes produced is a better number than aired; since as I stated above, an episode's existence is not dependent on it being aired. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why Season Two only has nine episodes? Mdriver1981 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Season 3

At the end of the Season 2 finale the show said that the series will continue "this Winter." I'm guessing Christmas. The first Thursday of this coming Winter will fall on December 25.Mdriver1981 (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't guess. We wait until we know, reliably. The general thinking among the TV media is the show will return for the remainder of Season 2 (not Season 3) in February. But that's speculation, too. Drmargi (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently in it's third season, Burn Notice is not only the most popular show on cable, but it also beats the networks in its coveted time slot as well. Throughout the third season ratings have increased and now they have passed the second season finale high mark and are breaking series records weekly.

Third Season Dates: June - Aug 6, 2009, then resumes Jan 2010.

Again, we get it, and it's in the article. No need to be a know-it-all. Or to quote media directly to sound like you know more than you do. Three points need making here. First, do not overwrite the comments of others with yours. Second, sign your posts. Third, a January return date has not been announced by USA, so that's entirely speculative on your part. Drmargi (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Third Season versus Split Second Season

USA has not renewed Burn Notice for a third season as yet. This doesn't need to be noted in the article, particularly since the ratings (BN is a top-10 cable show) would suggest a third season renewal will happen at some time in the near future. The Winter, 2009 (not 2008) episodes are the remaining seven of the 16-episode Season Two order from USA. USA is in the habit of splitting the seasons of its summer shows, and does so with Psych and Monk as well. Drmargi (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Season began June 2009 for nine episodes through August 6, 2009. It will resume (3.5) in January 2010 for seven episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohio533 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 25 July 2009 Ohio533 (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we kinda know that now, other than the January return date, since USA hasn't announced that as yet. It's really not necessary to state the incredibly obvious in reply to a nine-month old post. Drmargi (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Income?

There has been some talk on blogs about's Michael's income as about 75% is pro bono work. He does do some interesting jobs and some have paid quite well. It would be interesting for somebody to figure out what he's earned since being burned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.69.237 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If a job is "pro bono" then it is not a part of his income. Stating that Michael's income consists of "75% pro bono work" does not make sense. That statement should be revised to: "75% of Michael's work is pro bono."Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

75% of Wikipedia editors are illiterate. They also are unaware that original research is against policy. -- 98.108.199.241 (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Season 3

As discussed above: "Burn Notice was renewed for a third season on October 9, 2008, receiving a 16 episode order." But isn't this "third season" in fact part of the ongoing "second season" (Burn Notice (season 2))? This is confusing... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No. This refers to the third season that will begin production in the next few weeks. Drmargi (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comedy?

Comedy? Any sources for that? The series seems to be mostly drama, very little comedy - about as much as in Star Trek, Supernatural, and so on... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dramedy would be a better term for it, since regardless of source, seeing the comedic elements can't be refuted even if it isn't marketed solely on said elements. --69.217.66.105 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dramedy is a neologism at best, more a nonsense word. USA considers the show a drama, although it has definite comic overtones, as do most dramas. Drmargi (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do they call it a drama? If I recall correctly a commercial stated it is an "action comedey". Blackngold29 04:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It has drama between Michael and the characters, a lot of explosions and gunfire means it's an action, and I find that there are very funny parts at times. Perhaps it can be labeled as suspense? Peppage (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What's with all the schvitzing? It is a television shoouw. The primary narrative structure is rooted in the 80s action genre. If you'll notice the plot moves with striking similarity to an A-Team episode. It incorporates a lot of the romanticizing of violence (no value judgment on that here) and displays plenty of action. However, unlike the A-Team, it also utilizes humanistic drama and uses absurdist symbolism to create an emotional net that holds the story together. The show maintains the viewer's interest and allows insight into the intimacy of the interpersonal relationships using comedy. So yes, the show is an action show. It is drama. It is comedy. The fundamental storytelling relies on all three aspects. So go ahead, keep trying to label the show, but the show is unable to be labeled - its primary charm. --75.151.116.105 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Z thinks it has some humor. Is it a comedy? Verdict: No! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.43.164.217 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Most dramas do not have "definite comic overtones". Anyway, neither "drama" nor "comedy" is an adequate characterization -- Burn Notice is a light-hearted action/adventure series with humorous elements -- quite similar in tone to The Rockford Files. -- 98.108.199.241 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to be classified as comedy as well as its other listing (be it action or drama) I'd not watch the show if it wasn't as funny as it is. The script was written with intent to draw laughter from the audience. that makes it a comedy I suggest it be changed back to include comedy. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeoneE1se (talk • contribs) 06:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Taken from wiki/Comedy-Drama "Comedy-drama, also called dramedy or seriocomedy,[1] is a style of television, theatre and film in which there is an equal or nearly equal balance of humor and serious content." there is as much drama as comedy in each ep. if you'd like I can go min by min and rate on it's comedy/drama scale and it will show as much if not more comedy then drama. (season opens and closes don't count) and until you can show me something that shows otherwise it should remain as a comedy-drama SomeoneE1se (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there is some humor, but dramedy requires humor to be equally balanced with drama. I don't think BN classifies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem. The show uses humor, largely from Sam, to balance the heavier elements. But to call it a comedy-drama (I detest the fake word dramedy) is entirely WP:POV absent any reliable source, and that pretty much means the show or USA, to support it. Drmargi (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no litmus test for TV genres. ANY interpretation of this show's genre is going to be subjective and thus POV. Few of the arguments above can be used as a justification for the show being a drama or comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.227.253 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

SNL Edit War

The mention on SNL has spawned an edit war. We may to go to work later. 68.99.172.81 (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) I meant need to go to work later. Check for any lasting damage. 68.99.172.81 (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, edit war...just stupid stuff, as usual. Funny, I didn't see anything similar on Them Crooked Vultures! Drmies (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an edit war. You're just removing serial vandalism. --Drmargi (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Useful tips from Micheal

Has anyone noticed that some of the spy tips said to the audience by micheal are actually true.

For instance -

The can of air upside down to squirt out the liquid form of the freon inside is cold enough to crystalize metal enough to smash it with a hammer (if the whole can is used).

I think it would be worth noting in the article, that some of the tips he tells us are indeed true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.138.221 (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.115.112 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

a) It's "Michael". b) WP:NOR -- 98.108.199.241 (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

as of now I've yet to hear one (other then opinions) that aren't true SomeoneE1se (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

International distribution section

Can someone help me to understand why this information is useful or appropriate for an this article? These sections are on some TV show articles, though by far the majority do not have this section. I assumed it would be uncontroversial to remove this section, but apparently it wasn't. 128.223.131.109 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because your summary "this isn't TV Guide" both seemed a bit sarcastic and didn't provide any sort of reason for removing the section. If you can mount a decent argument, the be patient while the section is discussed, you never know what might happen. But it's up to you to make the argument for removal, not the other way around, since you're making the change that's been challenged. Drmargi (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If it seemed sarcastic to you, that wasn't my intention. As for who needs to make what arguments, neither side is excused. If no argument can be put forth to justify the continued existence of this section, it will go. 128.223.131.109 (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read up on how consensus works around here. Once a discussion is initiated regarding an edit, no change is made until there is consensus. Right now, you don't have consensus to revert my edit. As I said on my talk page, these lists are commonplace in articles for shows that have large international viewership. Whether they're clutter or not, I don't see a reason to selectively remove this one in particular. Drmargi (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a larger issue here, namely why this section is on some TV show articles but not others. It seems there are three different mutually exclusive positions on this matter: A) This is relevant info and should be on every article about an internationally distributed TV show, B) This info is more appropriate for TVGuide and should not be on any TV show article, or C) It is relevant and useful on some TV articles but not others. If C is the agreed upon answer then the question that must be answered is "What makes this info relevant for some shows but not others?" This question would need to be asked for every individual show if C is indeed Wikipedia policy. I have initiated a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#International_distribution_section_for_television_shows to see if anyone else has an opinion. 128.223.131.109 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That strikes me as a fairly sensible approach to the larger issue. The line between relevant information and fancruft gets blurry sometimes, and this particular section of the articles has always straddled that line, along with DVD release information, tie-in books, and the like. Drmargi (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Porter

Should Jesse Porter be added to the list of characters? He seems to be very important in the latest season Thatguy1994 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. He's a regular cast member now. Go for it. Drmargi (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Gless emmy nom

Seems the awards section should be updated.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.33.159 (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

article name

move article to Burn Notice (TV series) ? like almost all TV Series are sorted... - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 00:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article used to be at that. However, things like House (TV Series) and 24 (TV Series) are at their respective names because for House, a house is more significant, and for 24; it has to be formatted along with all of the other year articles. I think Burn notice (document) is pretty obscure though, and the TV series is what most people would be looking for. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

so, should i change article name to "Burn Notice (TV Series)" or leave it as it is? - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave it as is. (TV series) is added only when there's a need to identify one of a series of articles with the same key word. A burn notice is unlikely to ever be notable enough to have its own article. Drmargi (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I had this on watch, but never saw any replies. Is there any way we can figure out which is more likely to be requested? Ive never heard of this TV series before coming to this page, while I have heard of the document before hearing it again and searching it. (Not to say that anecdote is important, but it provides "probable cause" to do a search count if that is possible). --Metallurgist (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect?

Shouldnt the redirect link to the document or a disambiguation page? I dont get why it would link here, when the two are probably equally requested (altho I would suspect the document is more requested).--Metallurgist (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the show is way more popular, and the article is edited more frequently. Also, changing to a redirect page would force us to change hundreds (if not, thousands) of links to say "Burn Notice (TV series)" rather than just "Burn Notice". Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Glossing over terrorism?

First sentence on Fiona Glenanne: "A former IRA operative and Westen's ex-girlfriend"

Surely:

"A former IRA terrorist and Westen's ex-girlfriend"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.201.173 (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Extreme POV. Fiona Glenanne is a fictional character, described as "affiliated with the IRA for 14 years" -- no mention of having been a terrorist. -- 98.108.199.241 (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

An explosives expert "affiliated" with the IRA isn't a terrorist? I think "operative" is the extreme POV here. Wjousts (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The language from USA reads: Fiona (Gabrielle Anwar) may look like she just stepped out of a fashion magazine but she's a force to be reckoned with. She was affiliated with the IRA for 14 years, but ran afoul of her old organization because she didn't like being told what to do. She has since gone out on her own, picking up odd jobs and using her skills in explosives, lock picking, tracking, weapons, and hand-to-hand combat to make a living. In the pilot, we establish she built bombs for the IRA, and later that her doing so was motivated by anger at the murder of her sister by British soldiers. Does that make her a terrorist or an operative? Depends on which flag you salute. Her character sketch should probably be reworded in such a way that neither term is used. Drmargi (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the IRA *are* a terrorist organisation...81.23.50.232 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Still POV. End of story. --Drmargi (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So would it be POV if she was a PLO "operative", who spent a lot of time blowing up Israelis but was not really a terrorist? Gordonjcp (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. Let me ask you; do you feel you'd question whether someone involved in the 9/11 attacks was a terrorist, or still comment that "it depends on your point of view." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.221.182 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that DOES depend on your point of view. Even here on Wikipedia, the IRA is only described as a paramilitary group, and al-Qaeda is described as similar, only saying that "most of the world" considers both as terrorist organizations. If you were to ask every terrorist if they identified themselves as terrorists, I highly doubt they'd say yes. We're supposed to be maintaining a neutral point of view here, so operative, as the more clinical and unbiased term, should be fine. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that "neutral point of view" is an excuse for outright whitewashing. Wjousts (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is a U.S.A. operative who is involved in the deaths of enemies (via explosives, even) a "terrorist"? If you label an IRA operative a "terrorist", you have to label a CIA operative a "terrorist", etc. Even a successful U.S.A. strike can take out a bunch of women and children who were "in the way". The only difference between a Terrorist and a Hero is which side you're on. The main protagonist of this series causes more havoc and terror amid the unwitting citizens than "Fiona" does. -- 4.153.2.54 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New employee orientation?

The plot portion of the article states, "The voice-over commentary is in the form of tips for fledgling agents as if for a training or orientation film". Clearly it's not. The voice-over commentary style is better described as a memoir / autobiography. Descriptions of techniques / methods /technologies is not unusual in this genre (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher). Billyoffland (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Soundtrack

The sountrack for Burn Notice is available on Amazon.com. It appears to be an MP3 version only however (also available on iTunes).

http://www.amazon.com/Burn-Notice-Soundtrack-Hit-Original/dp/B001CRA4U6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1306743704&sr=8-1

It seems like this would be a nice addition to the Burn Notice Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enworld (talk • contribs) 08:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Production Notes?

Do we want any sections on production notes? I'm just noticing that at least the first season, they seem to "rewind & replay" about a second of a scene about three times, like the visual equivalent of a DJ "scratching" a record. What does that technique mean? I have not seen that before. 74.104.58.123 (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that is, but usually minor editing techniques with a show aren't really notable. Яehevkor ✉ 13:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

An observation about fiction

I realize potentially controversial statements need a cite, so what I'm really doing here is alerting editors to a need and an opportunity.

I've checked statements represented as facts in the overdubs, and a number of them aren't remotely close to being true. An example I remember is the percent of kidnap victims who are released. There are other examples, but my point here is not to get into details. There needs to be some brief mention in the article that the show is fiction, it's not an expose or a documentary.

Normally, this wouldn't be an important aspect to call out in a TV spy drama, but here the show's constant preachy overdubs are deliberately confounding truth with fiction, and I think it's an encyclopedia's duty to point out that what is being represented as truth is not truth. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The genre in the infobox reads "drama". This implies fiction. I'm quite certain that nobody who reads through this article would believe that it's referring to some kind of reality TV show. -- Fyrefly (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also completely disagree with you about the show intentionally misleading viewers, but that doesn't really pertain to the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I completely disagree with you. If the show was about dragons and elves, then even pre-teen viewers would understand it was make believe. But the narrator in "Burn Notice" is describing real organizations, real guns, and real places in overdubs, in a lecture style that clearly intends to be authoritative. Works of fiction do not quote statistics, for example. The show purports to reflect truth, but is more a flimsy device driven by slovenly writers who haven't done their research. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the whole malice/ineptitude theme again. I think I agree that it would be too sinister to have the show mingle the "fact narratives" with deliberate outright errors, but shift the perspective just a little and you can have behind the scenes orders to "not show certain details". I wouldn't be surprised if they have a government consultant who checks each script to sign off that it doesn't leak classified info. But it's also very possible that the writers think they're presenting facts for the voice-overs but making mistakes as well. 74.104.58.123 (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you give the show far too much credit. It is obviously made for TV entertainment. Spies don't go around solving all of their problems with explosives and machine guns, it would be too hard to cover up the mess. Australian spy agencies, for example, are not authorised to even carry weapons. In one episode of Burn Notice, Western made, if I remember correctly, a computer wireless network by plugging a coat-hanger in to a USB port whilst the narration authoritatively stated that this was possible. This is the kind of information that the OP was saying the show presents as fact when it isn't even remotely true. Perhaps the article does not need to state outright that the narrated information is often not factual, however, I think that the article should explain that the show is larger than life in style and not particularly realistic in any way, I think that this would clear up the problem whilst remaining relevant --Spuzzdawg (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC).

Charles "Chuck" Finley

The page might be enriched by a comment on Sam Axe's alias. Including how offended he is in the next to last season when the false passport prepared for him uses a different alias. Who and why Charles Finley became his preferred alias. The Finley page is a disambiguation page, the only one I had heard of is Charles Finely, and I had always assumed an Oakland fan sneaked it into the script. TV isn't my area, but it struck me that if WP:RS could be met, it might be an interesting addition to the article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reception / reasons for cancellation

The article should talk more about reception (reviews) than just the awards. And it should discuss why the series stopped where it did. Was it cancelled due to poor ratings? Did the story reach the conclusion as intended by the writers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

Please allow me to edit this page. I would like to make some edits to the reception and awards and nominations sections. 2607:FB90:1384:228:0:1E:6FC1:F901 (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt by RedDeadJohn to evade his block in order to edit disruptively. His editing and socking lead to the page protection here and on several other pages. --Drmargi (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

Replace reception and awards/nominations with how it was. Before Red John's edits. Movieman191 (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Block evasion with the intent to edit disruptively. --Drmargi (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

I only ask this because I would like to correct an error in the ASCAP Awards. They should be written as ASCAP Awards. Thank you. Movieman191 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Block evasion with the intent to edit disruptively. --Drmargi (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)