Talk:Mr. Robot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pilot

The pilot episode was avlible on streaming websites around 27-28 May, 2015. (t) Josve05a (c) 11:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Premise section is too close to the press release?

I noticed the premise section is coinciding with the USA press release that can be found in multiple locations, e.g., [1] or [2] by pasting parts of the current premise section into google. It probably needs to be rewritten from scratch instead of just changing single words around. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Elliot's disorders

There's been a recent tendency for editors to "diagnose" Elliot based on clues they see in the show, obvious WP:OR. The show has only identified two mental illnesses: social anxiety disorder and delusions. Anything more is based on supposition by an editor, and is not WP:VERIFIABLE. I've removed a mention of the diffuse statement "other mental illnesses" or variations therein. Again, we don't know what others he might have, and there's no source to back up the addition of more than the two listed, even by inference. One editor sourced their addition of one of these vague statement with "meds", but we don't know what his meds are, just that he's not taking them, and based on what Krista said in one therapy session, they are designed to treat his delusions. --Drmargi (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

And clinical depression. I knew he said it in an episode, but couldn't remember which. I found a source, however, and added it to the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you spot the episode, make a note of it. I can't recall when they said it either, but I can see it being a point of argument. One editor seems to favor the diffuse term "multiple mental illnesses", which is problematic on a number of fronts. Delusions with paranoia, depression and the anxiety disorder seem to cover it accurately, and are tied to one another (OR, but just for the purpose of this discussion). --Drmargi (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The quote is from episode 4, "What I do have? Clinical depression, social anxiety, a day job, a night job, confusing relationships, others depending on me, taking down the largest corporation in the world, and I chose it all". It's already in the article though with the source[3]. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that, due to ambiguity with the term "Mr. Roboto" and the recentness of the TV show, there is no primary topic for the term "Mr. Robot". Jenks24 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

---

• Mr. Robot (TV series) → Mr. Robot
• Mr. Robot → Mr. Robot (disambiguation)

– Page stats show this page is far greater viewed than its disambigs or corresponding articles, Mr. Robot has already been moved to disambig, for now I've redirected it to this article until a move can be made ChessFiends (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I see no need to have the parenthetic given this is an uncommon name for a TV series, and Google (etc.) searches resolve to this show. --Drmargi (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is very WP:RECENT and really you should put the disambiguation page back at [Mr. Robot] please. User:Drmargi the dab had been moved, there are in fact other older subjects. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 18:43, 21 August 2015‎ ChessFiends (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (ChessFiends moved page Mr. Robot to Mr. Robot (disambiguation) over redirect: Page view stats suggest Mr Robot (TV series) is far more popular) (thank)

http://stats.grok.se/en/201412/Mr._Robot - before the show started the disambig page was getting on average 25 hits per day, the two other articles even less http://stats.grok.se/en/201501/Mr._Robot_%28video_game%29 + http://stats.grok.se/en/201412/Mr._Robot_and_His_Robot_Factory . Mr Robot (TV series) is getting 18,000 hits daily, and even in many years time it will keep receiving far more views than the other pages. Recentism is not applicable here. ChessFiends (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support, as per Drmargi's argument. Alex|The|Whovian 02:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE the nominator moved Mr. Robot (disambiguation) away from Mr. Robot before filing this move request, so this is in effect a multimove, and should it fail, the disambiguation page should be returned to its prior location. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:RECENTISM the TV show is very new, currently airing in its premiere season. The disambiguation page should be returned to the base location, as it was yesterday, before the nominator displaced it. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose since the ambiguous title is a rather common misspelling for Mr. Roboto ... so common that the misspelling is notable enough to probably prevent any page other than a disambiguation page from ever sitting at Mr. Robot. Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose same reason--68.231.26.111 (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cyberpunk?!

Who the hell came to the idea that Mr. Robot is a cyberpunk series? Which element of it is akin to cyberpunk?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.176.86 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The citation? Winston Spencer (talk)

The citation is by some critic who may or may not know what they're talking about. Hardly reliable. One critical characteristic of cyberpunk is that it is set in the future. Mr. Robot is in the present day. The descriptor was removed by an IP who provided a rationale, then restored by a registered user with no explanation for the revert. I've reverted back and opening this discussion, given this issue clearly needs some attention. I also have issues with the show being called a psychological thriller. Again, the descriptor is based on a critic's evaluation of the show rather than from the producers themselves, or at least the network. Consequently, both are questionable. On the other hand, NBC, the parent company for USA Network, describes it as a techno thriller. Now's that's reliable. --Drmargi (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've readded psychological thriller. Besides it being reliably sourced, just reading the article on the genre makes its inclusion quite obvious to the show in question. But, I did add a link in my edit summary to USA Network which describes it exactly as such[4]. If you want it cited in the article, I can add it if you wish. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What makes two minor critics such reliable sources? Your edit has been challenged, and removed. Please gain consensus before restoring, per WP:BRD, and establish the reliability of your sources. The producer and network have both described the program as a techno-thriller, and in the Nerdist source, the producer/creator/writer (and thereby the final word) is clear that the genre (singular) it fits into, if any, is techno-thriller. Any critic can hang a label on a show. Don't make it so. --Drmargi (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you somehow don't think critics aren't allowed to classify a show... I supplied you with a link to the USA Network website, which literary states, "...a psychological thriller". How is this "controversial"? Absurd. The fact is, you've deleted reliably sourced content multiple times based on your opinion and nothing else. It was readded by another editor, and you deleted it again. Since when can't (notable) critics classify a show? This is new to me. Consensus for what? Reliable sources that only you are against? You say, "What makes two minor critics such reliable sources?", your assuration of "minor" is subjective (really, Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly is minor?) and I can pose the same question to you: What makes them unreliable sources? Sources galore, including critics and USA Network themself: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We're back to the issue of verifiability, but as applied to the critics themselves. I can brand myself a critic and describe this show as anything I want, but does that make it accurate? Do I know that's what the producers and writers intend? NO. And remember: publications draw from one another. I could publish that Mr. Robot is a comedy tomorrow and I'd wager two or three others would pick it up, and pass it on. Just because it's in print on a media site doesn't necessarily make it right. The source may be generally reliable, but on any day, the content may no be. That's addressed at WP:RS.

Sam Esmail has been very specific that the show doesn't fit genres, but that if it does, the only one he'd use is techno-thriller. Your USA link is to the page announcing the series; USA has subsequently updated it, and removed the description psychological thriller, replacing it with techno-thriller. That's the link I provided. And really, it's a show that deals with mental illness, but a psychological thriller is more like a Hitchcock movie or Gaslight, where external characters play with the lead's head. --Drmargi (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You removed the valid edit again, after six days of not, why? I didn't bother responding because I figured you accepted it. The fact I still have to argue for this is absurd, it's reliably sourced, and I supplied you with ten references just above. I'm sorry, but you are not the keeper of this article, edits don't have to be accepted by you to be in the article, which is what it seems like. This isn't a controversial edit, I'm not being reverted by five different editors here, it's just you. "Psychological thriller" was in the article for several months (and sourced) until you decided to delete it. Telling me I need "consensus" to readd something back into the article just because you don't want it is ridiculous. Yes, you can brand yourself a critic and call it whatever you want, but you wouldn't be a reliable source because you are not an actual TV critic, not notable, not published, and not an expert in your field (that's all in WP:RS). That excuse does not work nor is it relevant because it's not like I'm citing unreliable sources. Professional TV critics analysis TV shows, it's their job, whether it's judging it critically, its themes, or genres. Just because it's also described as a techno thriller doesn't mean it also can't be another form of a thriller, which is also cited by USA Network, and their official Facebook page (link 11, above), which literally says, "Genre: Psychologically thriller". It's reliably sourced content, end of story. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Single sources – neither a lone critic, nor someone associated with the show – don't get to determine how we classify and categorize articles on Wikipedia. If numerous reliable sources agree it's within the cyberpunk genre, then we can include that (whether the producer would like it that way or not); if it's an outlying opinion, including it is WP:UNDUE weight. (FWIW, I wouldn't call this cyberpunk, but my definition of that genre is narrow, and may not reflect current usage; it's definitely cyberpunk-influenced. But my personal opinion – like yours [plural] above – isn't a determining factor.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous Content ?

It should be clarified in the article that Anonymous Content is a company: http://www.anonymouscontent.com/. I thought Anonymous content is actually content submitted by people that gets into the show! Eternaltyro (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I wikilinked Anonymous Content in the infobox. Now it should be clear that this is a company name to whoever follows the link. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Good. It's probably also been assumed by some that it was content from Anonymous (group).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

E Corp / Evil Corp

Is there a good reference if Evil Corp is the official name, or a derogatory name used by many characters, or exists only in Elliot's mind? There seems to be back-and-forth editing about the conglomerates name, E Corp vs. Evil Corp. I don't find a trustworthy reference, and just from watching the series this is not clear to me (which is probably intended) although it is not only Elliot who uses "Evil Corp". But editing the article in one or the other way is interpretation, then, and thus unencyclopedic. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple interviews with Sam Esmail that address elements of E Corp; he did say the logo is Enron's, so we could dig up that interview and see what else he said (project!). It might be worth digging through them. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Elliot hears everyone call it Evil Corp. --Drmargi (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a reliable reference for the "conventional wisdom", then. As far as the interviews go, there is one here [15] where the interviewers interpretation in the lede paragraph is Evil Corp being only a mental label of Elliot's, while Esmail's own words are not clear in this respect: "It was all done by design — like calling the company Evil Corp is a satirical choice I took on when I wrote the script" is unfortunately missing who calls the company like that. One can find other interpretations [16] where other characters use the same mental label ("Evil Corp is just the name it goes by in everyone's mind and in the show's presentation, even the Evil Corp employees.").

The (intentional) resemblance of the rotated "E" logo to Enron is stated much clearer but is an unrelated problem. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just re-watch the first episode. It is not really "Evil Corp". Elliot explains clearly that it becomes "Evil Corp" in his mind every time he hears or sees a reference to the company. Over the course of the next episode or so, the fourth wall is broken intentionally (as it is frequently in the show, when Elliot is talking to his alter-ego ostensibly but clearly also addressing the audience as such directly, and as it was again at the end of the most recent episode, but using a rendition of "Where Is My Mind" to explicitly tie this scene to the scene in Fight Club that inspired it), and the name is presented to the viewer as Evil Corp thereafter, even when Elliot is not present. My own analysis of this is that it's an intentional device to remind people that this is a fictional metaphor and that they're mean to draw a parallel in their minds between Evil Corp and the real-world mega-corporations around them, rather than just view this as some piece of escapist entertainment with no socio-political relevance. I'd be surprised if some critical reviews don't also come to the same conclusion, but I don't spend much time on TV articles any more, and have little interest in finding out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this subject still deserves less "conventional wisdom" and "own analysis" but requires reliable references or a more cautious editing in the absence of those. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @SMcCandlish: Sticking to the mere facts without interpretations, here is a short quote from an internal monologue of Elliot's from the pilot: "E Corp, the largest conglomerate in the world... The E might as well stand for Evil... after a thorough, intensive self-reprogramming, that's all my mind hears, sees, or reads when they pop up in my world." –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Single Camera

The infobox has this series listed as single camera, which it clearly is not and never has been. Perhaps someone can find a source which states this definitively. I searched for a citation to prove the single camera claim, and could not find one. In the absence of a source, the facts of the show itself, which is clearly shot with multiple cameras, support making the change.Trumpetrep (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No, single-camera is correct. Multi-cam is pretty much exclusively used for laugh track sitcoms, all dramas use a single-camera setup. Single-camera doesn't literally mean single camera, it refers to the shooting style of the show. Single-camera series look more like films, while multi-camera series look more like plays, where the cameras are at fixed location and look very "staged" or "fake". Single-cameras have free roam, they can shoot from any angle and have a variety of shots (tracking shot, high angle, low angle, etc). Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Would like to see a section for discussion of technical values, camerawork. Have read interesting discussions of novel POVs, center framing of principals, enhancement of general mood by closeup, longshot, color saturation etc. Kubrick has been suggested as a major influence.Lynxx2 (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Episodes

It is great that one can easily read the full list of episodes to get the idea of this show. But is there a real need of such detailed descriptions and spoilers? I would suggest to change them into short summaries instead. --L7starlight (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take notes of spoilers, as per WP:SPOILER. The summaries are perfectly fine. Alex|The|Whovian 12:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that spoilers are not a reason to shorten the episode summaries, but excessive detail is. Template:Episode list calls for a "short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode" and as of today, all episode summaries lie beyond this range. Longer summaries might be more suitable for individual episode articles, see also WP:TVPLOT. – Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. --L7starlight (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT plot states, "approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines". So, there is definitely more leeway than it having to be exactly 100–200. I've always felt up to 250 is quite acceptable for summaries in episode lists. Episodes 7 through 9 are all over 250, with episode 9 being 320, while episodes 1 to 6 are all under, with some hovering around 210. Unless summaries are completely excessive, containing irrelevant details then they should be trimmed. But, if a summary happens to be ~250 words, is well-written, summarizes the plot properly with no unnecessary details, then I don't see what the problem is. Of course, if there happens to be a great copyeditor who can turn 50 words into 20, then go ahead; but trimming should never be done at the cost coherence or understanding of the plot itself. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, with some effort they're now all under 200, and don't read too badly... Snori (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC

I am confused about the WP:TVPLOT quote ... in a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points or a tabular format that sections off each individual episode with its own brief plot section (approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines).

Is the 350 words really referring to the tabular format for individual episodes, or is it referring to the previous option of a basic prose section that gives season story arcs and main plot points? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this connected to the unresolved 1.02 error message #49 under references?  It's beyond my editing skills to insert an episode.Lynxx2 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lynxx2: Someone broke episode 2 during this edit [17] but it is now fixed. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fix, Dark CocoaLynxx2 (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Fight Club Section

This has been removed for being original research, non-neutral, and "fancrufty". I added it because the reviews of the show, and Esmail's interviews, repeatedly circled back to the fact that the central premise of Mr. Robot is identical to Fight Club. Vanity Fair, Bloomberg View, Entertainment Weekly, and plenty of other reputable, major media outlets wrote about this parallel either in coverage of the show or criticism of it. The section I created draws on all those sources and more. It does not qualify as original research, therefore. I don't think there is anything in the tone that makes it non-neutral, since it is paraphrasing the cited sources. As for "fancrufty", I'm at a loss.

Any consensus on whether this section should stay, go, or be improved? (original section is below)Trumpetrep (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. This is your synthesis and interpretation, an excessively long one, of what you see as, in your own words, Esmail's "unapologetic" use of themes and concepts from "Fight Club". Yes, Esmail did so, but he also acknowledged a number of influences on the show in multiple interviews, going so far as to detail them in at least one. But you, rather than writing a paragraph noting the presence of these influences, select one, and develop a long and detailed analysis with a clear point of view. I didn't read what you wrote and say, "oh, that's interesting." I thought, "oh, another one who thinks Esmail knocked off Fight Club." (Not that Flight Club is all that original an idea to begin with.) What you wrote is problematic on a number of levels: it has a point of view rather than being neutral, it's excessively long and detailed, and it gives undue attention and bulk to one element of the show, ignoring many others (notably Tyrell and Joanna's storyline's Macbeth influences.) Moreover, you've been reverted by multiple editors. Once it's out, it's out, and the burden is on you to gain consensus to include it. Next revert will land you at WP:AN3. --Drmargi (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As I explained in the Administrator's Noticeboard about this issue, the reverts by you and AlexTheWhovian were not done in good faith. Moreover, you've already garnered complaints from other editors for being heavy-handed on this particular article. I addressed each of your concerns when I undid your first revision. At that point, you chose to ignore me, which is a big no-no. I asked for your help to achieve consensus, but you refused to engage. You simply reverted. At that point, it was just one editor. Then, AlexTheWhovian joined the fun, and it becomes two editors, who (I might add) quite curiously love to make ominous-sounding warnings about Wikipedia jail, all while ignoring direct pleas for consensus.

As to your specific points, I will address them again. This is not synthesis, because all of the listed parallels are cited in the original sources (Please click through to them, and give them a read). This is not undue weight for a number of reasons. Chiefly, Sam Esmail has been explicit about the fact that Fight Club is a major influence on the show. He has talked about it at length in multiple interviews, often without prompting. It is not on the same level as Clockwork Orange as an influence. You will not find him talking about using Wendy Carlos-style Shostakovich in the finale as readily as he talks about his borrowings from Fincher. Fight Club is the show's fountainhead.

You are assigning the word "unapologetic" to me, but it is Esmail who said that he is "unapologetic" about borrowing so heavily from Fight Club. You are clearly misreading me and that passage if you think it implies that "Esmail knocked off Fight Club". However, the larger point is that consensus should be built. Instead of deleting the passage wholesale, you could have stripped it of what you felt was biased language. I think I present the cited material in a very neutral way, but you didn't. So, the solution should be to edit it together. Again, Wikipedia guidelines have more to say about consensus than any of this other stuff.

The second argument against this section assigning undue weight to Fincher's movie is that critics have pounced on the connection. You could spend an entire day reading all the articles that cite the parallels between the two works. Discussing Mr. Robot in light of Fight Club has become a dominant strain in public commentary. We see this all the time with derivative works, and it is encyclopedic material to discuss the parallels. The point of view represented in the section is not mine. It is Esmail's and the prevailing view of critics. It is well within the bounds of Wikipedia's mandate to include the prevailing critical view, not to mention the creator's own view, of an artwork.

In closing, would an article on Gus van Sant's Psycho be worth anything if it didn't mention its indebtedness to Hitchcock's original? Speaking of Hitch, would an article on his remakes of his own films be worth anything if it didn't mention that fact, or explore it in depth if warranted? After reading your more detailed response, which I appreciate finally getting (and thank you for that), it seems that you made a rather superficial reading of the section and jumped to the wrong conclusion. You made a hasty decision to dump the whole section. I'd simply ask that you work with me in good faith to make sure that the Fight Club material is retained in the article in some capacity, because it is rather like having an article about Funny Games with Naomi Watts that doesn't mention it is a remake by the same director of one of his earlier films.Trumpetrep (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the first two paragraphs are a fine and uncontroversial addition to the production section.

Breaking it out into its own section with all of that added stuff is a tougher sell. Combining those sources in the way you are to support a thesis is WP:SYNTH-y, and 'laundry lists' like this are generally not received well and considered not encyclopedic. There are also WP:UNDUE concerns to base a whole section on sources that merely contain passing mentions of the material. --SubSeven (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree with SubSeven - I think the first paragraph and the quote (but the quote could be cut down a bit in my opinion) would fit nicely into a Production or Development section and it is not necessary to have its own Parallels section. If, as a reader, I care about the parallels, I will follow the Fight Club link. I also think it would be worthwhile linking the American Psycho, Taxi Driver, and Clockwork Orange references in the quote (and the song if it exists as a standalone article already). --Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Parallels with Fight Club

Parallels with Fight Club Sam Esmail has acknowledged the influence of David Fincher's 1999 film Fight Club on the series. When Elliot finally initiates the climactic hack at the center of the plot, Maxence Cyrin's cover of "Where Is My Mind?" begins to play. This is the same song that Fincher used to underscore the climax of his film, and Esmail explains it was a deliberate choice to use the same song: Fight Club was one of my big inspirations for the show. I think the nod or the acknowledgement with “Where Is My Mind” at the end of episode 9 was, yes, in part letting the audience know that we’re very much aware that Fight Club was an inspiration, but at the same time, we make no apologies about it. We own it. The thing is that by doing that, by making that bold choice, I think we open ourselves up to the criticism of being derivative, and that’s the challenge I take. I think we’re incredibly original, despite the fact that we borrow so much from so American Psycho, Taxi Driver, and Clockwork Orange. The list goes on and on. It was an unapologetic homage/nod/acknowledgement to the audience that Fight Club was one of our inspirations. The following major similarities between Mr. Robot and Fight Club have been thoroughly documented: Elliot Alderson (Malek) and Mr. Robot (Slater) are the same person, just like Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) and The Narrator (Ed Norton) in Fight Club. The duality of the main characters in both works confuses other characters. Both works also show the two characters physically struggling with each other, rapidly cutting between what a neutral observer would see and what the twin characters believe is happening. Both Eliot and The Narrator speak directly to the audience in their voiceovers. Both Elliot and The Narrator go on extended diatribes against consumer culture. Both Mr. Robot and Tyler Durden create anarchic cults. The climax of both fsociety (Mr. Robot) and Project Mayhem's (Fight Club) efforts is a frontal assault on consumer debt. The latter organization demolishes the skyscrapers that house consumer debt records; whereas, the former executes a multi-phase cyberattack on the electronic records. The end result is that consumers' debt slates are wiped clean. References

insp

Suggest Fight Club section be greatly shortened if restored. Esmail acknowledged Kubrick's influence, but It is not the only film reminiscent of Mr.R. (I wish IMDB boards would ban the use of the word "ripoff", many users don't seem to understand the difference between blatant theft and homage, or derivation, or inspiration, or suggestion.) Mr. R could have possible sources ranging from Vanilla Sky to Session 9 to Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. It really doesn't merit a separate Section.Lynxx2 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Esmail has discussed a number of influences in the show. Why this one in particular aside from the one key plot point? I would agree with one concise paragraph, including the essence of the quote, but the rest is just too much. --Drmargi (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It is more than just one key plot point. There are two central devices in the narrative that are directly derived from Fight Club: the dual persona of the main character, and the consumer debt relief scheme. The quote provided in the Fight Club section clearly states that the placement of "Where Is My Mind?" at the moment when Elliot and Mr. Robot's personas are thoroughly intertwined in the overarching scheme is intended to cement the intentional borrowings from the architecture of Fight Club.

But this is rehashing. See my previous comment about Hitchcock remaking his own films. You are rearguing points that have been thoroughly rebutted. Moreover, the overwhelming consensus here is that the Fight Club information belongs in the article. Why undo a good faith edit when you can improve it as you see fit? The latest edit clearly follows the consensus of this discussion. You can edit it as you see fit, and I encourage you to do so. However, continuing to hammer away at disproven arguments is a fruitless exercise for everyone. We have to restore your bad faith edits, and argue with you all over again at the same time. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I followed your advice and re-read this discussion closely. The main points seem to be that Fight Club should not be a standalone section, and that the information could be conveyed with less text. A less salient recurring point seems to be that Esmail's other references should be mentioned. The quote from Esmail does just that, but I put the references directly in the first sentence, before any mention of Fight Club. I also shortened the quote. This was an attempt at a good-faith, consensus-building, compromise. Please do not crudely undo this edit. Rather, edit the section to comport with your view of what it should contain, and let's work from there.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to learn how WP:CONSENSUS works. The fact you feel you've rebutted an argument is not license to do what you damned well please. You've been given feedback by multiple editors that what you're adding is too long and too detailed. Cut it or I will. Drmargi (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please consult the original section above and the revised version. It is clearly shorter, addressing the points raised in this discussion by other editors. If you feel it is not short enough, as I have already said, please revise it to a length that you feel is suitable. All we are asking is that the information not be deleted wholesale as you have been doing. Multiple editors have said that they feel it belongs in the article.

If I can make another request, it would be for you to be more civil during this discussion. I don't understand why such a minor issue like the length of a section prompts such profane hostility from another editor.Trumpetrep (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone to remain WP:CIVIL. I have undertaken a one-time effort to copyedit the paragraph to conform with what has been suggested by Lynxx2, SubSeven and Jordan_1972 above. However, I find that there are some claims which are not backed by the given references (which can probably easily by fixed). –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The version up now sure looks good to me. Thanks Dark Cocoa & Alex!! Trumpetrep (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

I have no idea why my edit was reverted because "the show never says Eliot has this disorder". We are talking about the intention of Sam Esmail here, and he has said a number of times that Eliot has the disorder, e.g. here and here. There are a couple of reasons why the sentence should not be so specific about the two personalities are in fact the same person - first of all we don't know if Elliot in fact has other personalities - the more he has, the less similarity to Fight Club it will be, but saying that they have the same disorder is a valid point and will be absolutely correct whichever way the series turns out (unless he imagines it all, including him having an alternate identity). Second, although Wikipedia's guideline is to permit spoilers where appropriate, I do feel for a new show like this, it is a matter of courtesy to readers from many other countries where the show has not yet been broadcast not to give such clear cut spoilers in a section which is not intended to include spoilers. Certainly on MOS:TV spoiler is discussed in relation to the plot section and episode summary, and those who read such sections are expected to read spoilers, but in a section where the reader might not expect spoilers, then I feel it better not to give such clear cut information. Hzh (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, we don't remove content because it might be a spoiler, per WP:SPOILER, regardless of the section. International readers can, and should exercise personal responsibility when reading. Moreover, removing the sentence on the basis that he might have other personalities isn't encyclopedic; we know the two personalities exist, it's a key element of the plot, and we are writing a encyclopedia, not for a fansite. "What if?" Is not a basis for removing content. If Eliott's status changes later on, we can revise accordingly. That's part and parcel of writing TV articles. --Drmargi (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not removing content, I'm rewording it to a more correct view of the show. One is a a general view, the other is unnecessarily specific. Given that I have clearly stated the view on spoiler in Wikepedia, all you are doing is repeat what I said without addressing my point, which is that spoilers may be expected in plot and episode summary sections, but not in other sections. I certainly won't question spoilers being given in old shows, even if they are in the lede section, those spoilers may be expected. But for a new show which has not been shown in most countries, people may not expect to read spoilers in a section where spoilers are not normally given. There is more than a whiff of "I don't care what you think and I'm going to spoil it for everyone outside of US". It is a simple matter of courtesy to readers not to put spoilers where they are not expected for new shows.

It also appears that the cites given have not been read, some of which have nothing to do with the points expressed in the text. The one from screenrant is about voiceover, and given that Esmail stated that voiceover part was influenced by Taxi Driver, it is irrelevant to the Fight Club discussion (and inaccurate for the article to associate it with Fight Club). The Vanity Fair article linked the anti-establishment views of the protagonist with Fight Club, but not his disorder. Furthermore the way you removed the category of "dissociative identity disorder in television" suggests that you did not even read the sources I've given. There is nothing objectionable about it, so why did you removed that? Hzh (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What's written is guilty of WP:SYN, nowhere in the sources was it stated there are 2 major plotlines being inspired by Fight Club, instead they talked about various things. It would be more accurate to write that people noted the parallel between the two shows, even the Bloomberg one only said "it's essentially a cross between "Fight Club" and a caper film", not that it was inspired. Inspiration and similarity are two different things. The way it is written cannot stay as it becomes original research. Hzh (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

unrelated noise
(Redacted) @Trumpetrep: Please remain WP:CIVIL in discussion. Don't forget that you yourself were banned too. Alex|The|Whovian 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC) (Redacted) We were briefly blocked, not banned. Let's get it right. Personal attacks redacted. --Drmargi (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hzh's edits improved the section and made it more accurate with the sources being used. I suggest actually looking at what he's doing instead of just reverting it for the sake of it. Right from the two sources he's using ([18][19]), a quote from Sam Esmail: "The show is about a guy discovering in fact that he has dissociative identity disorder..." So why is the addition of dissociative identity disorder being removed from the article when it's sourced from a quote by Esmail. As for spoilers, I'm more on the side of being courteous, especially if it's in a section where spoilers aren't expected. I doubt people would want the fact that Elliot and Mr. Robot are the same person in the Cast section, so it being in a Production section would be much less expected, and the wording Hzh had does not harm it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No information is being omitted if it appears elsewhere in the article (production, plot, etc). I don't like the practice of filling the cast section with spoiler-bombs. --SubSeven (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the cast section, according to MOS:TVCAST, "avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary". (This then automatically takes care of most spoilers.)

As for the dissociative identity disorder, if there are sources from the creator and writer of the show (as it is the case here), it clearly belongs in the production section (properly referenced of course, and presented in a non WP:SYNTH way), as it constitutes real-world information about the writing process.

–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two, morphing into three, issues here: the identification of Elliot as having DID, and the use of the term to remove the mention of Elliot and Mr. Robot as one person because it's a spoiler. I have no problem with identifying Elliot as DID if there are reliable sources citing the producer, which there are. However, I don't agree that we are making the article more accurate by exchanging the diagnosis with the mention of the Elliot/Robot relationship, something clearly motivated by the desire to remove a perceived spoiler in the face of WP:SPOILER. As I noted earlier, in the U.S. the episode making this clear has been broadcast as well as released on multiple platforms readily available to non-U.S. viewers, and the plot point is no longer a spoiler. Moreover, WP:SPOILER makes it clear we do not remove content (and yes, that content is being removed) on the basis of it being a spoiler somewhere for someone. I reiterate: it is the responsibility of readers who have not seen episodes to exercise personal responsibility for what they read, not for us to twist ourselves into pretzels sparing some poor soul an unwelcome surprise. WP:SPOILER is quite unambiguous; it applies to the entire article, for purposes of writing an article, there is no such thing as a spoiler, and we don't hedge out of courtesy or any other motivation.

Now we're wandering into what goes into the cast section v. the discussion of influences. The influences section should be lean and to the point; it's been cut a couple times already to avoid issues with WP:SYNTH. But to make the point regarding influences, we must state unequivocally, as Esmail has in numerous interviews, that Elliot created Mr. Robot, and that this plot line was drawn from Flight Club (among other influences). That it might be seen by some as a spoiler simply doesn't enter into how it's written. The cast section should be a general introduction of the character, no more, so that viewers anywhere in the show's life understand who the character is. --Drmargi (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, the edit was made for a few reasons, one of them only about it being a spoiler. There is no such rule as saying that you cannot change the wording to make it better, and the description of him being a sufferer of dissociative identity disorder is better in my opinion (in addition to being courteous to readers in not placing spoilers where people might not expect them). If you have sources for what Esmail said, then by all means put them in the article, instead of arguing that there are. So far the edit you wanted is badly sourced, unless you can source it better, then it cannot stay. I'll repeat again that inspiration and similarity are not the same thing - one is a causal relation (and only Sam Esmail can tell us if it is true), the other may or may not be causal (therefore websites that make that connection cannot be used as sources for the assertion of a particular element being inspired by Fight Club). You have also not explain why you removed edits that you did not object to. The discussion is meant for edits where there are disagreements, not because you simply wanted to revert. Hzh (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There are references (elsewhere in the talk page and in the article) that quote Esmail about the Fight Club influence. So it can go or remain in the production section.

There are references (at least here in the talk) that quote Esmail about setting up the character of Elliot with dissociative identity disorder. So it can go into the production section.

As long as these two points are not used to infer on something else beyond that for which there is no reference, WP:SYNTH. There really is no need to argue in favor or against one with the other. Let's put both.

–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I found one source where Sam Esmail acknowledges that Mr Robot and Elliot being the same person being inspired by Fight Club - here, although it's more couched in terms of doing it in a way to "put you in mind" of Fight Club. That can be used if necessary, but no source for the other one yet (erasing debts). As far as the wording goes, so far there is no argument more than "I prefer it this way" and Wikipedia let me do it this way, well, I prefer the other way and Wikipedia let me do it too. Given the storyline is already in the episode summary, so no information has been deleted, I see no reason for it to be in other sections. I will rewrite it tomorrow. Hzh (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

HzH, there's already been a pretty thorough discussion of the Fight Club influence on Mr. Robot. See the preceding section. That was a hard-won consensus, and it never looks good to say to other Wikipedia editors, "I prefer the other way...I will rewrite it tomorrow." Please, take a look at the Fight Club discussion to see why the "Influences" section is worded that way. As for documentation, Esmail has been crystal clear on this point that he was intentionally borrowing from Fight Club, and that the placement of "Where Is My Mind" is designed to confirm to the audience that fact.

• First off, Esmail is not the only one who can speak to the influences of the show. The prevailing critical response to the show has pounced on the obvious appropriations from Fincher's film. One sample statement out of countless others: "...Fight Club, the film that Esmail’s “erase all debt” plotline comes from" -- New York
• And we have Esmail's own words, "[Fight Club's] themes of anti-consumerism and corporate anarchy also obviously resonated with me." -- Yahoo!
• Esmail again, “Fight Club is great in its spirit of anti-Establishment. When you do a show about hackers and the surrounding culture, it would be remiss for me not to be inspired by a film that is the king of that subject matter. In spirit, we want the same feeling that Fight Club gave people. There is something audacious and exciting and entertaining about that film even though it is extremely political at the same time. And it also showed all the flaws as well as the pluses about everything with our consumer society. I can’t deny those elements are influences on the show."Trumpetrep (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two different things. I have no doubt that Esmail was influenced by Fight Club, what we cannot do however is to state as a fact what's in Sam Esmail's mind unless he had stated it. We can say "critic X believes that this plotline was inspired by Fight Club", or "it is widely believed that this plotline was inspired by Fight Club", but we cannot state it as a fact that the plotline was influenced by Fight Club without Sam Esmail saying it is so. Otherwise it would be original research. For example, some thought that the voice-over was influenced by Fight Club (a reasonable assumption), but Sam Esmail himself said that the voice-over was influenced by Taxi Driver, now if you state that the voice-over was inspired by Fight Club, then you are stating something that may not be true. Of course Sam Esmail may only be saying that Taxi Driver is one of the influences, and Fight Club may still indeed also be one of the influences on voice-over, but without something said by Esmail himself, it will only be a supposition on our part and cannot be stated as a fact. Hzh (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also that if Esmail had said "I borrowed a few plots from Fight Club", that is not logically the same as "I had borrowed plot A, plot B, plot C from Fight Club" even if there are resemblances in those plots. Sometimes a resemblance may be coincidental, or due to influence from another source which is the ultimate influence for both pieces of work. Hzh (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

These are not resemblances. They are explicit borrowings. Esmail has said this repeatedly.

But again, we do not need Esmail to state something to have it included in the "Influence" section. I referred you to the previous Fight Club discussion for a reason. There were a number of items listed as being directly derived from Fincher's film. The coffee shop fight, the intimate voice over, the anti-consumerism rants, and there are two reasons to comment on them. First, Esmail himself has explicitly said that Fight Club was appropriated in Mr. Robot. Second, one of the prevailing streams of critical commentary about Mr. Robot was its borrowings from Fincher's film. Those two factors (the creator's statements, and widespread critical response) merited inclusion of the parallels on Wikipedia.

There was a lengthy discussion of how many parallels should be included. The final language was arrived at by consensus. Again, you can learn all this by reading the preceding discussion. Your objection that it is spoiling the consumer debt plot line is specious, since fsociety's intentions are revealed during the pilot episode. Esmail was explicit about signaling the connection to Fight Club by playing "Where Is My Mind" just as the main hack is being initiated and as Elliot accepts his identity as Mr. Robot. Esmail says, "I think the nod or the acknowledgement with “Where Is My Mind” at the end of episode 9 was, yes, in part letting the audience know that we’re very much aware that Fight Club was an inspiration, but at the same time, we make no apologies about it. We own it. The thing is that by doing that, by making that bold choice, I think we open ourselves up to the criticism of being derivative, and that’s the challenge I take."

"Where Is My Mind" plays during Fincher's film as the credit card companies are demolished. The timing ("at the end of episode 9") is not coincidental. It is a deliberate signal by Esmail that the dual identity of Elliot and the debt relief plotline are borrowed from Fight Club. His own statements, and the prevailing critical commentary verify this. The mention of "Where Is My Mind" in the article without any reference to the debt relief scam would raise more questions than it would answer: Why that song? Why at the end of episode 9? We don't need to make readers speculate when there is abundant evidence to cite.

If you were to look at the Fight Club discussion you would see the point being made that it would be ridiculous to talk about, say, Hitchcock's remakes of his own films without referencing the original. Someone who is looking to Wikipedia for information about Mr. Robot would not be well-served by an article that didn't mention these major parallels that both the creator and the critics have so breathlessly talked about. Trumpetrep (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem is that there are no proper sources for the assertions as written in the section (I read those sources in the earlier discussion, and have addressed those earlier). For example the voice-over part was not something stated by Sam Esmail (it's an assumption made by the writer of the article), the erasing debt part was not from Sam Esmail (again it's the opinion of the author of the article). If you can find sources, then by all means add them, otherwise they are original research. You can indeed add all the sources that discussed the influences, but you'd need to state carefully whose opinions those are, and not attribute an opinion from the writer of an article to that of Sam Esmail unless it is explicitly stated to be true. Hzh (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we're all aware of how Wikipedia works. The original Fight Club section made the distinction between Esmail's statements and critical commentary quite clear. The language that is there now is clear enough that it passed muster with all the other editors working on this page. Again, you misunderstand original research if you think what is there is an example of it.

The editorial consensus is that two borrowings from Fight Club should be included in the article: the dual identity of the protagonist, and the debt relief scam. There are a surfeit of citations in the article to verify those facts. If you feel the language invoking those citations can be clarified, have at it. We are just kindly asking you to refrain from making some unilateral revision of the article that will need to be undone in order to restore encyclopedic information. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, Trumpetrep, please be civil. Sarcasm doesn't help. Hzh, given the disagreement that remains, perhaps the way forward is to do a rewrite and present it here, for discussion, rather than putting it in the article. Once we're working less in the abstract, we might find more common ground. It can't hurt... Drmargi (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I was not being uncivil. Nor was I being sarcastic. I was sincerely reminding Hzh that he is dealing with other seasoned editors. Let's not invent issues that do not exist. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I've found a possible source for the first assertion (Mr Robot and Elliot being the same people), the other (erasing debt) not yet, and I've alreadt explained why it (the Bloomberg one) is not a source for the assertion. It would certainly help if you can supply a proper source for it. Whether other editors are seasoned or not is irrelevant to the question of content. Hzh (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hzh, these facts are already sourced. The prevailing consensus is crystal clear. You just have to read this discussion, which is now quite lengthy, and listen to what your fellow editors are saying. Or, you could read the preceding discussion about the borrowings from Fight Club. Drmargi's suggestion makes sense. She and I have both asked you to tweak the language in a way that makes sense to you. Putting your draft here on the Talk page first would be helpful, because you are currently seeing a problem where other editors are not. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have contributed to this discussion apart from saying things which I have already read, and not address the points I made (and no one has challenged the point I made, including you). If you have a source, then give it, please don't keep asserting that there are sources when I have explicitly stated why the sources are not adequate and why they are not acceptable. A general note about contributing to discussion - it is not a good idea to argue using logical fallacies - people being experienced at editing does not make them right (you'd find that I have as good an experience at editing as others, but that would be irrelevant to the content under discussion). People having reached a consensus in one discussion does not necessarily mean the conclusion is correct, or cannot be revisited, or is wholly relevant to another discussion. Hzh (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your points have been thoroughly addressed by multiple editors at this point. All the sources have been highlighted multiple times for you. Since you have not submitted a sample edit for us to review, I edited the influence section to address your particular concerns. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I no longer understand what you saying, no one has challenged my point about WP:SYNTH, not even you (you have not presented a true argument against it). But never mind, I have already said that I will make the edit today, the need to look for sources and read them takes time, and will do it later in the day and put it here. Hzh (talk)

It's quite clear that you are misunderstanding the abundance of evidence on this page. I have repeatedly referred you to the preceding discussion as well as this one to rebut your concerns about spoilers, synthesis, and original research. You merely have to read what is front of you, instead of adding to this discussion to repeat your disproved claims. Trumpetrep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is making sense. There is no "abundance of evidence" (one of my points was actually about questioning the evidence) or my "disproved claims" (even the spoiler part was only part of the argument, hardly disproved). Given that this is descending to making wild assertions without actual facts, I will refrain from replying until I return later with my proposed edit. Hzh (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit

This is roughly how I intend to write it. Note that the section is about the various influences on the writing of the TV show, therefore only what Sam Esmail said matters. The way it is written at the moment has no proper sources to justify it staying. I will include the "erasing debts" part but there is no real source for it apart from commentators' assumptions, and so it will be stated as such, otherwise it will be original research. I also included a bit about the original inspiration, but that will be moved to the conception section -

• According to Sam Esmail, he had wanted to make a film about hackers for a long time,[20], and one event that inspired him to write the story was Arab Spring where young people who were angry at society used social media and technology to bring about a change.[21][22]. Esmail described himself as an entry-level hacker-slash-hobbyist, but in the production actual hackers were consulted.[23]

• Sam Esmail has acknowledged many influences on the show, such as American Psycho, Taxi Driver, and a number of films by Stanley Kubrick, including 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, and Eyes Wide Shut.[24][25] In particular, Esmail credited David Fincher's 1999 film Fight Club as the inspiration in the plot line of a protagonist who suffers from dissociative identity disorder and wrestles with his demons,[26][27] as well as the anti-consumerist and anti-establishment spirit of its characters,[28] Commentators have also noted the parallel in its plot on the erasing of consumer debt records to the film.[29][30] References to various films were deliberately added in the show, in particular the song played at the climax of Fight Club ("Where Is My Mind?") was used at the end of episode nine to signal to the audience the inspiration it took from Fight Club.[31] Esmail also credited the narration by the protagonist to Taxi Driver,[32] and other influences mentioned included Risky Business in its music score, Blade Runner for the character development, and the television series Breaking Bad for the story arc.[33]

As I said, I addressed your concerns with an edit to the article this morning. I added precisely 13 words to the article to fix the issues that you perceive to be so urgent. Drmargi reverted that edit because she felt that the "Previous wording is clearer and more concise". So, I think this proposed edit is a tough sell. It's awkwardly written. Again, look at the original Fight Club section that I wrote (it's archived above), and see how it was compressed down into the "Influences" paragraph that is there now. I think the really invested editors here want to see concise language. I'd err on the side of including more information, rather than less, but I was outvoted on that. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The current edit is guilty of WP:SYNTH, unsupported by correct sources, and therefore can reasonably be removed. This is how wikipedia works, it is up to Drmargi to defend the edit on this specific issue, not because the "wording is clearer and more concise", so you are not oblige to accept that reasoning. The wording can always be improved, however the crucial point is that the section is about the influences on Sam Esmail in writing the show, the opinion of others has little place in it (therefore the erasing debt part can also be removed if others want to do so). Hzh (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a bad write-up, but I think it is a bit long and heavy on small points. I would take out the “hacker-slash-hobbyist” sentence, the reference to Stanley Kubrick (seems a bit unnecessary), the rest of the sentence after the song name, and finally the Risky Business/Blade Runner/Breaking Bad portion of the last sentence (comes off as a listing of every tv/movie he ever saw). --Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I see merits and demerits in them both. I really want some time to review the various sources given there's been a lot of squabbling about how much Esmail has said v. what critics say; I believe there is more out there than has been used in the newer write-up. It's also clearly been written to avoid stating the Mr. Robot/Elliot connection that is the key "take" from Fight Club and that will have to be fixed. There are also some grammar and related issues, but that's fixable in the end. --Drmargi (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The key take is about him having different personalities and him fighting against his demon and alter ego, spelling it out precisely who the two personalities is just needlessly specific and missing the greater picture, and it would look to me the only intention is to spoil it for readers. If the rule of the land is that people should look where they are going, and it would be their own fault if they slip on a banana skin, that doesn't mean that you should leave a banana skin where someone might tread on it. I have already given a source that you can use if you want to add the Mr Robot/Elliot and Fight Club connection, but why do it deliberately when the key idea is something more general that can actually better explain their relationship? Hzh (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's just too bad if they do. The episode has been broadcast in the U.S. where the show originates, it's no longer a spoiler, WP:SPOILER prevails and the whole point of what Esmail did was make Elliot and Mr. Robot one and the same. All the tortured language designed to avoid saying it simply isn't how we do things. It may be the language of the land on fan sites, but we are writing an encyclopedia here, and as such, we state facts. Either you put it in or I will. --Drmargi (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So you are deliberately ignoring my point that the more general view is one that can better explain the relationship between the two. I note it's the same way you ignored my question as to why you removed an edit that wasn't contentious and was correctly sourced. Refusing to address an issue is not what the discussion is for, especially when you are the one who demanded a discussion. It is rather odd that you insist on facts when the edit you preferred is rather lacking on sourced facts, and is actually a violation of guidelines on WP:SYNTH, and you went on to revert an edit that attempted to address that issue. Please note that all my edits are actually correctly sourced facts, while the one you preferred is not. Hzh (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No one is ignoring your points. Just look at how long this discussion is! All we are saying is that there is no synthesis here, and that the pretzel twists you want to include in the article to avoid spoiling central plot points of a TV show are unhelpful in an encyclopedic article. If you want to have a longer discussion about why this is not synthesis, I'd be happy to talk on my page or yours, but the current discussion is getting Homeric. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Do allow Drmargi to speak for herself. It's her reverts, it is therefore for her to explain. Hzh (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Since there is no more responses, I will go on and edit the page tomorrow. I'll take on Jordan 1972's suggestion and trimmed some of the content and adjust the wording, but will probably mention that the song was done as a deliberate signal to viewers. Please note that the edit proposed above was done in the way that I think works best and is meant to show that:

1. Elliot has a mental condition that affected his perception of reality.
2. His own internal struggles manifest itself through that condition into actions that drive the narrative of the show.

Simply saying that Elliot is Mr Robot doesn't explain one of the central conceits of the show and is the wrong way to write it. Even if you want to add that, please respect my intention and not simply remove what I wrote. Hzh (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything approaching consensus for your changes, just a lull in the discussion. Drmargi (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that you refused to discuss it except for insisting on mentioning WP:SPOILER which is not my main point, and only said mentioned "merits and demerits" without really explaining, and you had already specifically said that you did not object to adding dissociative identity disorder, I'm not sure what your point is. If you have something you really want to discuss, then please do. Hzh (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In general,

• reaching consensus will be prevented without compromise, and without arguments that constitute constructive criticism instead of opinions or boilerplate rejection. (Reading the sources is a prerequisite for that.)
• creator/writers and directors always have an abundance of motives, sources, influences, intentions, and idols, but in an encyclopedic article (in contrast to a DVD commentary track) one needs to make a selection of the most important points.

Regarding the proposed edit,

• the first two sentences (hackers-theme, Arab spring, social media) are probably meant for the conception section rather than the influences section. The second sentence can be omitted or shortened (too much indirect speech).
• the second paragraph marginalizes the central point as a "plot line of a protagonist..." (which can be fixed with clearer wording easily). It says "dissociative personality disorder", which is not a reason to revert at this point of the article (as we are not in plot, and it is referenced with a reliable source). It does not spell out that this protagonist is Elliot/Mr. Robot, which it should to be clear (not WP:SYNTH, not in cast but in production, WP:SPOILER).
• the second paragraph mentions Taxi Driver in the beginning and later, which can be fixed easily (but the narrative style is worth mentioning as it is a central characteristics of the show).
• the second paragraph has two lists of "other" influences of lesser importance, in the beginning and at the end of the paragraph, which can be combined (or omitting influences that other people than Esmail found).

Something like this:

Sam Esmail has acknowledged many influences on different aspects of the show, such as American Psycho, Risky Business, Blade Runner, and Breaking Bad, and a number of films by Stanley Kubrick (including 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, and Eyes Wide Shut).[34][35] In particular, Esmail credited Fight Club as the inspiration for the dissociative identity disorder of his main character-Elliot and Mr. Robot being the same person-[36][37] as well as for the anti-consumerist and anti-establishment spirit of its characters,[38] Commentators have also noted the parallel in its plot on the erasing of consumer debt records to the film.[39][40] In an interview, Esmail explains that the song Fincher used to underscore the climax of his film ("Where Is My Mind?") is played when Elliot initiates the hack in episode nine as a message to the audience that he is aware of the inspiration they took from Fight Club.[41] Esmail also credited the internal narration by the protagonist to Taxi Driver.[42]. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, one thing I would say however it is incorrect to say that "Where Is My Mind?" was played when the hack was initiated. He had not done so at that point in episode 9, and could not remember he did that in episode 10. It is one of a number of problems with the edit as it is at the moment. Hzh (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an overly literal reading of the show. Following this logic, the recap for episode 8 cannot state "Joanna manually breaks her amniotic sac" because no one says out loud that this is what happened. But the show gives us an abundance of information to know that this is what has happened. So too with the hack. That is why "Where Is My Mind" is no minor song choice. The Narrator comes to terms with his dual identity, and learns how to control Tyler Durden, at the climax of Fight Club, right before the credit card buildings start to explode. Elliot's arc is identical, and Esmail cannot say it any more clearly: he chose the Pixies song as a way of signaling to the audience "Yes, this really is Fight Club." It's like showing us the bloody fork on the counter to let us know what Joanna has done. We know the schedule of the hack. The next episode begins after the hack has been completed. So, it is correct to say that the song comes at the climax of the season-long hack, just as it does in Fight Club.Trumpetrep (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The narrator killed Tyler Durden. The hack was not initiated at the end of episode nine. I rather prefer precision in word usage. Hzh (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue here: you prefer your version of the facts. The narrator learns how to control Tyler Durden first, before he shoots himself in the mouth. One could also argue that Tyler Durden is not killed because he never existed. So too, the timeline of the hack climaxes at the end of episode 9. The master plan that Elliot's alter-ego (ie, Tyler Durden) has put in place is kicking into high gear. When he takes Tyrell to the arcade, it is exactly as the last phase of the hack is initiated, wherein the data is actually destroyed (ie, blowing up the buildings). That is why the song is placed there by Esmail. That is why Esmail said that he put the song at that place in the show. I grant you that there are other ways to word things, but take a look at the consensus here. You're the only one clamoring for these kinds of linguistic contortions. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The back of Tyler Durden brain was blown off, at no point did the narrator control him (if you can call "listen to me" before he blew Tyler's brain out controlling). No hack was intitiated at the end of episode 9 - you can argue that it started at episode one, or executed after episode 9 (not at the end). No linguistic contortion there. You have not contributed one iota of useful or indeed logical input in this discussion. Please excuse me if I don't reply to you anymore. Hzh (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You might want to dust off your Fight Club DVD, because the scene revolves around Tyler losing control of the situation to the Narrator. The primary manifestation of this is the transference of the gun from Tyler's hand to the Narrator's, as he realizes everything he is seeing is illusory. This is the gun that initiates the entire movie, when we see it stuck in the Narrator's mouth before the flashback. The fact that the Narrator realizes he can simply imagine the gun in his own hand demonstrates that he has wrested control of the situation from Tyler, who literally had a gun to the Narrator's head when the movie started. Killing Tyler was just a formality at that point.

As to the hack, it's important to remember that it is a series of hacks that have been executed throughout the season by different people with shifting allegiances. There was the removal of the honeypot, the attack on Stone Mountain, all of this is to setup the real hack which will melt the tapes that house consumer debt. That hack was designed by Elliot as Mr. Robot. That hack begins at the end of episode 9, just as he fully embraces his dual identity. Again, Esmail has said that moment was crafted as an hommage to Fight Club. The article would be remiss if it didn't point out that the song ties those twin narrative threads together, just as it does in Fincher's film. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No two thousand characters have been added to the actual words of the article, most of them references, mostly in a single short paragraph here which no one has disputed. References are necessary. The other edits here, the one you actually complained about, only add only has 200 characters more, once you remove the extra reference, the number of words is practically unchanged (868 vs 890 characters including spaces). What rule has been violated here? Hzh (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Another attempt to force this edit without consensus

I have reverted the latest version of this section, which clearly does not address many of the concerns noted here, and is no improvement on the existing text. If the ddiscussion could come back to the point instead of becoming a squabble over the nuances on one film, perhaps this discussion will finally reach consensus. Absent that, WP:STATUSQUO, that is the current version, stands. I would also remind Hzh that he has the obligation to discuss with all editors, regardless of his opinion of them, to discuss content, not personalities, and that the burden for is on him to gain consensus. Drmargi (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a consensus edit based on 3 editors. You did not contribute to it except for vague generalization that could not be used, so there is a majority in favor. There is also no dispute on

1. dissociative identity disorder
2. the original inspiration

You have to explain why you chose to revert those. You cannot use revert in lieu of contributing to discussion. WP:STATUSQUO has got nothing to do with it. Hzh (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a compromise, not consensus. Please present it here rather than forcing on the talk page, confine your discussion to the content rather than attacking editors, stop telling me what to do, and abide by BRD, instead of making up rules and we might get somewhere. Drmargi (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are you couching it in terms of attacks? I am requesting that you respond to points made, which you have consistently refused to do so. BRD is meant to get people to contribute to the discussion, not as a weapon to keep your preferred edits without actually wanting to discuss it (that means you should abide by BRD, not simply telling others to). Why are you demanding consensus on edits that are not even disputed by you or anyone else? The only thing you disputed is the part on Mr. Robot/Elliot being the same person, which I actually added but phrased differently, so you cannot even claim that there is a dispute there. It is a consensus edit - it's based on Dark Cocoa Frosting's suggested edit, but taking account of Jordan 1972's suggestion on trimming it, and I amended the part on Mr. Robot/Elliot to add the what effect his illness meant for Elliot's action in the show. Hzh (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on the previous discussion, it sure seemed to me like HzH had achieved a basic consensus for his edit, and that he made a good faith attempt to incorporate the feedback of other editors. It doesn't seem like reverting his edit is the best way to proceed, since he is so passionate about it. Why not let it stand and improve it as we see fit? Trumpetrep (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion halted with you two squabbling over Fight Club, a series of suggestions and no consensus. The edit added may have incorporated some suggestions, but there was no consensus on the talk page as to what the final content should be, nor was there consensus to go ahead and edit the article. One of the critical issues with this section from the beginning was length and observance to WP:UNDUE, yet the new edit was 2000 characters longer than was already there, and included some fairly esoteric edits that at least one editor advised against. There is no such thing as a "consensus edit". This was an attempt at a compromise, albeit one that is far, far too long and contains too much minutia, and as such, should have been proposed on the talk page. Regardless, once it was reverted, and I could have reverted for length alone, the discussion should have resumed. No threats of ANI or accusations of vandalism. No made-up rules on talk pages, no analysis of editor motives and no edit warring. Just discussion here of content and just content. --Drmargi (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You are replying to someone who now agrees that it is a consensus (i.e. we have 4 out of 5 who contributed to this discussion), so why are still insisting that it is not consensus? You, the one person who disagrees, cannot assert that it is not a consensus, and one person cannot make WP:STATUSQUO stands. I really have no idea why you are now complaining about WP:UNDUE, given that the bulk of the edits actually are not in dispute, and the only one you complained about has been incorporated into the edits but reworded. If you want to object, then you are require to specify a valid reason, not a reason that doesn't relate to anything being discussed. Please explain why you revert the great bulk of edits that are not contentious (that is the inspiration or the genesis of the story), perfectly valid content for incorporation into the article and are certainly not minutiae. Hzh (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS, and note in particular that CONSENSUS IS NOT A VOTE. Comments and suggestions are not consensus. Agreement is. --Drmargi (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that you have actually refused to address the points raised, what exactly is your reason? We cannot have a discussion where you simply refuse to accept the opinions of the rest of the editors. WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS actually require that you contribute, then make a compromise edit, so far you have refused to do so. Given that my edits (as well as others in the article) are actually compromise edits, all you are doing is simply reverting and torpedoing any attempt at a compromise made by everyone else. Hzh (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss content and refrain from characterizing my motives. You're now bordering on WP:NPA violation. Then, reread what I wrote. It was quite clear about my concerns. You don't get to set the standard for how editors must discuss, so knock it off. --Drmargi (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You have not address anything at all. For example, you refused to address the point why you reverted edits that you specifically said you did not objected to on Dissociative identity disorder here. If you cannot even accept something that you did not object to, and everyone else are preparing to compromise, then you are the one holding up the WP:BRD process. Now you bring up WP:UNDUE, without actually explaining why you think they are esoteric or minutiae details (the genesis of the story is not minutiae or esoteric), and you simply reverted without actually discussing first (you have reverted edits that on one actually objected to in the discussion above). Simply pointing out that you had refused to answer the points made is not WP:NPA (see also WP:AVOIDYOU for not making such accusation). Hzh (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed and been watching this for a while, I do believe we did had a general consensus to make the changes. It was not a perfect edit (a bit long for my liking) but it seems Drmargi is looking for perfect or nothing... And that is disruptive. I think the change should stand and everyone take a 7-day editing vacation. Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be psychic, and sure they know my motives -- and you're all wrong. Please concentrate on the consensus, and not on analyzing why I've done what I've done. I do agree this is far, far too long. One of the initial issues was length, and a 2000 character addition is a step backward. That's not part of whatever consensus regarding content there might be. Drmargi (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the differences, like side-by-side? I don't see how WP:UNDUE is relevant, both versions of the Influences section are around 140 words, how is that excessive? The bulk of the additional content is the extra paragraph he added to the Conception and development section, which has four citations, that's why the edit looks large. The current version incorrectly states that the erasing of consumer debt records was taken from Fight Club by Esmail, when none of the citations after that statement support it. While his version correctly states it's an observation made by critics and commentators. The article is being improved and expanded, it doesn't merit out-right reversion like this; it should be met with collaboration. Clearly everything he added doesn't need to be reverted (it's not as if some OR fancruft is being added), so if you think a sentence or two needs tweaking: then do it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeez!! Of course I have. Please don't treat me like a complete imbecile. And while we're at it, why don't you all try a bit of WP:AGF and remember that I looked at Hzh's latest edit before all of you lined up to comment, where the discussion was left with two squabbling editors and no discernible consensus, and with a less than explanatory edit summary from an editor who has repeatedly tried to force a preferred edit in. HE could have saved all this hassle had he proposed the changes here, but chose to barge ahead and make the changes in the article. My edits were completely acceptable and justified under the circumstances. --Drmargi (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit that was complained about (the one on the Influences section) only add 200 characters more, once the extra reference has been discounted, the number of characters is practically little changed (868 vs 890 characters including spaces, that's fewer than 10 words). Hzh (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Umm, I would appreciate if you'd stop making accusation in your edit summary. I didn't even see your edit, I only saw Drovethrughosts's edits. The fact that Wikipedia is acting strange when editors are editing at the same time does not mean others are acting in any malicious way. Hzh (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

At the moment it seems that we have a problem. We had already reached some kind of agreement - the discussion with Trumpetrep was about a different point entirely, not the main point about Mr Robot/Elliot (which I had accepted in my edit but worded differently as "alter ego"). Despite a number of attempts to get DrMargi to state what her views are exactly (I waited around a week), she refused, but still she reverted the compromise edit which was based largely on other editors' suggestion. WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS require that editors participate in discussion, it is unreasonable for someone who refused to discuss the points raised then to revert what is a compromise and now, a consensus edit. The point about WP:STATUSQUO is irrelevant when the edit has taken in the views of those who expressed them, and she did not expressed her views when asked. It is unclear what is it that violated WP:UNDUE as it wasn't explained clearly why (there is also not a 2000 character difference, it's less than 10 words difference in the disputed part). We are now at an impasse because of the action of one editor when the others think it is an acceptable consensus, and I'm not sure if we can proceed further without outside intervention, especially now that accusations are starting to be hurled around here and elsewhere. Hzh (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried to follow this discussion and it makes me dizzy. There are way too many points which are discussed simultaneously, and way too little constructive edit suggestions. Here is a suggestion to approach a consensus: Let's discuss, with arguments and suggestions for improvements, the individual points. (Once we have no major objections against one point, we can move on to the next edit.)

The WP:STATUSQUO:

In particular, David Fincher's 1999 film Fight Club inspired two major plot points: Elliot and Mr. Robot being the same person, and the erasing of consumer debt records.[43] [44][45][46]

But there is a problem with this sentence because it mixes Esmail's own explanations with comments or interpretations of others, and it gives the wrong references. This can be fixed with

In particular, Esmail credited Fight Club as the inspiration for Elliot and Mr. Robot being the same person[47][48] as well as for the anti-consumerist and anti-establishment spirit of its characters.[49] Commentators have also noted the parallel in its plot on the erasing of consumer debt records to the film.[50][51]

Does anyone disagree with this edit? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I can certainly accept you edit, the problem however is really something else. Drmargi has been reverting everything (not just mine, but others' compromise edits), and has refused to explain beforehand why everything has to be reverted, nor contributed anything that can be incorporated into the edits that she reverted. There is therefore the issue of whether we have to discuss on every single point that no one has actually objected (for example the Arab Spring inspiration, which is actually something very noteworthy for inclusion in the article), but at the end of it it would still get reverted. So far no explanation is given why she reverted the part on dissociative identity disorder when it is clearly sourced (and she has clearly stated that she has no problem with it if it is sourced, yet the edits still got reverted). We cannot have a situation where someone simply refuses to address the point when asked multiple times to do so, and force others to accept her silence and reverts, especially when others have explicitly stated that they can accept the edits. Hzh (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Dark Cocoa's edit looks good to me! Trumpetrep (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I do feel the need to list all the other edits reverted - Esmail's interest in hacker culture, Arab Spring, consultation of hackers in the production, dissociative identity disorder, "Where Is My Mind?" in episode nine. If anyone objects to those edits, then do say so. We cannot have people who keep reverting edits they don't want to discuss. Hzh (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(Dark Cocoa is taking it one sentence at a time, is all.) As I've said since the beginning of your interest in this article, I think all these points are valid and merit inclusion. I agree that the kneejerk reverts are unhelpful, uncooperative, and disruptive. The article would be better served by more information about the show's influences. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I think it is important to establish some ground rules. It is unacceptable to cite WP:BRD as the reason for revert but refusing to discuss points raised when asked to do so. WP:BRD is also used where there are disputes, so we need to ask which parts are actually disputed, and undisputed edits (i.e. no one has objected in the discussion) should not be reverted. Hzh (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the change suggested by Dark Cocoa... Hzh, while the BRD cycle has not worked (and it serves no purpose to assign blame or point figures), the method proposed by Cocoa may take some time, but should be successful at getting the article improved. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It does serve a purpose. Discussion in talk pages are meant to thrash out a compromise, at the moment this effort has been undermined by one single user, and no progress has been achieved because of indiscriminate revert by someone who has not made a positive contribution to a compromise edit, and would not even acknowledge a consensus edit when told by multiple users that we had some kind of consensus. It therefore needs to be mentioned that if such behavior continues, the matter would have to be addressed in WP:ANI. Hzh (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is objecting to the above, so let's get to the next couple of edits. Normally such edits would not be discussed at all, anyone could have just adjusted the edit as necessary, but given the circumstances, I'll leave this here so if others do have issue with WP:UNDUE, or you feel it is too wordy, or whatever reason, then adjust, trim, reword or delete as you see fit (or read the articles and listen to the podcast linked and see what else might be worth adding). The first is the paragraph on the background and inspiration for the writing of the story -

1. According to Sam Esmail, he had wanted to make a film about hackers for around 15 years as he found hacker culture fascinating.[52] One inspiration to write the story for Esmail, who is of Egyptian descent, was the Arab Spring where young people who were angry at society used social media and technology to bring about a change.[53][54] Although Esmail has some knowledge of hacking, in the production actual hackers were consulted.[55]
2. The second one is simply adding Category:Dissociative identity disorder in television. I have no idea why this is under discussion. Hzh (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

(Sigh) It would be easier to discuss point by point, so that the discussion stays focused. Now we have three:

1. This mixes two different points, one about hacking, the second about his Egyptian heritage and the Arab Spring (as that was social media, and no hacking). So let's first rearrange:

1a. According to Sam Esmail, he is fascinated by hacker culture and wanted to make a film about hackers for around 15 years.[56] Although having some knowledge of hacking himself, actual hackers were consulted in the production.[57]

This would probably go to the very beginning of the production paragraph.

I don't like the second sentence, because some knowledge which probably comes from entry-level hacker-slash-hobbyist in the source is (both) weaseling, and already stated in the first sentence as his fascination with hacking. Also, (from the source) they asked nerdy people but could not consult the actual (convicted) hacker. Thus, more simply: In the production, Esmail consulted experts to give a realistic picture of hacking activities.[58] (or something similar) might be more cautious.

1b. Another inspiration for Esmail, who is of Egyptian descent, was the Arab Spring, where young people who were angry at society used social media to bring about a change.[59][60]

2. Including Category:Dissociative identity disorder in television without any support for it in the article will not work. But including it – literally – in the article should not be a problem, in the production section, citing this source. Any suggestions for a good place to do so?

–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that this is not how things are done in Wikipedia. Normally you can just add content, and someone else can then adjust the text, or delete parts, and only when there are true objections, then we will take it to discussion. At the moment these are minor points, i.e. I have no problem if you choose to reword it in the way you think best, or remove parts of it (giving reasons why of course), there is therefore really little point in discussing it because there is no real disagreement. At the moment we are stuck with having to discuss every sentence most of which are not contentious, and this is the only article I've been involved in where this is done (and I have made a lot of edits on all kinds of subjects). If I have to do this on every article I contributed, I would have given up on Wikipedia a long time ago. We are stuck with this because of the indiscriminate revert of a single editor who preferred to keep things as they are even though what is now written is plainly inaccurate and unsupported by source. Forcing people to discuss uncontentious issues while keeping unsourced edits is not the right ways to do things in Wikipedia, and I have far more articles I want to spend time improving. I will (or you can) just add your suggestions on hacker and Arab Spring in a few days' time if there are no more contributions or objections, and that will be that here for me. I would however like to thank you for your edits and suggestions. Hzh (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In the "redacted noise" section, I addressed this very issue. I remain happy to help. Hzh is right that the method we have settled on here is completely antithetical to Wikipedia. I would happily help improve his revisions, and protect them from reverts, in order to just put this topic to bed! Trumpetrep (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Episode 4: daemons or monsters

Isn't episode 4 referencing to knowing your 'monsters' instead of 'daemons'? --Absay (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it is correct how it is. Alex|The|Whovian 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's comparing daemons in computing to the subconscious background routines/processes in humans. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Swedish vs Danish

Wallström is a Swede and speaks fluent Swedish, whereas Corneliussen is a Dane, and so speaks Danish. Whilst it's true that each speaks their native tongue to the other, this falls under the Suspension of Belief in that they are simply speaking a common language to the casual observer, with no understanding of what that language may be - nor does it matter that the other person doesn't understand them - they're waiting for the speaker to finish so they can respond with their own lines. I misunderstood myself, but to include the information that each speaks a different language to the other is more confusing that clarifying. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• While I would not include the language spoken due to it being trivial, if it is being removed due to some "suspension of belief" idea, I disagree with the deletion. While the two actors may not understand what is being said by the other, there is nothing to suggest the two characters do not understand each other. Actors speak foreign languages they do not know all the time in film/television; this suggests it was a deliberate choice to use the two different languages. But again, for me, it cycles back to being trivial. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cast section

@Drmargi:, what is the confusion with this statement: "this is nothing to do with WP:SPOILER, this is neither in the sources, how the characters are introduced, and is not the place for plot developments given there is an entire section dedicated to them". Why ask "Then why remove?", when it's very clearly stated why. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It has everything to do with WP:SPOILER; perhaps if you checked the article history and counted the number of times this information was removed with the edit summary of "removed spoiler", you'd see this. And the information is now in the sources provided, given that two sources that both include the further identities of the characters are noted within the reviews. Alex|The|Whovian 00:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, Darkwarrrior, your version of clear and mine differ. This is just the latest, ill-disguised effort to remove a spoiler. Alex, thanks for the sources, but all things being even, they're really not needed; the show is the source. But as you point out, the constant efforts to remove episode content is an issue, and they may help.

DW, as I've said before, once an episode is broadcast, its content is no longer a spoiler, and it is incumbent upon readers to exercise personal responsibility. This is an encyclopedia, and it's not reasonable to expect we will "spoiler proof" our content in the off-chance someone hasn't seen an episode. The character descriptions are short sketches of each character, but that doesn't preclude listing alternate or additional identities. --Drmargi (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Read this again, because you're clearly stopping after the word WP:SPOILER - " "this is nothing to do with WP:SPOILER, this is neither in the sources, how the characters are introduced, and is not the place for plot developments given there is an entire section dedicated to them". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay: "this is neither in the sources" - Wrong, it now is. "how the characters are introduced, and is not the place for plot developments given" - There is no existing policy that dictates this, given that characters are introduced into a series and character development often means updates to this section. Alex|The|Whovian 10:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think one cannot go wrong by following the official billing for the characters.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Non-notable" cast removed

An editor has removed three recurring cast from that article that he feels are non-notable, citing WP:CAST which applies to film article. He provides to reasonable rationale for calling them non-notable, particularly given all three played important roles in the first season. Consequently, removal of the three seem arbitrary, and more to do with the actors' credits than that importance of that characters. Despite having been reverted by two editors he continues to revert, and has mad no effort to discuss or gain consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That editor is me. First, they are non-notable actors. At least at this point, notability hasn't been established. The roles are minor roles. While you can call them "important", in the end, they are still supporting roles. Michael Drayer appears in 5 episodes, but doesn't really even speak in 2 of them. Khan is pretty much background the whole time. Villar is the one you could actually make a case for having a significant role, despite actually only appearing in 3 episodes. Don't confuse a role that propels the storyline through an episode or two as with significance. If a zombie in The Walking Dead kills a main character, that's important to the plot, but that zombie character didn't become significant. The gun dealer that shot Phil Cerreta in Law & Order, led to Sorvino's character leaving the show and a new star... but that dealer isn't a significant role. The claim that "well, it's sourced" is empty. They share the same source, a short article listing minor roles. Just listing them because you have a source make this an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Stars belong on the lists. Co-stars belong on the list. Recurring characters? Not usually, especially when the actor is not notable. Probably others listed in this article should be removed, but that would seem arbitrary and based heavily on opinion. The fact that these actors don't have notability established and that these minor roles aren't enough to make them notable is less a matter of opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Niteshift36. What one user considers a notable recurring actor, another may not. There's no real criteria, so if you list whoever you fancy the likelihood is you'll end up with a never-ending indiscriminate list naming everybody and the cat's mother --Unframboise (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a list of recurring characters, so yes, recurring characters belong on the list (in reference to "Recurring characters? Not usually"). The roles are sourced, which does establish notability. Just because an actor doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet, doesn't mean we can't list them. Listing Sunita Mani as Trenton, but not Azhar Khan as Mobley (both recurring members of fsociety), doesn't really make much sense. The list can grow/be trimmed and change over time if need be, but at this point, with just 10 episodes, these characters are notable enough for inclusion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Being sourced doesn't establish notability. That's absurd. That verifiability. We can source that "security guard #2" was played by someone. That's not notability. I'd be more inclined to remove Mani than add Khan. You apparently don't understand what I said about recurring characters. Usually for a recurring character to get listed, they'd need to be a notable actor (which these aren't). You could make the argument for someone who appeared over a long term. But, as you pointed out, there have only been 10 episodes. You're doing it backwards. You're making them notable with the idea that they may not be later. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I've only seen a few episodes of Mr. Robot, so I don't really feel qualified to comment, but I think one way of establishing whether they belong on the list is to see whether their casting was announced by media outlets prior to their appearances - this in itself would establish notability. I, personally, would err on the side of caution and only add non-publicized "recurring" cast members during the show's second season, that way the actors have had a multi-season arc and a case can be made for their significant narrative importance. Again, this is just my two cents. The size of the list on this page, however, strikes me as a tad ridiculous. --Unframboise (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability isn't a factor in determining whether an actor is included in a cast list, just whether they merit an article. Moreover, the arbitrary nature of who does and does't have an article means that the lack of one is indicative of nothing with regard to an actor's role in any given production It's not uncommon that shows with a single narrative have a sizable number of recurring characters moving in and out of the plot line. I've seen much, much longer ones than this one (see Damages (TV series) for example). Each of the three characters removed played an important role in moving the plot forward, and should be included on the list. --Drmargi (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability can be an indicator of their importance. And yes, a much more notable actor, like BD Wong would be listed easily, despite being in only 2 episodes. Who does or doesn't have an article isn't that arbitrary, especially with these three. If you look at their careers, it's a list of minor parts. Not the kind of thing that would get them past WP:NACTOR. You keep harping on "moved the plot forward" and have ignored the fact that I showed 2 clear examples of roles that dramatically moved forward the plot of much more successful and longer running shows, yet weren't significant enough to include. I get that you're a fan. I like the show too and I'm anxiously awaiting the next season, but I really think you're looking at this more as a fan than as an editor of an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, notability of actors has no bearing on whether they are included in a cast list. The process of developing the list is entirely internal to the show. Moreover WP:NACTOR applies to development of actor articles, and is not relevant here. So we're back to three actors being arbitrarily removed because of inappropriate application of criteria for film or actor articles. The bit about my making judgments as a fan is just a hail Mary play, not worthy of any more response. --Drmargi (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it CAN be considered as a factor. I didn't say it is the only thing or even a factor in every case, but your claim that it can never be is simply wrong. I know full well what NACTOR applies to. Read what I actually said instead of skimming and responding. And you're clearly a fan. I made an observation about what I think. I am allowed to have an opinion that isn't an attack. Since I'm not using it as a basis for me reasoning to remove, it's fails to be a "hail Mary". Nice try though. Nice dodge as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Damages, which ran over five seasons and 59 episodes, lists seven recurring actors. This article lists sixteen, after only airing 10 episodes. Drmargi's argument that Damages' cast list is more extensive is untrue. --Unframboise (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well this is going down the tubes. Niteshift, try to respond without putting words in my mouth, and without making speculative arguments about my motives; you haven't a clue. Unfram, had to exercised a measure of due diligence and looked at the seasonal articles, which house the complete lists of recurring characters, you'd see each has upwards of 20 recurring characters listed. At this point, this is a dead discussion. There's no consensus for the edit, and I'm not interested in a discussion that has wandered well off topic. --Drmargi (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd ask you to give me the same courtesy. You've continually misrepresented what I have said. What words, specifically, have I put in your mouth? If you can't cite it, then you can withdrawn the allegation. Again, you fail to actually read what I said. I did make any argument based on speculations about your motives. I commented on them, but my argument certainly isn't based on them. The other thing you are missing is that there is also not a consensus to included these minor roles by non-notable actors. And not once have you cited a reason based on policy or guideline to include them. It has always be WP:ILIKEIT based. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I see this has been taken to dispute noticeboard, which is obscure in itself as there is an ongoing discussion. Again, I'd just like to say that I think in depth recurring lists can be kept on season pages, but not on the main article page. All this jazz can be added once season pages are created, and once season 2 starts then multi-arc recurring characters can be added on the main page too. But this list is ridiculous as is. It's huge. --Unframboise (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's backwards reasoning. True, once you have season articles, or a List of Characters, not all recurring character have to be on the main page. But as long as the main page is all there is for this program, recurring characters are supposed to be kept there, and then moved over to a season page once it is sensible to create one. What belongs on the main page just depends on which other pages exist.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Backwards reasoning has sort of been the core of the problem all along. It also bears noting that their is nothing at a "dispute noticeboard" (I assume what is meant is DRN, but can't be sure), just an AN3 filing regarding one involved editor. --Drmargi (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well you knew what I meant without straining yourself too much, so all's well that ends well. --Unframboise (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And there shouldn't be anything at DRN yet. You and Drovethrughosts have really just stopped the discussion. And no, you can't redact the word untrue. Let's not be overly sensitive. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This happens a lot. Editors state that the stable version must remain until a consensus has been reached, and then refuse to discuss this issue. A consensus is never reached, so the original version remains. It can be very testing at times. The user in question has been leveling insults at me across wikipedia recently ("Obnoxious", "clings to [things] like a five year old's woobie", etc.), and apparently I'm not allowed to redact these, but the word "untrue" is considered insulting enough to be redacted. Sometimes it just confuses me. --Unframboise (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why can't it be stated that Elliot suffers from D.I.D.?

Stating Elliot has Dissociative identity disorder isn't going to reveal the identity of his alter aka alternate personality Mr. Robot aka the subconscious manifestation of his father. It's important and the creator Sam Esmail himself has even explained in interviews that Elliot suffers from the disease. - IceBrotherhood (talk) 8:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of revealing anything. In your source, Esmail never says Elliot has DID. He talks about its characteristics, and about people he knows who have had several disorders, that's all. He's said over and over in interviews that he's had issues with social anxiety disorder, like Elliot. Moreover, Krista, Elliot's therapist, details his diagnoses in one episode (social anxiety disorder, clinical depression, delusions), and that's what's in the article. Mr. Robot isn't an alternative personality; he's a delusion. That's been made clear in dialogue. People have tried to label Elliot as having autism, schizophrenia, MPD and DID based on their interpretations of what they've seen. We have to stick with what's in canon, and that's what Krista has said. --Drmargi (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Spoilers in cast list

The cast list currently lists that Slater's character is Elliot's father, and that Darlene is his sister. There have been two attempts to delete this information from the cast list, and both have been reverted due to WP:SPOILER .

I contend this is an abuse of WP:SPOILER, which shouldn't be used as an excuse to just put spoilers anywhere you can. For instance, if someone were to put that Slater's character is actually a figment of Elliot's imagination in Slater's cast entry, it would then be impossible to delete because someone would revert the deletion due to WP:SPOILER. You'll also note that no attempt has been made to remove reference to these plot points in the episode summaries.

I submit that it is entirely reasonable to remove information of Elliot's family relationships in the cast list, given that this information is still shared later in the wikipedia entry, and given that it's not part of the show until Episode 8.

98.232.10.206 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The content you site has been removed over and over, and always reverted per policy. Darlene and Elliot's identities are relevant to our understanding of them as characters. Reverting an edit that does not conform with policy is a far cry from abusing a policy to arbitrarily remove content. That means it is incumbent upon the editor wanting to make the chance to gain consensus to do so, which as yet, has not happened, and cannot because WP:SPOILER covers handling of the edit. You are removing content solely because it is a so-called spoiler. Wikipedia does not acknowledge spoilers as a reason to remove relevant, meaningful content from an article. Moreover, a spoiler is advance knowledge of the events in an episode yet to be broadcast. Given the series concluded its first run in September, and was re-run twice during a 24 hour marathon yesterday, the fact that Darlene is Elliot's sister, etc. is no longer a spoiler. Editors who have not seen the series should expect to exercise personal responsibility when reading the article on the show. This is not a fan site, and we will not tie ourselves into knots keeping meaningful content out because someone who hasn't seen the show might read it. I haven't looked at the article on Downton Abbey in months so that I don't find out how the series end, thus exercising simple personal responsibility. I don't expect the British editors to wait for me. Editors who have not seen Mr. Robot should expect to do the same. --Drmargi (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand your points, but I don't believe that including that cast information logically follows from a desire to avoid deleting spoilers. For instance, a more accurate cast list would indicate that Elliot is Mr. Robot, and that Christian Slater's character is a figment of Elliot's imagination. Why is that information not included in the cast list? I contend that it is because it is not materially relevant to understanding what roles those actors play in the show. Similarly, I also contend that the knowledge of Slater being Elliot's father, and Darlene being his sister, is not materially relevant to understanding what roles those actors play in the show, not for when the first season is the only season released. Another way to look at it - I could easily put the above information in the cast list right now, and protect them with WP:SPOILER tags, and then delete them on an ensuing edit, assuming that someone would immediately and reflexively revert my delete. And yet, no one has seen fit to include that information in the cast list. So I don't think this is as simple as to say that the information is deleted only because it is a spoiler. Why aren't people battling to include the information that Elliot (not Slater) is Mr. Robot and that Slater is a figment of his imagination? If including spoiler-ish cast information logically followed from a desire to avoid tiptoeing around spoilers, then that information would be there. 98.232.10.206 (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd just attribute that to the fact that no editor has been interested in adding that information. That's not to say that it won't be removed—that bridge would be crossed when it's come to—but it's probably simply down to lack of interest, and importance. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The cast section clearly bothers several people, arguably rightfully so. A compromise that comes to mind is creating a 'List of Mr. Robot characters' article (or similar) the way other shows have. That way, we could leave the generic 'spoiler-free' character descriptions that should be detailed enough for new and old watchers alike, with a link to the full, detailed article ('Main article: List of Mr. Robot characters') under the Cast section -- again similarly to pages of other shows. I understand the point of 'if it aired, it's not a spoiler', and the information *should* be included, but even taking into account personal responsibility, I'd think even those who want to avoid spoilers still often cautiously check Wikipedia and know which sections to avoid. Even WP:SPOILER says that the only de-facto spoiler-warnings in pages are the "section headings such as 'Plot' or 'Ending' which imply the presence of spoilers". The cast section normally doesn't imply the presence of spoilers. We currently don't have a Plot section, only the general Premise, but we do have episode descriptions. Personally, I wouldn't read the plot developments or episode descriptions for a show I haven't watched yet, but just checking the cast and other general information is normally harmless. The problem here is less 'the page has spoilers', and more 'the spoilers are in the Cast section, right at the beginning of the page'. It basically cannot be avoided unless completely ignoring the page. So the idea is basically either try to agree on more generic descriptions in the main page and detailed ones in a separate page, or at least try to move the 'problematic' information elsewhere in the page instead of the Cast section (though it's already in the episode descriptions anyway). Or a combination of both. Hatdrop (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

For the character names (not speaking about the descriptions) it should be noted that the page currently deviates from the official billing: Slater is billed Mr. Robot and not Edward Alderson (which he only plays in a rather short flashback scene, otherwise Mr. Robot in fact is not Edward Alderson so that's already ambiguous to the reader), and Chaikin is just billed Darlene, only by first names, as are her fellow fsociety hackers.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually never write something on Wikipedia so excuse me for not doing it formally correct, BUT I'M SO PISSED ABOUT THAT CAST LIST!!! I just wanted to check the cast and the sum up of the episodes I already saw (only 4) and now the rest of the season is more or less ruined thanks to that great idea to include spoilers in the cast list which should be harmless to check before watching the show! Big thanks the idiot responsible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.146.119.17 (talk) 15:18, January 1, 2016 (UTC)‎

Oh, well. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You takes your chances when you read the article. --Drmargi (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Would there be any acceptable scenario as far as you're concerned where the information of Darlene's last name/her being Elliot's sister and Mr. Robot also being Edward Alderson/Elliot's father will not appear in the Cast section as they do now? Maybe by implementing the idea I suggested above or variations of it, or any other ideas you might have? Just wanting to see if we can find any middle ground to achieve consensus on this repeating topic and try to resolve the matter. Thanks. Hatdrop (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you're wanting to remove the content from the cast list, no matter how it's done? You need to read this entire discussion again. They are not to be removed from this section. Regardless. Alex|The|Whovian 14:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to remove the fact that Darlene is Elliot's sister from the page, or that Mr. Robot is his father. I just want the Cast listing to be more generic and more inline with the official billing or how they appear in any other non-fan-site or are officially credited. Darlene is never credited as Darlene Alderson and Mr. Robot is never credited as Edward Alderson and never actually plays a character known as 'Edward Alderson' except for one flashback scene as someone here mentioned. Heck, we don't even know that Darlene's last name is Alderson, maybe she is divorced and has a different last name and we don't know about it. I don't think there is any source (including the one provided) that confirms her last name is Alderson, and I don't recall the show itself confirming this, but maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, I don't consider the encyclopedic info of Darlene and Mr. Robot's background to be vital enough for the Cast section as the general descriptions are enough both for new and old viewers. The character development aspect is detailed in the episode descriptions, and can be further detailed in a separate 'List of characters' article. As mentioned, WP:SPOILER mentions that 'Plot' and 'Ending' sections are implied to have spoilers. The 'Cast' section normally does not. If there are never any red lines, why not go 'all the way' and list Christian Slater's character as "Edward Alderson, Elliot's father who died years ago but is being imagined by Elliot"? Hatdrop (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no scenario where this information is removed, no, with one exception. Given the show has never referred to Darlene as Darlene Alderson, the case could be made to remove her last name. That said, the show has also made it clear that both Elliot and Darlene have he same parents, so that makes Alderson her last name. She may not use it now, but there's foundation for adding it.

As for the rest, we have to step back, remove the word "fan" from the equation, and remember that this is an encyclopedia. We would't remove the name of the Kentucky Derby's latest winner from its article because someone hasn't read the newspaper, or who was the first man on the moon because someone might be taking a history course and not want to know. Yet, in effect, that's what some editors are proposing be done here, and it simply isn't possible. This is an encyclopedia. The whole point of WP:SPOILER is that we don't remove content because it might spoil an experience, be it film, TV, literature or current events (or whatever else) for someone. We are here to gather and present information, not please fans. WP:NOTCENSORED strengthens that position. Once we accept that compact, the placement of the information in some effort to protect readers become moot. It goes where it helps us understand who the characters are, and that's in the cast list. The narrative elaborates the how, but the what/who is in he cast list. There is no argument that can be made to remove who Mr. Robot is, and Elliot/Darlene's relationship. These facts are core to knowing the characters, and it's down to readers to read judiciously. --Drmargi (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the inclusion of Mr. Robot's identity, we shouldn't really state that Darlene's surname is "Alderson"; isn't this WP:OR? Similar discussions have taken place with the true surname of Kylo Ren from Star Wars: The Force Awakens (don't look if you don't want spoilers), which is never technically stated in the movie, so we go with what has been said. Unless her surname is stated in the show, or in an official interview with Sam Esmail, Darlene's name should remain simply "Darlene". – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion about the status quo for Christian Slater's characters is moot because the current character description is not just ambiguous but simply wrong. I recommend watching the entire season to understand why and to be able to make a proper decision about these edits. Currently, the entry reads: "Christian Slater plays Mr. Robot / Edward Alderson, an insurrectionary anarchist who recruits Elliot into an underground hacker group called fsociety." There are several problems with this wording: First, Mr. Robot is not Edward Alderson. Second, Edward Alderson does not recruit Elliot into fsociety.

Of course, it is possible to make good statements: "Christian Slater plays Mr. Robot, the anarchist leader of the underground hacker group fsociety." That's certainly true during the entire first season from beginning to end, in no way misleading, and it is what the production bills the character. It was even (roughly) what the entry read before Edward Alderson was clumsily added half way through the series and then protected forever after by principle and an html comment.

If one chose to add information about Edward: "Christian Slater plays Mr. Robot, the anarchist leader of the underground hacker group fsociety, who looks like Edward Alderson." True as well: "Christian Slater also plays Edward Alderson, Elliot's father who used to work in a computer shop called Mr. Robot." If one wanted to put more plot into the cast section (which is not a requirement by any guideline, and it is already included both in the plot section and in the production section), one might say: "Christian Slater plays Mr. Robot, the leader of the underground hacker group fsociety. He is an alter ego of Elliot who communicates with him in his delusions where he has the likeliness of Elliot's father Edward and the name of the computer shop in which his father used to work."–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the following descriptions are more fitting and as you said, true for the entire season and are more reflective of the official sources:

Christian Slater as Mr. Robot, the anarchist leader of an underground hacker group called fsociety.

Carly Chaikin as Darlene, Elliot's confidante and a member of fsociety. Hatdrop (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking recent comments into account, I'm not 100% comfortable with where the info is located (Cast section vs. other parts). There is a difference between this and spoiling the Derby winner or the man-on-the-moon. A person knows not to read the newspaper if they'd want to avoid the Derby winner, and to not read about the moon landing if they don't want it to spoil their course. But if someone were to start watching Mr. Robot, while they'd know that the Wiki page for it will include spoilers, especially under sections where it is heavily implied (Plot, Episodes), it would be reasonable for them to assume that there are some safe parts to receive generic harmless information from. Drmargi said readers should read judiciously -- I agree, and I think part of that is for readers not to read the Episodes section, for example, hence my claim that even readers who do attempt to read judiciously, are normally not worried about the cast section.

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules reminds us that rules aren't laws and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: "written rules themselves do not set accepted practice". Also, "In building consensus, there are times when everyone will argue that such or such change breaks their preferred rule and thus simply *can't* be made. It's a good time to apply the WP:Ignore all rules policy and focus on how the proposed change makes the article better regardless of what the rules say".

I'm not going to ignore everything and say I'm right and someone else is wrong, I don't think there is a clear right or wrong here. As for Darlene, as Drmargi agreed and now others are saying, while a case could be made to remove her last name, I'd consider that a redundant change if her being Elliot's sister remains in the Cast section, so I'm not going to press on that (even though it would be better than nothing, and at least a start). I also agree with what Cocoa said about the description being wrong, and if this *was* a bureaucracy and we were in court or something, I could establish so-called reasonable doubt supporting Cocoa's claim and argue that Slater never portrayed 'Edward Alderson' as he was never credited as him, or called in that name, and since he is a figment of Elliot's imagination in 99.9% of the show, he is not really the real Edward Adelson who is buried, and in that one flashback scene, he refers to himself as Mr. Robot, so technically we only see a grave with the name Edward Alderson and a one-time portrayal of someone who appears to be Elliot's father (yet refers to himself as Mr. Robot) in one flashback scene, and in a twist could be his evil twin.

I will claim that removing the name Edward Alderson from the cast section, as well as Darlene's last name and her being Elliot's sister, improves the article by becoming more inline with official billings and descriptions while not censoring information as long as it's only removed from the cast section and not from the page entirely. It makes the article friendlier to more readers without losing any major encyclopedic value (as the information is still in different sections). If someone is interested in ultra deep information about characters, we could make the character names clickable and have them move to an expanded page of characters where the removed information will be reiterated, or of course one could just visit the cited sources for detailed info. The info should appear in the Episodes section. It should appear in a 'Mr. Robot (Character)' article if it existed or a 'Darlene (Mr. Robot character)' article or a 'List of Mr. Robot Characters' article, as that would of course that be core info for those. It it not required for the Cast information for the main show page. I believe removing it improves the page. I think the number of people who would react badly to the information currently in the cast list, is many-times-greater than the number of people who would complain if it was closer to the official billings/descriptions. I don't see many people saying "Huh? how come they don't say he's Edward Alderson?", if that information is shown later in the page.

The show currently consists of 486 minutes. We find out Darlene is Elliot's sister 378 minutes in, and we find out the name Edward Alderson 417 minutes in. That means that for 77% and 85.8% percent of the show, respectively, the viewer does not know those facts about those characters. This in itself is of course not a reason, as if someone dies in a final episode of a TV show you would still write that they died even if they were alive for 99% of the show, but you would not write it in the Cast section, you'd write it in the episode description or under 'Ending'. I see the father/sister facts as both critical and not critical. They are critical for the show and the story progress (hence why they are in the episode descriptions), but they are not critical details to know to understand the characters or relationships (so far) as even Elliot himself didn't know about it for most of the time. I believe the official billings and descriptions are detailed enough without those facts in a way that doesn't hurt encyclopedic value that is later present in the page, and in some cases even more accurate.

To compare, Bob Odenkirk is listed as James McGill on Better Call Saul. Since this is an encyclopedia, and the page reveals that Better Call Saul is a prequel to Breaking Bad, one could argue that it should be added that he is also 'Saul Goodman' as that information is later revealed in Breaking Bad. But he is only credited as Jimmy McGill and doesn't actually portray Saul Goodman, so he's not listed as Goodman, similarly to how Mr. Robot is only credited as Mr. Robot and portrays him. Those who read further into Breaking Bad or Jimmy's character, will find out that he's also Saul Goodman. No censorship. Sarah Clarke is listed as Nina Myers on 24, despite the late revelation that she holds another identity, which is explained later in the article but not under the Cast section. No censorship. On Homeland, Damian Lewis is listed as Nicholas Brody, a Congressman and retired U.S. Marine Gunnery Sergeant (formerly Staff Sergeant) who is rescued by Delta Force after being held by al-Qaeda as a prisoner of war for eight years. There is a lot of core information that could be added to this character description, as well as be considered 'spoilers', but it's not there, and I don't see that as censorship, as again, the information is elsewhere in the page. I wouldn't expect an article about a character to start with "X is a character who dies in episode Y of show Z". I'd expect that to be revealed somewhere else entirely, and start with harmless information, and once the article starts dwelling on details - I'd know to stop reading if I wanted to avoid certain info.

To conclude (and also a "tl;dr", if you will), the current phrasing and location is blunt and unskippable and can 'hit' even the most cautious readers. We can improve this without hurting encyclopedic value, as is the case on other shows. It could even be argued that it's currently hurting the article by being needlessly overly encyclopedic, has too much plot in the wrong section as Cocoa also noted, and is somewhat inaccurate, for the reasons detailed above. Hatdrop (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What the previous speaker said. I mean, i'm sorry, but the difference between a real event and a work of fiction should be clear. The comparison with the winner of the Kentucky derby is therefore absurd. Moreover, no encyclopedic value, if characters can be identitfied as themselves without this info for most of the first season, its probably enough info for readers here to know who they are. Mind you, it's not the sense of an Encyclopedia to entail every detail of every work of fiction, and if you still want to do that, theres enough room in the synopsis section. I'd really like to see this removed, this is indeed an encyclopedic site, not a spoiler site.Cabana85 (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The episode was on a year ago, it's been broadcast all over the world, and it's no longer a spoiler that Darlene is Elliot's sister and Mr. Robot is Elliot's delusion. Removing these very salient facts because someone still imagines they are spoilers is both WP:POV, and frankly, keeping important, relevant information out of the article in aid of silly protection of some reader who might not have seen the episode or any of the voluminous publicity for the series. Sorry, on balance, removing these two critical character details so long after the related episodes were broadcast is just idiotic, and there's no good rationale for it. --Drmargi (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have requested page protection for this article to stop this annoyance from continuously happening. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea. This endless removal under the rationale that much discussed plot points broadcast a year ago are somehow spoilers is just absurd. --Drmargi (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Lord Roem decided that rather than discussing the request, that it would be best to deal with the dozens of individual users by themselves rather than actually fix the problem by protecting the page. Unfortunate that Wikipedia cannot always run so smoothly. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, a few quick things here. First, I think it'd be best to lower the tone. Second, my feel is that the best approach is to either use this noticeboard or handle these issues with the users one-by-one. Semi-protection only blocks IP's and some of the issues are with full users, thus why I don't think the requested remedy fit the problem. I'm happy to help or answer any questions. :) --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"American"

When they say american they mean from the USA, America is a continent. Not a country. TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.41.133 (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Aidan Liebman (valid source)

Aidan Liebman plays young Elliot Alderson. His name is in the credits of each episode he appears in. If you Google him, you can clearly recognize him in pictures (if you’ve seen him in the series). What kind of valid source do we need to add him to this article? I think it’s clear enough. --Abu-Dun Talk 15:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Separate pages for main characters

I believe that the show has reached the point where the main characters should have their own pages. Each of them have had significant storylines, and I feel this would be appropriate. Creating their own pages would take away the need to give away spoilers about the characters in the main article. I would do it myself but I'm new to this site and have no clue how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkflynn21 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Transgender or Cross-dressing?

Hi guys,

I guess we have two things to figure out:
1) Did the material clearly show or imply that the character was more than just a cross-dresser and had had "surgery" (and all the other stuff that goes with it)?
2) What does "Transgender" mean?

I'm thinking the answer to 1) is "NO". Any disagreements? I didn't see anything in the material, but I might have missed something. If so, please enlighten me. It is obvious however that the character cross-dresses (of course). I think it is clearly conveyed that he was born a male. Also that he usually appears in public as a male (maybe sometimes as a female I don't fully remember -- correct me on that too).

I've always taken "Transgender" to mean "transitioned all the way", i.e. surgery. But, if it doesn't mean that, I could very well be mistaken. But even if it means "anything in a range from cross-dressing to full-on surgery etc", I think "cross-dressing" would be a better term because it is not ambiguous with regard to describing what's actually observable in the material (or other reliable sources such as writers' statements).

I don't think the character should be called a "woman" unless it is clear that the character either 1) had surgery (i.e. "chopped it off" ugh.), or 2) was born a female, or 3) "identifies" (to use that controversial neologism) as a woman. I don't think any of these apply.

So, "cross-dressing" because it is not ambiguous, and "man" because he was born male and there is no evidence (he) actually "identifies" as a woman even given his obvious cross-dressing.

24.2.162.192 (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Whiterose identifies as a woman, and has had several lines of dialogue where she refers to herself using feminine pronouns, or as a woman. That makes the character transgender. Moreover, interviews with B.D. Wong, who plays her, and Sam Esmail, who created her, both indicate that Whiterose identifies as a woman, and uses her physiological gender as a disguise, or evidence of the closet in which the Chinese force her to remain. The coded scene with Dom makes that clear, to the point that they both stand in front of one.

What troubles me is that your language is vulgar as well provocative, really border-line inflammatory, and reflects a fair degree of discomfort with transgender and intersex people. This probably isn't the best subject matter for you to be editing. --Drmargi (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice. I'm pleased to see citation of evidence as to how the character "identifies", etc. Is there any evidence as to whether the character has had surgery? That would be useful. Also, do you have specific references for the writer/actor comments that we can use as inline citation? That would be really useful too. I think citing episode numbers and times are fairly good (and valid) sources as well. Having refs supporting the "transgender woman" terminology (or whatever it ends up being) will help in making the phraseology look less like an WP:OR invention. As it stands now, it's unsupported WP:OR as well as being ambiguous.

Can you or someone else find the specifics for those sources? That would go a long way toward solving the "ambiguous/WP:OR" problem.

Also, please, can we try keep this discussion on-topic? Talk pages are for discussing what-to-say and how-to-say-it in the main article, and not really for how to say things on the talk page itself. Of course, that rule is often violated, forgivably-so, because people are people and they do like to chat! That said, I think we should avoid sitting-in-wait for someone to use a "not-fully-PC" term and then chiding them for it. It's somewhat aggressive and oppressive (IMHO). We need to feel able to express in straightforward and civil terms here.

24.2.162.192 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Transgender woman" sounds like the character was born female.

It seems that the psychology profession uses "transgender" to mean something like "anything in a range from cross-dressing to full-on surgery etc" -- one does indeed learn something new every day! So "transgender" is accurate, even though it's not adequately specific in my opinion. Also, "transgender" is ambiguous in the context of "woman" following it. "Transgender woman" implies more strongly that the character was born female but engages in "trans" activities, rather than born a male but engages in trans activities.

Even if it was truly colloquial to say "man" or "woman" based on how the person "identifies", that usage would have the effect of adding again to the ambiguity of the phraseology. It says only how the character thinks and leaves unsaid the character's physicality. And, physicality is pertinent -- if the character was born female and came up in Chinese business as a natural physical woman, that would be a notable point indeed. "Transgender woman" inaccurately suggests that.

"Transgender woman" reads as though it might be describing a character who was born female. It's unencyclopedic to leave that uncorrected or unclarified.

24.2.162.192 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it's original research to interpret research other than how it is literally applied. Whiterose is transgender. Consensus supports this. While you're free to establish personal criteria for how you use the terms, it is unencyclopedic to use other than widely established terms. The surgical element, with which you seem to have such a fascination, is irrelevant. Whiterose identifies as a woman, thus is transgender, thus uses female pronouns. The argument that it sounds like she was born female holds no weight, and no clarification of the state of her genitalia or the gender she was assigned by a physician at birth is needed. We deal with a fictional character in the here and now. --Drmargi (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Remove spoilers from cast?

I know the show well and I wasn't perturbed by spoilers in the "Cast" section of the article, but I wonder if we should remove particular notes about particular characters from the cast, where their relationship to the protagonist isn't fully explained throughout most of the first season of the show. We could leave those notes for a "Plot" section of the show, so people who come to the Wikipedia article to read about the show and see who is starring in it can read the synopsis and the cast without having the show spoiled for them.

I could make an edit and remove the details which are revealed only towards the end of the first season myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.133.102 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the cast section itself should not include such information, but have a look at the archive 3 discussions where this exact issue is discussed to quite an extent. The current view is that wp:spoiler does not prohibit the inclusion. If you want to overturn this current view, you will need to provide arguments to overcome prior history and spoiler policy. Good luck. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The cast list has far too many spoilers, not only revealing Mr Robot and Darlene's true identity but also Leon's true allegiance which was only revealed three episodes ago. This really needs to change! 2402:2380:400:A823:655E:AC3E:A4D0:1751 (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPOILER. We do not remove or filter spoilers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to read it yourself. Spoilers can ABSOLUTELY be limited to specific sections, and it happens all across the Wikipedia. When it doesn't do so it's because some individual wants to spoil it for others. That is not Wikipedia policy, which tries to accommodate all readers as well as it can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.29.117 (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If you disagree with the guideline, please take it to that particular talk page, not this one. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is now beyond ridiculous. By definition, a spoiler is advance information about an episode. The episodes revealing that Mr. Robot is a product of Elliot's psyche and that Darlene is Elliot's sister were broadcast in August, 2015. That's 13 months ago. By no stretch of the imagination is that information a spoiler. This is a U.S. show, and once those episodes were broadcast in the U.S., the content is no longer a spoiler. Moreover, another season having just ended in which these two plot points were both prominently featured and developed, it is absurd to expect they will not appear in an article in order to prevent spoiling someone who might not have seen the episode yet. Editors and readers from other countries should exercise personal responsibility if they don't want to know what's happened on the show, particularly events from the first season. We have no obligation indefinitely protect some viewer who might at some indeterminate time in the future want to start watching the show. Period. --Drmargi (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)