Talk:Orange Is the New Black/Archive 1

Archive 1

Main Cast vs Recurring Cast

I think the distinction here between main cast and recurring cast is problematic and I was wondering what was the rationale for this specific distinction. Did it come from an official list? Chrissy9876 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Cast

Was entirely too long. I shortened it significantly, removing all the labels and subdivisions among the recurring cast members. Please remember, wikipedia is not a an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information. The cast listed should not be the entire litany of every insignificant (and even unnamed) characters to ever appear in one episode. It should be significant only, there's no fixed number or cut-off per se but the explanation can be found at Wikipedia:CASTLIST:

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc."

The version I edited had something like 30 or 40 names on it, so I reduced it accordingly. JesseRafe (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Which Litchfield?

The article says that the show takes place at a prison in Litchfield, NY, which I believe to be a mistake. Litchfield, CT seems more likely to me as the town actually contains a former women's low-security prison, and is in the same state where Piper Kerman was imprisoned in real life. Can anyone find an authoritative source either way?

Rob (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that Litchfield, New York is a fictionalized location based on Danbury, Connecticut which was for females at the time.RichardBond (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy/authenticity

Just finished watching the first season of this and was wondering about the accuracy/authenticity of the show (as compared to Piper Kerman's actual account). Can we get some info on how similar the characters and stories in the show are to what's in her memoir? I mean, are all the characters based on real people? Were their names just changed, or are they fictional creations? I think we need a section dealing with this. --Hibernian (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are any state, county or federal prisons where transgendered women are housed with cisgendered women unless they had the surgery. Katie Couric got into trouble today in the newsmedia when she interviewed Laverne Cox, who plays the transgendered woman in Orange is the New Black and asked about her surgery.Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

´:It's also kinda striking that in order to introduce a transpersón they had to make her look remarkably like Beyoncé, even through the character is only halfway through hormone treatment (which has been broken off when she went to the pen?), hasn't had any kind of surgery and has been through a rough stretch in life for a long time. Almost no SRS transwomen achieve that kind of ravishing look (many come off their operations fairly unattractive) and certainly not without a good deal of specialized make-up, a place in life encouraging self-confidence and physical training. To picture a halfway, pre-op TG sitting in jail and looking like Beyoncé (or Jackie Kennedy) is a bit like expecting to find leaves of a Gutenberg Bible at the local Salvation Army thrift shop. 83.254.149.58 (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the book have its own article?

And if not, should it be built out further here or in the Piper Kerman article? Thomas Craven (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Craven, whether the book/memoir should have its own Wikipedia article of course first and foremost depends on whether or not it passes WP:Notable...or rather satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability (books) guideline. It might be worth querying about this book matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books; that project is sufficiently active. The other thing to consider with regard to the book having its own Wikipedia article is whether or not it can be expanded beyond a stub; per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. In such a case that the book should not have its own Wikipedia article, I think substantial material on it should be in the Orange Is the New Black article instead of in the Piper Kerman article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sexuality

Why does the article refer to Piper as bisexual when she doesn't identify as such in the show? 86.25.93.238 (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding? She has a (male) fiancé and a (female, obviously) girlfriend. Sounds pretty bisexual to me.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

title

Why is the word 'is' capitalized in the title? I thought words like that were usually lower case. JDDJS (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Larry's role

The source for Jason Biggs' unknown status got their information from the Christian Post, which only runs on assumptions and not facts. As far as I'm concerned, he should still be listed as a main character in the cast listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:270E:ED62:1FFD:BC83:A9C2:FF20 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"(recurring, seasons 1–2; starring, season 3–present)"

Is it relevant to have information like this on the 'main cast'? As most of the recurring characters have became the main cast, and it says like the title of this next to their names. Does it matter? As it looks quite clunky at the moment. The "Main Cast" section can refer to cast/characters from the most current season and how they are cast, we don't need to reference how they were previously, except maybe like "Season 1 - present", or not at all. It looks quite clunky and messy at the moment with the copy/paste of it.

Shall we just delete that information, and just leave "main cast" being whatever main cast it is in the current season? It isn't really relevant at this time now, if they were or weren't before hand. We aren't going to be judged on it, as the information will be up to date to the current season. Charlr6 (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As no one had replied to my comment I have deleted it myself. Two days was enough time for somebody to check the talk page, especially when this page has been busy and popular recently. If you want to add back on, please let's discuss. A good consensus though, not just two or three people. Charlr6 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

War on Drugs theme

What do you guys think on this?

I believe that this is an issue that isn't really discussed. Many of the women in the show including Piper are doing exaggerated amounts of time in prison due to the War on Drugs. Like when Tasha was released and due to the demonizing system she didn't know how to go back to her normal life so she broke parole and was sent back to Litchfield. And in another case when Angie was given the once in a life time opportunity when MCC messed up the system and gave her an early release, she admittedly didn't know where to go. The war on drugs deeply affects these women socially to a point where they dont know how to live in the outside world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.12.243 (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly a relevant theme, but reliable sources need to discuss it in order for it to be added to the article. Lapadite (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Season 4 casting

Normally I wouldn't add cast information for a series whose next season isn't premiering until the following year, but considering that the information is well-sourced ([1] [2]), I don't see an issue for including what I added. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The only information being presented when adding the season 4 row is that two cast members are now series regulars, but this is already in the production section. I think if we had confirmation regarding the entire cast, then sure, but listing everyone as "TBA" just seems silly and doesn't add anything. And the season is still like ~8 months away. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Drovethrughosts. Having "TBA" on all but two is unnecessary. We should have information on at least half of the main cast before the season 4 column is added, and that should be sourced in the production section, not the table. Lapadite (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cast and characters table

@BSCD128 and Drovethrughosts: Is the big table necessary in this article when the main list article is linked? I propose we move the table to the list article and present cast & character information in prose and/or a bullet list. Readers can click on the list article for a detailed list & table. Lapadite (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for prose over tables when it comes to cast lists, so I would definitely support that. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: I agree - it should be moved to the main list article instead. It's done. BSCD128 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's good, but we still need a character list in the main article. I'm going to add the main cast now, and then only the most essential recurring cast should be listed. Should we add duration (seasons) in parentheses for certain cast members or no? Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Are Michelle Hurst and Jason Biggs still main cast if they haven't returned respectively since seasons 1 and 2? I think those are the only two that should have parenthetical notation. Maybe we could add a brief description of the roles? Lapadite (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added the parenthetical notation for Hurst and Biggs. I'm gonna try and add a list of recurring characters now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So Michelle Hurst hasn't appeared on the show or been credited in cast list since season 1 (character was sent to maximum security), and Biggs had not appeared on the show since season 2; he had a cameo in season 5. Shouldn't these two actors be under recurring instead of main cast? Lapadite (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No, because they were main cast at one point. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, but the point is they haven't been since season 1. Why are we listing them as main actors when the show doesn't credit them as such anymore? Lapadite (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Because articles are written from the perspective of the whole series, not just right now. We don't remove actors just because they're currently not on the show. Just read MOS:TVCAST. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional references

• Codianni, Beatrice. "What You Won’t See on Orange Is the New Black." Ms Magazine. July 16, 2015.
• Leeds, Sarene. "Actual ‘Corrections’ Are Scarce in New Season of ‘Orange Is the New Black’." The Wall Street Journal. June 15, 2015.
  • "Piper Kerman: Incarceration Does Not Lead to Rehabilitation." ABC News. July 21, 2013.
• Kornhaber, Spencer. "The Miracle in Orange Is the New Black's Season 3 Finale." The Atlantic. July 15, 2015.
• Paskin, Willa. "Prison as Playground." Slate. June 11, 2015 - Review of Season 3
• Paskin, Willa. "Back in Orange." Slate. June 5, 2014 - Review of Season 2
• Thomas, June. "Yes, You Should Watch Orange Is the New Black This Weekend." Slate. July 12, 2013.
• Archer, Sarah. "The Labyrinth of Litchfield ." Slate. June 14, 2015. - About the set design
• Samuel, Sigal. "Does ‘Orange is the New Black’ Have a Jewish Problem?" The Daily Beast. July 18, 2013.
• Kupfer, Ruta. "Breaking Bad, The Wire, Orange Is the New Black: Jewish Stereotypes, Without the Guilt." Haaretz. October 27, 2013. - Also discusses "Levy" from the memoir

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Can somebody tell me why "A new Emmy rule in 2015 forced the series to change categories from comedy to drama. " is relevant to the lede? Why is Emmy ruling relevant in the lede for an article on a TV series? Also if you read the MOS guidelines you'll see that actually we generally don't source the lede anyway, the material will be sourced within the body. I detect some strong ownership issues surrounding some of these articles. Lapadite77, care to explain why this is really relevant?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

(Ignoring a ridiculous, knee-jerk bad-faith claim because your unconstructive edits was reverted) That's included because it's relevant and notable; It was widely reported that the show was subjected to the new Emmy rule and forced into the drama category even though they submitted for comedy (read the source cited, "7 Emmys rules and quirks that explain the 2015 nominations"; excerpt:

"Until this year, it was a show's prerogative to identify itself as a comedy or a drama. There was no specific governing board making those calls, which led to just about any fairly dramatic show with a handful of comedic elements competing in the comedy categories, where they were often quite successful. In 2014, the most notable beneficiary of this policy was Netflix's Orange Is the New Black ... The Academy ultimately decided that three of those hour-long shows — Glee, Jane the Virgin, and Shameless — could compete in the 2015 Emmys as comedies, while Orange Is the New Black must compete as a drama. But where the more outwardly silly Glee and Jane made more immediate sense as comedies, it's not clear why Shameless is a comedy and Orange Is the New Black is a drama, given that both shows boast fairly equal divides of both genres.")

Dr. Blofeld, as a long standing editor you should know better than to remove cited information (and without an edit summary while making it as a minor edit) because you don't want it there, especially before discussing it on the talk page. As for lead citations, sure, the information should be cited in the body of the article; You can easily do that instead of removing it without discussion no? Anyone else wants to weight in on this inclusion in the lead? Lapadite (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't OWN the article Lapadite, why should I have to ask to edit? The lede does not need to be sourced. Have you never contributed a featured article? What relevance does discussing Emmy policy have to do with the series in the lede though? It's superfluous waffle. One of the biggest problems this site has is people who think they own popular articles. It means that so many of them fail to be improved because people act like bodyguards in blocking changes. You claim that this is the most watched TV series, but what makes Grantland.com and Hollywood Reporter a WP:Reliable source? HR is a notorious tabloid. Grantland.com. Do you really think these are respectable sources for such a huge claim? Find a proper reliable source for this claim. Can you find a more reputable sources from a more esteemed publisher to verify such a big claim? It's dubious information to me, supported by shoddy sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've reworded it slightly and stuck to using a Variety source, is that agreeable to you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You've read WP:TALK, Wikipedia:DISCUSSIT, WP:FOC, WP:CON, right (as well as WP:OWN → "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor ...the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership"). I'm guessing you don't find anything wrong in your "remov[ing] cited information (and without an edit summary while making it as a minor edit) because you don't want it there, especially before discussing it", or your immediate bad faith accusation because your unconstructive edit was reverted? Is that not itself a reflection on your editing behavior? "...people act like bodyguards..." exactly, thinka 'bout it. To follow up on your snark, see a recent discussion above for an example on how one can easily discuss a significant change. As for the content in question, yes it is relevant, because, if you read the cited article, and any other article on this, (1) it is a notable Emmy rule change, (2) the category change potentially impacted/impacts the awards reception for the shows affected by the change, (3) without it, readers may find confusing why one season the show is nominated in comedy, and another it's nominated in drama, (4) the lead clearly notes that the series is the first to receive Emmy nominations in both comedy and drama. Is that not clear and relevant enough for you?

As for "most-watched", it is not my claim (really?), it is stated by several sources, including Variety, which is cited. Also stated in TechCrunch, LA Times, Mashable, Indiewire, /Film, The Independent, PinkNews, The Guardian, and, several others. Sounds like you're employing a serious case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Refer you to WP:V → "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."

"what makes Grantland and The Hollywood Reporter a WP:Reliable source?" ... you can take issues with source reliability to the Reliable sources noticeboard. An article page is not the place to argue about the reliability of sources that are broadly considered reliable.

Maybe recent and/or regular editors, e.g. @Drovethrughosts, BSCD128, Austin research, Darkwarriorblake, and General Ization:, would like to give input, particularly on the Emmy change inclusion in the lead? Lapadite (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm mostly surprised I'm one of the biggest editors here when I've barely edited it. Reading the lede at the minute, I think the mention of the category change probably is not necessary. In it's current form it states it was forced to change, but without context, response or some attached notable controversy, I don't think this minor mention provides enough information. It is definitely something that should be mentioned and perhaps investigated deeper in the article to look at how it affected the awards success of the show, but I don't think it should be in the lede. At least not how it is at the moment. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, yeah it should definitely be noted in the body of the article. I summarized the accolades section, and mentioned the Emmy rule change with a bit more context. I'll look into it more later. Lapadite (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comedy-drama

I notice that it's been labelled as a comedy-drama since 2013 so it's not some recent interpretation. Call me crazy but there's no chance no way that it's a comedy of any sort. Even if the initial Crazy Eyes scenes somehow qualified as comedy, which we could argue it wouldn't be enough to call the whole series a comedy. SlightSmile 13:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)