Talk:Monk (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Searching for Monk 2 Spoiler warning? 3 Who Killed Trudy Monk? 4 Monk's Psychological Problems 5 Monk in other countries 6 Hollywood Eyes 7 Misc 8 Phobias 9 Sixteen murders per year 10 picture 11 Credibility of mental illness 12 Hetero San Francisco 13 Agoraphobia? 14 References 15 Series Overview 16 Monk in Canada? 17 Monk's or Monks'? 18 Music 19 Article assessment 20 Revert

[edit] Searching for Monk

The Monk (TV series) does not come up directly from searching for "Monk" or "Adrian Monk" --24.118.56.251

That issue is not isolated to this article. That's a problem with all of Wikipedia. With $1,000,000's more, the infrastructure might be able to use better searches. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:07, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Spoiler warning?

Do we really need the spoiler warning? The overview section gives background on the series, but I don't think it "gives away" anything, like who Trudy's murderer is. It just gives background information on Adrian and the series as a whole. I think it can be safely removed. Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk

Yeah, I think we should put it back. There are some things in there that I, not having watched the second season yet, would liked to have been warned about. It's just curtious, I think. --RayaruB 03:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be good to have on there, in case people new to Monk want to watch the DVD collections, reruns etc. Go ahead and re-add it. --Claygate 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I put it back. I suppose it's not the biggest thing in the world, but I think it's better to give readers a fair warning that there may be spoilers, however slight, in the text. --RayaruB 21:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would agree (late, looking at the dates here) as i found out why Sharona left - and i didnt really want to know at that moment in time.--Baston1975 17:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who Killed Trudy Monk?

See my page to see my opinion on this. -Roman Soldier

You mean your talk page that mentions absolutely nothing about Monk on it? I think you mean your user page, User:Roman Soldier. FYI, Wikipedia is not a discussion board. It is fine to discuss issues surrounding articles here, but not speculation and contents that can't be added to the article. User's opinions of who killed Trudy Monk would fall under that category. — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It could be put on the main article as it is a well supported theory of who killed her, but it would definitely ruin the show for a lot of people. So I casually gave a link to where I have posted my theory about who killed her. Since it seems to be alright to add anything that has to do with anything there is nothing inappropriate about a theory of her murder. An article about the show Dallas might have several theories about who shot JR as part of the article, and since fans of the show already know who shot it it wouldn't ruin the show for them if that was in the article.

Also, since it is my page, and I am writing an opinion dealing with a topic I contribute much too, I think I have the right to have it there.

Since I don't see a moderator or administrator tag anywhere on your profile I suggest that you just stick to correcting spelling errors as your profile indicates you do. - Roman Soldier

My, my, I seemed to have offended someone. Please forgive me, no offense intended. I was merely trying to educate a newcomer. Let me continue in that vein for a moment: please sign your posts the easy way. You can sign them with either 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preffered, since it also leaves a timestamp. From your last two posts, it looks like you're doing it the hard way, which also, unfortunately, doesn't give other users an easy way to contact you or see your user page.

As for what I do on Wikipedia, sure I correct a lot of spelling and grammatical errors (who doesn't?), but I've also originated several dozen articles. Not that it matters, but that's also indicated on my user page. As for being an admin, I've been asked to "run" for adminship, but I've always declined. Wikipedia takes up too much time as it is. :-)

As for theories, if they're widely discussed—and I mean widely—they can and probably should be added to the article. But your theory seems to be your own. Of course you're entitled to your own opinions (and theories), but you did the right thing by keeping it off the main article. You are allowed to have pretty much anything on your user page that you like, and if you want to use it to promote your theory of Trudy's killer, that's fine. But it looked like you were trying to start a discussion about it—which would start turning your space on Wikipedia into a message board of sorts. This is something that is highly discouraged. I was just trying to help prevent you from committing a Wikipedia faux pas. Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me also. I must be in attack mode all of the time on the Internet. It just sounded like you were poo-pooing any discussion of the topic.

I'm not a newcomer, I have another account but I ditched it because it's tied to some articles I don't want to be associated to. I believe that, if there was enough interest, I could put together quite a case for my theory on who killed Trudy Monk. I've put a brief description on my talk page. Trudy's murder is a MAJOR part of the series, but since discussing it on the main article page would ruin the suprise which will come at the end of the series, I put it on my userpage. Lots of members use their userpages for things like that. Roman Soldier 07:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monk's Psychological Problems

I was just wondering if the show has ever implied that Monk may have Asperger's syndrome, and if it hasn't, I think that statement should be removed from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madelinerock (talk • contribs) .

The show never really mentions he has OCD either. I think it's clear to anyone watching with any knowledge of autism/Asperger's that Monk does have autism so it seems appropriate to mention it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.216.157.38 (talk • contribs) .

I was wondering the same thing i mean he is called in the commercials the obsessive compulsive detective. [OCD] well that was funny i think maybe he does have OCD. Really more in his childhood though. Yet as time goes by he becomes better with it until his wife, Trudy dies. Then he reverts back to his previous childlike state. So with the help of his doctor and 2 nurses he has to sort of grow up again, to make himself the way he was before his wife died. I truly dont think he has Autism though, just very odd indeed. [San Antonio LG]

I also think that Monk has Asperger's Syndrome. I happen to have AS and in several cases, he just acts like me during certain situations(for example, I can't stand power outages, need sometimes extra help from other people etc). --Tarmo Tanilsoo 08:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monk in other countries

Do we really need this section? I think when it started out it had some fairly good content, but now it has grown to include information such as showtimes and channels. My question is, who really cares? Airtimes and channel guides are beyond the scope of the article and aren't encyclopedic. I suggest we ditch the whole thing and just have a list of countries where it airs. If it airs under another name (e.g. Monk: International Man of Obsessive Mystery), that would be permissible also. Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this has been posted for almost a month, with no responses. Unless someone can provide a compelling reason why we need this section, I'm going to remove it. The information just isn't encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not TV Guide. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I performed a cleanup on the section, I hope you approve of it. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 16:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC).

Yes, that's much better. The details were unencyclopedic, thank you. Someday we may want to shorten the list to something like this:

Brazil | Canada | Japan | Poland | Ukraine | ...

But the current form is fine for now. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood Eyes

During the third season, Tony Shalhoub underwent cosmetic eye surgery. He subsequently displayed the usual heavy-lidded appearance that is now characteristic of so many actors and actresses. Shalhoub minimizes the change by being photographed with his head lowered so that his eyebrows conceal his eyelids.Lestrade 13:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Misc

What episode is the following line, taken from the article, about?

 In a dream, Monk is advised by Trudy that he should hire Natalie when she helps save his life.

I'd guess it's "Mr. Monk vs. The Cobra". If it is, the information is inaccurate; as Natalie has already been working for Monk. Monk is advised to hire her *back*, or, more precisely, to accept paying her what she's been demanding.

(If nobody's going to deny, I'll edit that line. Palpalpalpal 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

You are right, it was when he was trapped in a coffin burried alive.SFrank85 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Now I'm wondering if this bit of information is welcome. It doesn't say much about the series itself. And it's not even mentionned on Natalie's own page. Well, I don't really mind, actually. Palpalpalpal 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phobias

I would agree with germs being his greatest fear, but I think the rest are fairly even. I can't even remember incidence of a few. Dying? Darkness? Also, I believe his fear of crowds has nothing to do with agoraphobia.

• The list is a quote from Monk himself. He recites it in the episode "Mr. Monk and the very very old man", from the second season. He is standing on a table, because a snake is loose in the house that he and Captain what's-his-name are in. When asked about how he could stand on the table, because he is afraid of heights, he replies: "Snakes trump heights", and the recites his top nine list of fears

Wasn't there an episode where Leland mentions that Monk is afraid of puppies?

It says on the list that Monk is afraid of clowns. However, in the episode 'Mr.Monk Goes to the Circus', he shows no fear of a clown, only mild agitation. 68.184.57.165

In episode five of the fifth season, Monk claimed that "risk" was in fact his number six fear. RpgActioN 18:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw that as well, please add to page. I think he said it in the context of "Taking Risks". --Claygate 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: This Fear List is inaccurate, The Author of his fear list may have been incorrectly informed, Hights should be higher on the list as well as milk and dying, as shown in the episode, Mr.Monk and the Very, Very Old Man when Monk realises that one of a victims three snakes is not in it's cage,

QUOTE:"STOTTLEMEYER: I'm not getting on the table with you, Monk! I thought you were afraid of Heights.

(Adrian starts reading off his list of phobias as if it’s scripted in his head, frustrating the captain to no end.)

MONK: Snakes trump heights. It goes germs, needles, milk, death, snakes, mushrooms, heights, crowds, elevators.

STOTTLEMEYER: Okay, I don't need the entire list."

Darkness isn't even on there. Thank You, If the author of the original fears list would explain where he/she got their info, than maybe the writers screwed up...

-- 69.86.87.135 22 August 2006

Actually it is a,changing list, even among the writers, as Monk experiences different things during the different seasons. For example this year he added risk to the top 10. --Claygate 01:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sixteen murders per year

That sounds rather morbid. Couldn't they have said sixteen cases per year?

I suppose being a homicide detective is a morbid business. They could have said 16 cases a year. I would have said 16 cases a year, because Monk could be brought in for non-homicide cases. Technically, if it guarantees 16 murders a year, bringing him in for a non-homicide case wouldn't count against his guarantee.--RLent 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I felt that Stottlemeyer was being somewhat sarcastic in his response, as he often does in his regular communication with those around him, and I found his statement on that episode to be rather humorous, albeit gruesome, since one obviously can't "guarantee" sixteen murders. But that's basically what any retainer would be, guaranteed work based on historical precedent. And, as noted, it is a thinly-veiled reference to USA picking up the show for 16 episodes for two seasons. --McJaje 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture

I just want to know is it legal to put this - http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001KL5IU.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg - picture here?

It's possible, if you want to illustrate something in the DVD section or Trivia section, but would recommend not replacing the main image. You will need to use the DVDcover tag, and probably make the image smaller. See the following section Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags and review the Cover Art section. --Claygate 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility of mental illness

In this section, the DSM criteria for OCD are applied to Monk to see how realistic his mental illness is. It seems to me this section would be a perfect place to apply the DSM criteria for autism to him as well. If no one else does this, and if there are no objections here on the talk page, I might start writing such an addition in a few days time.

Actually, now that you bring it up, quite a bit of this section sounds like original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Since professional psychiatrists aren't supposed to diagnose remotely, it clearly isn't the domain of WP editors to do so. The best we can do is cite specific sections (and occasionally quote, as has been done) DSM-IV to draw parallels. Considering how much of a challenge the professionals have even in deciding how to characterize mental illnesses from edition to edition of DSM, even this is rather arrogant of us. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove this section. No sources have been added since the tag was placed there, and as stated before, it is clearly original research. Ckessler 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hetero San Francisco

Is it just me or is it strange that a series that takes place almost entirely in San Francisco deals almost exclusively with heterosexual people? There are tiny exceptions, like "Mr. Monk Gets Married" where it assumed that the murderer and his partner are a gay couple. I've only seen the first three seasons, but I find it very unlike San Francisco that Monk has never encountered a gay couple on screen in San Francisco in the series so far. That's weird, right?

I agree, however since Monk has issues with sexuality, as shown in several episodes, maybe it wouldn't matter because he wouldnt want to know I don't think Monk likes the idea of sex, between men and women, men and men, or women and women. I also would like to disagree, I don't think that the partners in "Mr.Monk gets married" were gay, because in one scene the murderous partner was clearly flirting with the woman trying to purchase a wordrobe or something. Maybe the writers will find some way to deal with that in a later episode. Plus there was a hint that a small part in the episode where monk helps sharona's sister and where he acts on stage, the hairdresser in one scene seemed sterotypically gay thougfh it want veryu important. the same goes for "Mr.Monk goes to Jail", several peopl ehave speculated that the first prison cook seemed also sterotypically gay

[edit] Agoraphobia?

How can Monk have Agoraphobia? He's perfectly able to leave his home, and he once walked the streets of New York in season three. How can he be Agoraphobic?

Agreed, that has been changed and moved out of the top 10. --Claygate 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Can anyone find some verifiable sources for the sections Theme song debate and Sharona vs Natalie? I've been unable to find any. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am removing these sections until verifiable sources are found to back them up. I am also going to remove POV statements and unencyclopedic content in this article that do not abide by Wikipedia policy. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been here long enough for people to find citations. I have looked around, and was unable to find anything reliable. I am moving these sections here until citations are found. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding all of those references. It's definitely a great start. I have changed all of them from external links to proper citations using WP:CITE. I still have a few concerns. First, the Jeff Beal website isn't a verifiable source. It's okay to use temporarily to prove that we're just not making the stuff up, but more verifiable sources will have to be found. Also mentioning the petition isn't exactly notable in my opinion. If we can find a newspaper, magazine, or journal that reported on the petition's effectiveness, then it would be noteworthy. Otherwise it's just a small fact that doesn't bear any weight in the grand scheme of the show. Lastly, there's a quote from USA Today, which is great. However, I would like to find the original USA Today article. What does everyone else think? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can find different references for Jeff Beal; I wasn't paying attention when I looked at it originally, I thought it was his official site. I don't particularly care about the petition. The USA Today article is only available in abstract form, where the quote used is not visible, which is why I used the site wherein it was quoted. -Shannernanner 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Series Overview

I was looking over the changes made by Jtrost on 9/14 and am having problems with it. Setting aside grammatical issues, I find the removed material key to the overview section. For example, looking at the first paragraph, the new line "After he was unable to solve his wife, Trudy's, murder, which is [the] only case in his career he has been unable to solve, Monk suffered a nervous breakdown and became obsessive compulsive." This changes the focus of the problem to his being unable to solve the case. The real problem was his wife's murder. Dealing with that loss and, to a lesser degree, being unable to solve it, caused the nervous breakdown. This was better expressed in the previous version. And the new line makes it sound like this caused his OCD, which it didn't. As the previous version made clear, he has lived with OCD most of his life and the murder exacerbated the problem. I could go through the changes paragraph by paragraph, but my point being the original material did not require the drastic changes that have taken place. I'd love to hear what others think. McJaje 23:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look closely at my revisions you'll notice that all I did was remove redundancies and episode-specific content that is found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Basically I made the section more of an overview and less of a blow-by-blow account of some of the plots. Remember that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so feel free to clean up the section and move things around. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. As I look through the dozen or so changes you've made over the past week, indeed many things certainly can be transferred to episode-specific pages or removed altogether. But I've looked through various other TV series to see how things have been handled and haven't noticed anything out of line with what is contained here. But I was foremost concerned about the overview which, by definition, will contain material found elsewhere. And while I could have moved it back, that had already been done earlier only to have you return it. So, instead of fighting a war over it, I thought I'd open it for discussion to see if I, and others involved, are off-base. And while some material may seem "unencyclopedic", something like a current TV series is a living entity and likely warrants material that may be found useful. For example, the country listing seems a bit excessive, but it's easy for me to switch on USA Network. I don't know how hard it is for others in other countries to find the show, so I'm not a good judge. Perhaps a compromise is to simply move it to a dedicated page if others also find it to be inappropriate. ** McJaje 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC) **

Thanks for discussing this. Everyone else is just reverting me and not posting anything on the talk page. The reason I am making these changes is because the article is in very bad shape. I have spent a lot of time on Wikipedia cleaning up television show articles, and use FA quality articles as sort of a guide as to what should and what should not be included in TV series articles. My reasoning for removing the international broadcasters come from this AfD where a list of broadcasters for Lost was deleted by a virtually unanimous vote. Perhaps we could have a short section of prose that describes the impact this show has had in different countries? I'm not sure how easy it would be to find verifiable references for that kind of information, but if we were able to prove that this type of section is notable and encyclopedic, I would like to add something about it. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Several people asked you to discuss your controversial and large-scale changes before simply making them again as you had been, but you would not until now. As you have referenced one of the issues, at least, here, I will reply. Many articles have a list of other countries which air the show. Because one article chose not to does not necessarily set a precedent; please cite some kind of source for this. -Shannernanner 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section entitled References above. I discussed those changes, but did not receive replies. So I followed Wikipedia policy and removed those sections that were not referenced until references were found. As for the international broadcaster list, please look at all of the TV show articles that have become featured articles: Arrested Development, Cheers, The Office, The West Wing, and Lost is on its way there. None of them feature a broadcaster list. Also look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Nowhere does it suggest that such a list is necessary. However, Arrested Development does have a section about broadcast history, which is similar to the section I previously described that we could include. With that said, my question is what does that list offer this article? Do you think it really is the most effective way to present that kind of content, or would you have something more along the lines of what Arrested Development has? To me it's just a meaningless list with no context. All it does is take up space. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You were asked, not solely by me, to move sections which were unreferenced to the talk page rather than deleting them, which you did repeatedly even after being asked to do so; that is not the only change you made, however, and even if that section had properly addressed that issue it would not cover all the controversial changes you made. As for the "International" section, I did not say it was absolutely necessary, but scrapping it wholesale seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. It is good to use such articles as a guide, and thank you for stating precedent, but I don't find it altogether meaningless. If you would like to add or request context for the section, that's fine, but I don't think it should just remain deleted. -Shannernanner 16:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We could go back and forth all day about this. I'm going to ask you to assume good faith with my edits. I want to make this a better article. I was receiving no feedback on this page, so I was being bold and going ahead with the edits. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monk in Canada?

I know this is a question but can someone tell me what channel if any shows Monk in Canada? Thanks Lummie 23:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A Channel on Mondays at 9pm. SFrank85 02:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monk's or Monks'?

I noticed, while reading the article, that the sentence "Ambrose nearly perished when the Monk's childhood home was set ablaze," uses "Monk's" instead of "Monks'". Since the house was owned by more than one Monk, shouldn't the sentence use "Monks'"? As it is now, the sentence makes it seem like the house is owned by one person, A.K.A. "The Monk." --Mr.Weirdo 00:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --Claygate 03:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit unsure about this. --Mr.Weirdo 04:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but your suggestion was good and the sentence makes more sense now. --Claygate 17:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually right? There's a first time for everything.--Mr.Weirdo 22:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music

Well, the reviewer was right - the music from the first season was great - and Randy Newmans sucks. Oh well, the trick is to record and fastforward past it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IceHunter (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

Although I liked the first season's music by Jeff Beal(I have the soundtrack from Season 1), Randy Newman is doing a GREAT job with the music. The opening is catchy (as was the original) and the music is very monk-ish. I remember Randy Newman's music from Toy Story... Lamename3000 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment

As requested here I've assessed the article. First of all let me say good job, I've given the article a B on the class rating because most of the important information is present. The infobox is fine, the lead could be expanded a bit - perhaps mention the awards. The plot section is nice and concise perhaps the episode list link should be moved up. The mention of the rebroadcast of the specific episode is quite specific and I think it should be moved out to the episode article, this would leave you free to amalgamate plot and episode list. The character list needs some work - it's all in list format and should be re-written as prose. The long list of guest stars is not very interesting for a reader unfamiliar with the show. Choose several of the most important ones only and describe their importance and their role on the show. Leave the rest for a character list or a list of guest appearances or for the episode articles.

Location should be part of the production section and should have some sources. The awards and nominations list is good but some prose about significant awards would be preferable. You are missing a section on critical response to the show - have a look for reviews and summarise them in the article.

I've rated the article as mid on the importance scale because of the awards recognition it has received and the longevity of the show.--Opark 77 11:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted the changes that the anonymous IP person made. One edit was confusing and didn't seem to need to be there (in the book area), and then I reverted the part about racism. I have seen pretty much every episode (We'll have to wait until June 26th to see if I missed any in Season 5... which the DVD cover is available at TVShowsonDVD.com, for whomever wants to add that in), and I have not seen any references to racism or homophobia, outside of part of the 'joke' that that's how the characters perceive it, when they haven't met Adrian before. Lamename3000 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I uploaded a copy of the Season 5 DVD Cover artwork that was posted on TVShowsOnDVD.com, I am waiting for a response to see if it's OK with them that I used them as a source. This is my first image upload, so I hope I did everything ok. I had to open the original file in Photoshop to correct for perspective and then crop. I updated the page to reflect the cover, in the main infobox and the DVD Release section. I got the image as close to match the other DVD covers as possible, but any help and feedback would be appreciated. Lamename3000 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)