Talk:The Andy Griffith Show/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

pooopppppppppppppppp

According to BarneyFife.com George Lindsay, who played Goober in the series said, "One of the incredible things about every single episode is that Andy insisted each show have a moral point, something good, lofty and moral. It’s a shame current shows on TV don’t adopt that high road."

Also from BarneyFife.com

The show becomes a source of common ground to attract people from all religious backgrounds and walks of life. Basically, it offers a casual, non threatening atmosphere for people to get together, have fun, and think about how we handle certain situations in life.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~thefanns/class3.htm points out Mr. Jackson's disrespect for Andy's authority, but the site seems oblivious to Barney's constant disrespect for Andy's authority, and their disrespect for the authority of others.

Where Andy Griffith lived

He may have also lived in Manteo, but the town most closely associated with Griffith is Mount Airy, so I changed the reference to say that he had lived there. Someone who knows more details may want to clarify. Mark Foskey

Goober

Wasn't Goober Pyle Gomer's cousin, rather than his brother? Rlquall 02:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-Encyclopedic and Incoherent

Ee60640 and 65.42.89.35 have their own ideas of what belong in a encyclopedia article. What they do not seem to realize is that they are not authorities on what belongs in an encyclopedia article. 65.42.89.35 seems to think portions are incoherent. Just because you don't understand something doesn't automatically make it incoherent. Hackwrench 18:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of the article was about how the show was 'Morally Questionable'. Not sure why these opinions would belong in an encyclopedia article.

Hackwrench

I hope that I can help you to understand what's happening. The folks who keep redacting your contributions to this article have good reason to: Your writing is objectively inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. Not only is it subjective opinion, but it's extremely eccentric subjective opinion. You clearly have strong personal feelings about this forty-year-old sitcom. You have made more than half of the entry a rant about how you feel that it represents bad morality. This is not information, it's opinion. If you wish to disseminate your opinion or frame a debate about whether or not this light entertainment series represents a solid and consistent system of values, you ought to create a personal webpage to do so. The author of an encyclopaedia article should be invisible. The Neutral Point of View should not be difficult to maintain in an article about a light entertainment program. A couple of lines about how many people consider the program to be "wholesome" entertainment, followed by a "but..." that takes up more space than all of the factual information about the show itself is not a neutral point of view.

In addition to the basic unsuitablity of your contribution to the article in the context of an encyclopaedia entry (due to its pronounced and peculiar bias,)the writing itself is incoherent to the point of incomprehensibility. It is loaded with spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Even if we ignore the fact that an encyclopaedia article is not the place for a debate about the morality of a spectacularly uncontroversial TV show, your capsule synopsis of several episodes under the "Morally Questionable" subheading are rambling and often pointless. For example:

'In "High Noon At Mayberry", Lou Comstock sends Andy a letter saying that he's coming to Mayberry "to set things straight." Barney manipulates Andy into thinking that Lou's coming to shoot Andy because of the time that Andy shot him in the leg during a hold-up.'

How do you consider that this indicates a moral weakness of the program? The overriding quality that Barney Fife possesses is that he is an incompetent simpleton. This is a source of comedic tension. It drives the plot in each episode. Nobody is asked to emulate Barney's behaviour -- he is a figure to be pitied, and of course to laugh at.

The subsections "Attitude towards weapons" and "Attitude towards women," are particularly bad. Of course Aunt Bea doesn't like weapons. She's a remarkably nervous old woman. Barney's enthusiasm for his gun doesn't frame weapons in a bad light -- it frames Barney in a bad light. It's not guns in-and-of-themselves that attract him -- it's the associated authority -- which he is manifestly unfit to represent. The show doesn't have a pertinent philosophy with regard to firearms. Your section seems to imply that you believe that guns should, of necessity, be portrayed in a positive light. As for the "attitudes about women," what are you trying to say? You mention one episode in which a character encourages another character to be more feminine, "against her father's wishes." What is the attitude toward women that this represents? That they should all be girly-girls? That they should be tomboys? That they should submit to patriarchal authority? That they should resist patriarchal authority? That they should do what feels right? What? Never mind, because it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article about a light entertainment program.

If you want to write a thesis about the values of 1960s middle-America, or Hollywood, or whatever, and their relative worth measured against your own philosophy, do it somewhere else -- and you might want to hire an editor, if you want anyone to be able to make out what you're trying to communicate.

Your contribution is incoherent in the most objective sense. Your english is difficult to parse -- not because the concepts are high, but because your use of the language is very poor. If your contribution contained useful information that was germane to the article at all, then I'm sure that people would be happy to spruce up your spelling, grammar, and punctuation. As it stands, the only thing to do is to remove it altogether. As long as you keep reinserting it, people are going to continue to "clean up the page" by removing it -- not because of any ideological opposition, mind, but because it's simply out of place. Don't single out the people who've removed it so far -- it's the natural decision for anyone who's trying to edit the page to conform to standards. Larry Mudd 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

You don't seem to have read wikipedia's NPOV article. Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. By deleting the point of view I have presented, a view is not represented. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have. I don't think you understand it very well. The article doesn't have a neutral point of view with your revisions. You have made 50% of an entry for an uncontroversial television show an argument that it's "morally questionable." Yes, before you added that text, you inserted a preamble that amounts to "Many people believe that The Andy Griffith Show is wholesome entertainment." That doesn't make the article neutral.

Percentages are irrelevant. What is relevant is that sides get expressed. I would really like the case for it being morally upstanding to be fleshed out, but I don't really understand the moral code of the people that find it that way, therefore I am a poor candidate to flesh it out. Most of the content under Morally Upstanding was already part of the previous article.

Consider this: Everything is morally questionable. Every single blessed thing. Certainly all entertainment. An encyclopedia entry is simply not the place to hash it out. A show like ">M*A*S*H is certainly more controversial than The Andy Griffith Show -- yet its entry retains a neutral voice. Yes, some people consider that M*A*S*H propounded good values. M*A*S*H (TV_series) Other people found those values offensive. That does not mean that an encyclopedia entry on the show should index all the things that people considered admirable or offensive about the show -- rather, it should just give us a clear, concise description of the show and provide us with useful information about it. Everybody has an opinion. If all the articles about entertainment were cluttered up with arguments for whether the subject of the article was "good" or "bad," this whole endeavour would be useless.

Why would it be useless. You aren't making a case for it, you just state it as if it is the most obvious thing in the world. I would be interested in reading such views when going to a Wikipedia article, which is why I write.Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Your entries do not maintain neutral voice. You are clearly arguing against the morality of the show, and not terribly well. You list a series of incidents that bother you as evidence that the show itself is "morally questionable." For instance, Opie's teacher makes an error and gives him an "A" in math instead of his deserved "F," and the boy is rewarded with a bike. Imagining for the moment that it was appropriate to hijack an article about a TV show with a long essay on whether or not it should be considered morally "right," how do you imagine that this represents the show's turpitude? Is this represented as a good thing? Do you think that it is meant to encourage people to fudge report cards? To lie? Hint: The episode is titled "Opie's Ill-gotten Gain."

No, it promotes poor accounting, the likes of Enron and MCI.Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, it's neither here nor there; an encyclopaedia article is meant to present a concise digest of pertinent information about a particular subject -- not a debate about its ethics. Of course, some subjects are practically defined by the contention surrounding them. (eg; abortion or the Israel-Palestine conflict.) It's doubtful that anyone is neutral about such subjects, if they are familiar with them at all. In these instances, we do our best to represent conflicting ideas neutrally.

Who told you what an encyclopedia article is meant to present? Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

In the case of a show like The Andy Griffiths show, (or The Mary Tyler Moore show, or whatever) the subject is not defined by debate. The proper approach is to represent what the show is objectively about -- not how some individuals may react to it.

Why?Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If it was made to conform to the style of a concise, neutral encyclopaedia article, your whole contribution to the article could be ideally be rendered thus:

Many people consider The Andy Griffith show to be an idealized depiction of simple, small-town values. Others may feel that these values are dated and out of touch with modern ideals.

Even that is really not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Try for: "Just the facts, ma'am." Why is half of the article about how unethical you think some of the actions portrayed are? It's a TV show. Entertainment. Notice that the Law & Order entry doesn't include itemized list of morally questionable things that the main characters have done. Why? Because it's not relevant.

I am not trying to cast my position as "modern ideals". There is no one group of values shared by all modern people or all small towns. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Law & Order entry doesn't include itemized list of morally questionable things that the main characters have done because no one yet places the value of writing such a piece over other uses of their time.

Everybody has an opinion. Neutral point of view doesn't mean including opposing points of view for everything. Take a look at the articles on major ethical systems. They just say what they're about. They don't include lengthy rebuttals. It's ridiculous that you keep appending a lengthy rebuke of the "morals" of TAGS to this article. Why not append everything you don't like about every show ever created to each wiki article? Because it's opinion, and doesn't belong here.

I intend to. Heve to start somewhere. Plus, watching episodes of shows I don't like the values of in order to express an informed position takes time. Hackwrench 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Grammar

What have I misspelled? What is wrong with my grammar? As for puncuation, the rhetorical question could stand to have a question mark, but what else is wrong. Just saying I have poor spelling, grammar and punctuation doesn't make it so. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Look, I honestly don't mean to be insulting, but where to start? Even after your revision, it's a mess. I'm not inclined to proofread your entire text, as I don't think there's much point in it. Fixing the grammar, spelling, and punctuation will not make it appropriate. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of what commas are for or how to make proper use of parentheses.154.5.44.35 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that the difficulty is not due to the concepts being high. However, part of the difficulty comes from the fact that you are not used to reading terse matter, part from your own eccentric and peculiar point of view, and part from your balkanized mindset. By the way, English is capitalized, "at all" is superfluous. Hackwrench 01:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

My reading comprehension is fine, so long as the writing is comprehensible. This is not:

In one episode, a heavy-handed state police inspector, attempts to order state police reinforcements with weapons to handle a person who Andy allows to be a repeat offender and is firing a gun to miss.

First, your use of extraneous commas is jarring. Is "a heavy-handed police inspector" an independent clause? The reader can only parse this as an instance of a parenthetical phrase. Of course, it doesn't make any sense at all that way. So we conclude that the second comma is there for no good reason at all and mentally edit it out. We sense that the writer is aware that they're over their punctuation quota, though -- because the rest of the run-on-sentence is as gleefully free of punctuation as portions of Finnegans Wake, and just about as easy to work out. How many times does the subject change in that sentence? What's modifying what? Luckily, we can rely on grammatical number to make inferences about when you're talking about reinforcements and when you're talking about the "person" -- although we shouldn't have to. We can't tell exactly what's happening, though, because that remarkably long sentence still manages to be incomplete. What is this person's offense? Who's firing to miss? (I'm fairly sure you mean that the "person" is.) What or who is being fired on or around? I can work out what you're trying to say (I think) but there are blanks to fill in. Someone has done something. You're saying that it's Andy's fault he's at large. The police inspector wants to call in armed state troopers to subdue the person. Either Andy is shooting in his general direction, or (more likely) the person is shooting in the direction of someone else, likely Andy, the inspector, or the pair of them. This is not "just saying" your grammar and punctuation are lacking. Anyway, if you'll allow me a brief digression from grammar to ask you about the reason for that sentence's existence:

Here's the question: What does this tell us about the show's Attitude towards Weapons? Something, right? That is the subheading, so there's got to be an attitude towards weapons in there somewhere. What is it? Imagine that your reader hasn't seen the episode and doesn't know what you're thinking, but leaving unsaid. We don't know the resolution. Guns are bad? Guns are necessary to protect people from dangerous offenders? From jaywalkers? Guns are neutral, and it's better if good guys wield them than bad guys? What? Knowing a little about The Andy Griffith Show, I assume that Sheriff Taylor talked the guy out of whatever he was doing, or found some non-violent solution. We shouldn't have to make assumptions though, or guess about your meaning. You're not being terse. Far from it. You are relating things that happened in the show and assuming that your point is taken. You relate a long summary of episode involving Andy and his son doing without Aunt Bee for a time and having housecleaning issues. You invite the reader to conclude that the show promotes weak moral values, based largely on its appearance under the heading "Questionable Morals." Your other synopses are the same. Why are they there? Far from terse. Terse would be good. 154.5.44.35 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Reviewing my work, I did find typing errors. Corrected, in as much as I found them, also did some cleaning up. The wikipedia textbox is not the greatest composition environment. Hackwrench 01:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You could stand to review a lot more. You caught some of the typos, but there are still plenty of spelling and punctuation errors -- and honestly, most of the grammar demands a rewrite. Random selection:

By calling their combination Police office and Jail, a Jail they deempasize the police aspect of their work, and Berney Fife, expresses the notion that having prisoners looks good.

Three punctuation errors. Two spelling errors. One typical sentence.

I don't want to get into a flame-war with you. The portions you've added just stuck out as not being anywhere near up-to-par. I will not remove them again, since it's clear that you're going to just keep putting them back and I've (thankfully) got more pressing things to deal with than making sure that the Wikipedia entry for an old sitcom is tidy and informative.

That being said, it's only a matter of time (and not much of it, I'd wager) before someone else comes along and says "What the!? That clearly doesn't belong here." and wishes it into the cornfield again. I would respectfully suggest that you not keep stubbornly putting it back just as it was. Spend some time looking at other entries for tv shows. Note that they don't read like middle-school debate club notes. If other people find your contribution valuable, they'll put it back. I don't think you've got enough objectivity to really "get" why it keeps getting nixed. 154.5.44.35 Larry Mudd 04:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice Twilight Zone reference. Did you see the follow-up episode on the new Twilight Zone series?

Attitude towards guns

The fact that you think that the section seems to imply a belief that guns should, of necessity, be portrayed in a positive light, says more about you than the section. It doesn't. However the show consistently portrays guns in a negative light.

Further telling your warped sense of reality is that you think that any remarkably nervous old woman wouldn't like weapons. A remarkably nervous old woman is just as likely to keep a gun for comfort as to dislike them. Hackwrench 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not as clear as you think why Barney likes guns. He claims to have been in the United States Army where foot soldiers are more likely than ranking officers to have weapons prominent. Barney shows enthusiasm not just for his gun, but for the rifles in the station as well. As you say, the overriding quality that Barney Fife possesses is that he is an incompetent simpleton. Liking guns will not cast him in any less of a light. However, the reverse is not true.

Attitude towards women

The 'lady driver' episode shows an attitude towards women as bad drivers.

It isn't just a character that encourages another character to be more feminine, it is a main character that encourages a character that exists for the sole purpose to be influenced by the main character to "be more feminine". The "against her father's wishes" was to hint at the fact that the episode goes against the right of a parent to raise their child as the parent sees fit.

Standards

As far as I can see the 'standards' you talk about are made up inside your head. Feel free to point me to a standards document to prove me wrong. I have already pointed you to the Wikipedia NPOV document.

Eccentricity

I am not alone in reverting back to my changes. GregAsche reverted my changes back, and others have made changes without touching mine. Therefore it isn't a "natural decision", but merely a not too uncommon one.

Hackwrench

If you were in fact using a NPOV I would have no problem with your contributions. However you seem to have a misunderstanding of the word neutral. Everything you have written comes from a biased POV. You do understand the difference between neutral and biased, don't you? Clearly the show is dated and has attitudes that are out of touch with current view points on various issues. This is true of almost ANY television program that is 40 years old. Are you now going to go into the pages for I Love Lucy, The Dick Van Dyke Show, etc. and vandalize those pages in the same way you have with this one? You have made it clear you have a problem with this show. Fine. However, in addition to being poorly written your comments are not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. For an opinion piece or critical analysis of the program, yes. But not in something that is supposed to convey basic information. ee60640 11:17 AM 10/08/05

As I demonstrated in an earlier post, what I am doing is not vandalism. I understand the meaning of the word neutral. You however do not seem to understand Neutral as it modifies POV in the Wikipedia context. From the NPOV article:

The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct.

My content is an unbiased account of a POV regarding the show. It is not meant to indicate that that view is correct. I have not deleted any POV. Other POVs need to be presented.

Warning to Hackwrench

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

I don't see it as nonsense. Also from vandalism: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

Hackwrench

Maybe this will help you - from the NPOV page. Try to read it and see if you can understand it.

"A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.
Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."

--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

Did that penetrate your skull or not? ee60640 11:57 AM 10/08/05

Yes, and I am writing about what people believe about the show, while you are writing about what is so about the show. Hackwrench 15:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point here. YOU are writing about what YOU personally believe about the show in a manner that presents these opinions as something that is "so" about the show. The idea of NPOV that you seem to not get is that it should be those things all reasonable people would agree is true about something without personal opinions about that thing being inserted. In addition, the opinions that you insist on inserting here are poorly written semi-coherent thoughts. If you were to label most of what you have written with qualifiers such as "some people believe" or some similar phrase instead of presenting it as fact, you would probably find that your contributions would run into less resistence from others. ee60640 14:47 CST 10/09/05

Staying on Topic

Hackwrench, having read your current revision of the page it appears you have made an attempt to make your contributions conform to what NPOV should be. However, you still have a number of spelling and grammatical problems present. In addition, I think if you were to read the following from the Wikipedia guidlines you would find that this material does not serve a purpose in this article.

The most readable articles contain a minimum of irrelevant (or only loosely relevant!) information. While writing an article you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who aren't interested won't be distracted by it.

You seem to want to present an analysis of this show in light of current societal attitudes on those topics. You have also indicated above that you intend to do so with other television shows. Ok, fine. But that would be more appropriate in a seperate article. In this context the ideas you are interested in are, at best, loosely relevant to an entry about this show. ee60640 10/09/05

RfC comment

This discussion has ended up being about personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. The "Morally Questionable" section is unsustainable if it can't be changed to report real-world discussions of these issues - X said Y about this aspect or episode. (And of course X would need to be someone reasonably notable.) There's a reason these types of article on Wikipedia are usually short (and factual) - because otherwise it ends up in this sort of situation, which isn't terribly productive, never mind encyclopedic. Rd232 20:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, particularly concerning the "Morally Questionable" section and the need for this sort of entry to be short and factual. This is what I have been advocating. Hopefully, Hackwrench will realize you are correct as well. ee60640 21:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The more concise summary of the debate over the show's value is better (and is at least framed coherantly) but it still isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. The best way to maintain NPOV is to leave opinion out altogether. The only time "presenting all points of view" is desirable is when the topic is notably controversial, in that the controversy is a large part of the subject. (eg; abortion.) Otherwise, every article would degenerate into a back-and-forth over people's opinions about incidental things. This is a TV show, not a system of ethics. Inclusion of sections positing that it is "moral" or "immoral" are off-topic. We manage to keep articles about things which inspire strong pro and con opinions utterly neutral. The article on steak, for example, is strictly about steak, as it should be. It's not about the various ways that people feel about steak. Many, many people have strong feelings about whether or not it is "moral" to eat steak -- but an encyclopedia article about steak is not the place to get into "Steak is nature's perfect food and necessary for life" vs "Meat is murder!" These are opinions. They belong in their own articles. Same thing here. "Fans & Detractors" is more readable than "Morally Upstanding & Morally Questionable," but it is still out of place in an encyclopedia entry. 154.5.44.35 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is out of place for this type of entry. My reason for putting it in was to bring this revert war to an end. Hackwrench has not seen fit to revert this to the longer, off-topic and rambling entry previously here. Anyone who feels the need to make this entry more concise will find no resistance from me. Ee60640 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation made.

A bit silly, but this is clearly not going to be solved one way or the other until we ask for an authoritative opinion, and a month of reverts is probably enough. Larry Mudd 06:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[Link to RfM]

POV notes on Hackwrench's recent edit.

Hackwrench, I understand that the intent of your last edit was to remove all trace of POV from the article, but you have removed plenty of useful information which is based on verifiable fact and conforms to NPOV, apparently because you think it represents the show positively.

The notation that people travel to North Carolina looking for "Mayberry" is not an opinion -- it's a fact. Why have you removed it? Because it indicates that some people like the show a lot? (Let's ignore for the moment that it also suggests that some viewers of the show aren't very bright. Heh.)

Andy Griffith was a well-known actor before the show started. (That's why it was called The Andy Griffith Show, and not "Life with Sheriff Taylor.") He did receive an ovation when he made his appearance on The Danny Thomas Show. This is not a subjective opinion, it's a relation of something that provides some context for why the program was a hit with its audience from the very beginning.

Every show is a "hit with its audience". If it isn't a hit with you, well then, you're not the show's audience. Hackwrench 14:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that wording is an example of extreme adherence to NPOV. The fact is, though, that the show was a hit. It entered at #4 in the ratings, and remained a top-rated show for its entire run. This is an objective statement, and the ratings are there to back it up. It is not a point of view. Larry Mudd 16:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What resource are you using to come up with that statistic. Also, the ratings have to be viewed in reference to the time period. Back then the audience was solely in the U.S. and consisted of those who owned Black and White televisions (the only televisions in existance at that time, and could get good reception. How does the ratings compare to movie theater visits during that time? Hackwrench 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You removed simple, accurate descriptors of characters. These are not opinions, they're character attributes.

Unless those character description are Canon and not Fanon then those desriptors are opinions. [Hackwrench]

Give me a break. "Floyd the barber is absent-minded" is canon. You know what "absent-minded" means, right? He misses out on details and is very forgetful? A quality of his character that is used repeatedly as a plot device and consistently as a gag? Can you name an episode in which Bass appears that doesn't revolve around the idea that he's a wildman and a hell-raiser? Some secret episode you're aware of where he sips tea and reads a book? This is the way the characters are consistently portrayed. It is not opinion, and certainly not something that fans made up. Seriously, what the hell? Larry Mudd 16:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't name an episode in which Bass appears. I did watch a number of episodes of Andy Griffith with which to come to understand the moral implications involved, and depended on summaries for more perspective. "hell-raising" has a wide variety of implications. Surely you don't mean that every episode Bass appears in a dead body is the result. If not, I don't see a clear claim can be made that he is a hell-raiser. Hackwrench 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You also introduced spelling and grammar errors into the text with your edits. Larry Mudd 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hackwrench, on the RfM page, you wrote:

To help determine whether or not it was one viewpoint that the other side was trying to quash I removed all veiwpoint material. The non-impartial websites they cite are "fact" but regarding the websites I cited, "Satirical magazines and web reviews don't qualify" Why not? Satire is a valid form of criticism. Christianity Today is a mainstream Christian magazine. The review is more than just a review. It comes at the show from a distinct POV.

Let me help you out here. Taking Modern Drunkard at face value and using it to support the view that a significant amount of people find The Andy Griffith Show morally questionable isn't terribly convincing, because most people can tell that the authors of Modern Drunkard aren't making a serious argument. You don't think they really think that there are secret episodes involving Satanism, right? You don't think that they're seriously arguing that boozing is good for athletes, that being a wino is an attractive career option, or that drinking alone aids personal development, do you? Drollery is a signature of Modern Drunkard, and its humour depends on the incongruity between the article and the reader's expectations. If you have to rely on this sort of thing to support the idea that The Andy Griffith Show is a significant source of real controversy, your position isn't very strong. Larry Mudd 07:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand satire. In the athlete article, they are making a case that athletes drinking isn't as bad as America makes it out to be. The wino article talks about the life of a wino and doesn't attempt to make it desirable, and also takes a jab at marketing-speak. The third addresses the misguided notion that drinking alone is necessarily bad, and yes drinking while you are alone can be part of a process for personal development. If all you are doing while you are alone is drinking, however, I doubt that much personal development can be gained. Hackwrench 14:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You should be careful about commenting on others' understanding. Yes, I understand satire. Do you? If you did, you would be aware that The Andy Griffith Show has not been satirized by Modern Drunkard. Modern Drunkard is a satire of special interest magazines. Larry Mudd 16:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing satire with parody. The subject of the satire on Modern Drunkard is stuffy viewpoints on drinking.

As for the web review, in what way is it "more than a review?" It's somewhat less than a review, in that it's just the personal opinion of one random person on the internet. There are mllions of personal opinions on the internet. Larry Mudd 07:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Again you seem unable to make the distinction between opinion of an ethical nature and opinion of an aesthetic nature.

All reviews are just the personal opinion of one random person, so I don't see how that makes it less than a review. Hackwrench 14:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about NPOV issues here. There is no distinction between an ethical opinion and an aesthetic opinion. This is why no articles on light entertainment contain treatises on their perceived morality, or even waste space on "Some people think X is funny, for reasons 1, 2, and 3, while other people think that X isn't funny at all, because of 4, 5, and 6." -- unless the "controversy" has been the subject of considerable remark.

I fail to understand the mentality that there is no distinction between ethical opinion and aesthetic opinion. Surely you don't mean it is perfectly acceptable to declare war for purely aesthetic reasons.Hackwrench 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you don't see anything wrong with citing a web review from a random person with internet access comes down to your refusal (or inability) to accept the concept of "undue weight." There has to be some threshold for when a POV is important enough to introduce into an article. How widespread is the view? Is it actually significant, and worth noting? Is there real controversy? The Harry Potter article makes notes of detractors, because they are significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. They are part of the subject. Two Popes have weighed in. Groups like Focus on the Family and the American Library Association were involved in the debate. The controversy made an impact on popular culture. It is significant. Compare this with your web review that claims that The Andy Griffith Show (and other 1960s television programs) are "anti-modern urbanism propaganda" and that Mayberry represents a police state. This POV's suitability for inclusion in the article has nothing to do with its merit -- it's not about whether or not this viewpoint is more or less sound than the idea that J.K. Rowling's books indoctrinate children into satanic practices. The question is not whether the opinion is valid or not, it's "Is this opinion significant enough to include in an encyclopedia article?" No, it's not. If it were, we'd be able to point to its notable adherents. If, when people thought of the Andy Griffith Show a big part of their memories were the controversial debates between Susan Sondheim and William F. Buckley over its social implications, back when this subject was extremely polarizing and fodder for many water-cooler discussions, then the controversy would be significant enough to include a mention in an encyclopaedia article. If we did not keep this standard, (and for the last time,) every encyclopaedia article would devote space to the examination of every possible opinion on the subject, which would be absurd. Larry Mudd 16:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That's just it. I place primary weight on the validity of an opinion, while you prefer to place weight on the apparent number or volume of an opinion's adherents.Hackwrench 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Significance in my book is not due to number of adherents for people holding any number of insignificant posiotions can be manipulated to the will of one man holding a significant opinion. Hackwrench 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The first criteria for the inclusion of an opinion in an encyclopedia is that somebody wants to put it there and furthermore has the means. That, in itself, cuts down on the number of opinions contained in an encyclopedia. That alone lays false your claim that your standard is the only thing keeping an encyclopedia article from devoting space to every possible opionion on the subject. Hackwrench 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Opinions of ethics and opinions of aesthetics have their own criteria. To a certain extent this is where NPOV comes in, to determine how opinions should be presented, not whether. There comes a point, however, where articles get so big that pruning is preferred so that a person can find what he is looking for in the article. NPOV also helps with that. Surely you don't think this article is so big no one can find what they are looking for with the addition of my material do you? [Hackwrench]

Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopaedia to which anyone can contribute. In spite of this, articles about entertainment are concise and free from panoplies of opinion. Why do you suppose this is? For every subject, there is manifold opinion. The reason that opinion is not brought into these articles is because encyclopaedic writing is distinct from criticism. The threshold for bringing opinions into the article is the question "Is there notable controversy which is inseparable from the subject?" If this threshold didn't exist, every single article would contain long sections involving criticisms from every conceivable point-of-view. Why don't they? Is it because nobody has any opinions about these shows/movies/actors/musicians? No, it's because an encyclopaedia article is not the place to insert criticism, however valid it may be -- unless there is notable public controversy. For the record, (in case you missed it,) I agree with some of your criticisms -- for instance, I agree that the depiction of women in TAGS is shallow and subordinate. Where we disagree is as to whether or not this observation is appropriate in the context of an encyclopaedia article. I think you'll find that most people agree that it is not.

We also agree that ethical opinions are more important than aesthetic opinions. In the context of an encyclopaedia article, though, neither are appropriate unless notable controversy involving them is an important aspect of the subject. We really don't need the Archie_Comics article to include the observation that ethical vegetarians find Jughead Jones' fixation with hamburgers immoral, or that PETA members abhor his subjugation of an animal (which he has perversely named after a consumable meat product,) and that the entire gang's support of Pop, who shamelessly profits from the slaughter of innocents, is totally unconscionable. Or that their promiscuity and backstabbing sets a poor example for teenagers... or that the Lodge's are parasitic capitalists who exploit the blood, sweat and tears of working people... or that the character of Ethel perpetuates the myth that plain-looking people will never find love, undermining young girls' confidence... etc. These may (or may not) be valid criticisms, but they are opinions that are sincerely held. Is an article about a comic book the place for them? Is it improved by their inclusion? Larry Mudd 22:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The Christianity Today article is slightly weightier, since there have been a couple of "Bible Study Guides" published that are based on The Andy Griffith Show. Personally, I don't think that this merits much comment in an article on the show itself. The Simpsons also has a couple of these types of publications attached to it, and the only attention that they receive in the article is single lines acknowledging their existence in a larger section on academic works that have been written about the show. This sort of thing doesn't warrant a special section to devoted to arguments about varying opinions about the morality of the show, because it's off-topic, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Larry Mudd 07:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Important Note

The following comments by Larry Mudd and Ee60640 were first posted at the top of this talk page. I moved them because I understood most recent remarks should be posted at the end of the page. Ee60640 07:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for Hackwrench

Here's an idea that might resolve this conflict to everyone's satisfaction:

For most people, The Andy Griffith Show is simply light entertainment, not an ethical outlook. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to devote any discussion to its morality in a general article about the show. How about creating a seperate article that addresses the topic of the minority view that the show is a model of ethics, and including a link to it? Maybe a single line noting the existence of books like The Way Back to Mayberry and The Mayberry Bible Study Guide, linking to an article which would represent this POV and whatever criticisms there are of it? Larry Mudd 17:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cooling off period

I agree with Larry Mudd and thought I had made a suggestion along these lines earlier. However, my main reason for coming in to post this is to suggest that since this has been submitted to the Mediation Cabal we all take a cooling off period. Personally there are many other things here in Wikipedia that I am interested in working on and this has already become much more elaborate and involved than I ever thought possible.Ee60640 23:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A good idea. It's fairly obvious that the argument is going nowhere, and is only becoming increasingly surreal. (And I'm sorry that I forgot that you had made that practical suggestion ages ago. There has been so much err, interesting discussion since then that it slipped my mind.) Larry Mudd 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Light Entertainment

Someone mentioned that The Andy Griffith Show was light entertainment. At the time, I thought the term "light entertainment" was ill defined, but having discovered the wikipedia article, I have found that that concept is useful to the discussion. The article there describes "light entertainment" as "bloated", "uninspiring" and "complete lack of intellectual stimuli". This appears to be my trigger regarding shows of this type, as well as their weak attempts to move from this state. Also according to the article such shows "seemed to have a vice like grip on peak time schedules, particularly on Saturday and Sunday evenings." The article further says "it provokes no awkward questions when the viewing is shared by different generations of the same family"

In the past, different generations (of Americans at least) were more alike than generations today. This may be one of the causes, in addition to the above, of the lack of controversy raised at the time by such shows.

Character pages

Ideally, the characters of a show should each have their own individual pages, or at least the major ones. The Sheriff Andy Taylor page was an attempt at such a page for the character Andy Taylor of this show. {{User:CantStandYa|CantStandYa]] made it redirect here. What are people's opinions on the subject. Hackwrench 20:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I could go either way on this. The show page could serve as the page for the main character and I wouldn't have a problem with it.Ee60640 22:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Mediation

added comments at [Mediation Cabal#Comments from an outsider-Steven McCrary]

Steven McCrary 16:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Major Restructuring

Major resturcturing of this article was long overdue. The article was almost entirely one long, long section, ironically called "Overview". I completely restructured this article to be more in line with the common Wikipedia structure used for other television programs. Most notably The Simpsons and M*A*S*H (TV series) were used as examples of shows that were very popular and well organized. I attempted to use logic in the categries and their order. This reorganization was definitely needed, but it meant a lot of the content had to be moved around but I did not remove any content (yet) (except for correcting the episode of The Danny Thomas Show as being the pilot. It was the basis for the a new show, possibly categoried as a spin-off, but it wasn't a pilot episode of TAGS).

I added some new content but I did not remove existing content because I figured this restructuring was such a major change that I figured to take one step at a time. Please note that I did not move everything. All content that was not moved (most of it) was left where it was but the section was renamed "Commentary". I did not want to change too much all at once. Much of that content is indeed commentary (not strictly factual) but some of it is still needs to be moved to more appropriate sections or deleted if duplicate information. Fife Club 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. I wanted to work on this some time ago, but because of the situation recounted above that went to the Mediation Cabal and the "truce" proposed I have been reluctant to make any changes here. Nice to see others are of the same mind. Ee60640 09:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks a lot better. Just prior to its restructuring, I added a bunch of stuff to fill out the article, because it seemed a little light (for as popular a show as it is), and also simply because the Sheriff Andy Taylor link redirects here, but there was very little content about the character on this page. But I didn't know where to put anything, so I just kind of stuck stuff here and there. I hope I didn't add any duplicate information. Please feel free to move it around or take it out if it isn't necessary. Wavy G 23:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

New (Big) Problem re: Episodes List

The list of Andy Griffith episodes was apparently started in October 2005. Many different people have worked hard on it, and it has always been the only episodes list linked to from The Andy Griffith Show.

As I was revising the structure of The Andy Griffith Show (see above) I noticed that the list of episodes was actually misnamed. It is, and has always been, located at List of Andy Griffith Show episodes. Please notice that the mistake is that the word "The" was missing from the title (The name of the show is "The Andy Griffith Show"). Noticing this I decided correct the problem by moving the article to include the word "The" in the title, and I later planned on correcting the link on the main show's article. However when I tried this I was surprised to discover that I couldn't do that because another article was already named List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes (with the "The).

Through dumb luck (or bad luck) I discovered that another user had started creating an list of Andy Griffith episode on their own, under their username where nobody else knew it existed. This article was started after the original and was basically hidden from others. Just this month the user that created the alternate episodes list moved their article to List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes, although the main show's article still doesn't point to it.

So there's the situation. We've got two lists of episodes. What to do? Pros and Cons while staying neutral: The original list is mistitled but has always been the only list linked to from the main article at The Andy Griffith Show. Because it was always public more different people have worked on it. The newer article is almost as old but it was "hidden" in a user area until just this month. I will admit that the newer article looks nicer in style, structure, colors, etc. but IMHO I think the descriptions are better in the older, public list, plus it's not really fair to just throw away everybody eles hard work. And to flip again, since the correct title of the article must include the word "The", it doesn't seem fair to throw away this other user's hard work either.

Now there's another dimension to this problem, other than the fact that there's two lists. One list (the only list that has ever been used by The Andy Griffith Show) is in production order. The new, unlinked list is in broadcast order. Until recently, the production order was almost univerally used instead of broadcast order. The main reason is because that is how the syndicator, Paramount Pictures, has them ordered. In just the past few years this has become an issue because the DVD's recently release have gone by the original broadcaster order, and cable reruns on TV Land have decided to use this original order too. (Once again, all local stations have used the Production order for decades). Complication level three: I have screen shots of most episodes ready to upload to the episode list. I plan on asking permission from Paramount first (yes, I know them enough to ask), but neither list's formatting is right for screen shots. I think the format used on The Simpsons works best.

Production order seems to be the preferred way to go. If it's the colour and format that you like about the other page, just copy that to the original list, but keep the production order. If "The Andy Griffith Show" (as opposed to just "Andy Griffith Show") is correct name for the article, move the content from the list linked to from the main article to the other article. It's basically the same content, only ordered differently. I don't see why the user who created it would have a problem with changing the list to production order, but you can ask them if you feel it necessary.

So that's my suggestion: Copy the colour/layout from the stand alone article to the linked article, then move all the content (that is, the list in production order from the linked article, without the "The") to the other article, (with the "The"), and then link the main page to the new article (with the "The"), and redirect the original article (without the "The") to the new article. Got that? Whew, who needs a drink?

I totally agree. That's really nice work on the other list but it goes against Wikipedia's principals of community involvement. Better or worse, one person's work shouldn't eliminate the public work of so many others. That would be chaotic if people replaced community collaborations with their own personal works.

Well, I am the author of the new, correctly-named list. The reason I started it in my userspace is that I knew it would take a long time to get all that information together, formatted, and all that jazz. So I didn't want a article sitting out there for the public consumption that had half a season done and the rest unfinished. (Though I would point out that I always had the list in the TAGS and episode lists categories, so they were hardly "hidden") When I started it, it appeared to me that I was the only one interested in working on TAGS articles like that. And I admit, I took a lot longer than I had hoped because of outside issues. But dang. I worked long and hard on that list. I admit the summaries aren't that good, because I haven't seen most of the episodes in several years.

As for broadcast order vs. production order, List of Happy Days episodes uses broadcast order. So does List of All in the Family episodes. As does List of The Brady Bunch episodes. But others, like the Star Trek lists, use production codes. So it would appear there is no uniform standard to go by. As fans, using the production numbers makes little sense, as you have Gomer joining the Marines and then being in several episodes afterwards. But whatever, I guess Paramount has their reasons.

I don't know why I never thought to check and see if there was another list out there. I think when I started mine (or sometime before) there wasn't one, and I figured (since I appeared to be the only one interested in TAGS articles) that if one was going to be started it would have to be me doing it. I sure hope we can use elements of both lists. And I sure am glad there are people out there working on these articles, TAGS has been sorely neglected around here for far too long. Danthemankhan 15:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danthemankhan. I didn't start this episodes list but I'm the one who reorganized the main TAGS article and stumbled apon your alternate episodes list while trying to fix the missing "The" (which is bugging me). I was then advised by "professional-Wikipedians" towares this current this discussion procedure.

Your list is well formatted, looks nice, includes color, and I like how you subcategorized B&W vs. Color episodes in your categories box. I would hate for all your good work to go to waste, but I wouldn't want mine, Rogerd's, or Wavy G's (and a few others) to be lost either. Long story short is that I like your idea of incorporating the best elements of both lists - although I'm not sure of the best method to accomplish this task. Hmm?

There are already so many options on how to do this but let me first complicate the issue even more. I have in my possession, screenshots of nearly every episode. If we want to incorporate these screenshots too, neither of the formats of our two episodes lists would work anyway. This is a collective effort but I would like to suggest that 'after I upload the screenshots', we team up to convert the episode descriptions and details we already have into this new format. (This would still involve renaming your article according to what I was told about keeping all these community edits and discussions going in tact). Below is my proposal for a new format, and if y'all like the idea we can move this episode-specific conversation to the episode list's talk page to hash out details.

Proposal for TAGS B&W episodes: Notice it features both production and broadcast orders right next to each other. I also incorporated the "year# in television" format to the year.

Production #	Broadcast #	Airdate	Title	Screenshot
1	1	October 3, 1969	The New Housekeeper
Sheriff Andy Taylor (played by Andy Griffith) and his young son Opie (played by Ron Howard) are in need of a new housekeeper. Andy's Aunt Bee (played by Frances Bavier) looks like the perfect canidate and moves in, but her presence causes friction with Opie.

Proposal for TAGS Color episodes: I know this is an odd thing but I liked how you clearly distinguished the B&W's from the colors in your content box so I carried that concept over visually to the table. We don't need to color it like this but I added muted shades of the colors in a color bar chart. :)

Production #	Broadcast #	Airdate	Title	Screenshot
220	220	September 11, 1967	Opie's First Love	Image not uploaded yet
Mary Alice Carter accepts Opie's invitation to a party then decides to go with another boy at the last monent.				Image not uploaded yet

If y'all like, I'll start a new discussion on the linked episodes page for us to figure out the details.

I think it looks groovy. Do it to it. Wavy G 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive-looking layout. As for the colors, I had pondered having the B&W ones be varying shades of gray, and the color ones be alternating khaki (for the uniforms) and that sickening color of green that the inside of the courthouse was painted. Who knows.

I'll probably have the list that I did moved back to my userspace, I spent a little too much time on that darn thing to have it vanished into the Internets ether. Danthemankhan 15:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link for further episode structure discussion: Talk:List_of_Andy_Griffith_Show_episodes#Proposal_To_Revise_Article. Another warning that it may take me over a month to get all those screenshots uploaded before we can start adding them to the list. But man won't it look nice when we're done. ;)

Made some changes.

Nothing major really, but removed duplicate information, and moved a lot of stuff around.

I consolidated the "Synopsis" and "Overview" sections, since they both basically said the same thing, with a few variations. I took the left over info and moved some to the introductory segment at the beginning of the article (seems to fit better there, than in an "overview" description of the show) and moved remaining info to Synopsis section. Also, gave a brief sentence describing the show in the introductory paragraph.

Moved some chunks of the "Commentary" to their own sections: "Reaction" -- a paragraph following the Synopsis and Origins, which goes into a little detail about the show's reception and fan reaction. Also there was about three paragraphs that described the color seasons, the exit of Don Knotts, and eventual leaving of Andy Griffith, that seemed to fit better towards the end of the "beef" of the article, so I put them together into a section I called "The later years." Moved the remaining commentary (basically in-depth details about the characters and plotline of the series) in between the two. Enjoy. Wavy G 05:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hear ye, hear ye. For those who may be interested, I created (at least one) TAGS related Userbox for your User Profile. Here's an example.

City Sheriff??

If Andy worked for the Town of Mayberry, why is he a Sheriff? A sheriff's office belongs to the county, not to the city or town. Isn't this a contradiction? Or is there something different about North Carolina? As far as I know, the sheriff's office is an entity of the county in all states. Any input will be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.9.132.191 (talk • contribs) 20:06, June 8, 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is also the case in N.C. Well, let's remember this is just a tv show, and Hollywood writers weren't as meticulous about the facts in the early days of tv as they are now. (Not that they don't make major blunders often now). There are other errors in the show, like in some episodes Gomer is an expert mechanic, and in others he is just a pump jockey. Or Barney's middle name, which was changed in different episodes. --rogerd 00:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not it was expressly stated on the show, but I believe Andy was supposed to be Sheriff of the surrounding county as well. He was called upon by the Darlings when Ernest T. Bass was harrassing them, and it was implied that it was quite a long drive to get to their cabin, so it's not likely the Darlings lived within the city limits. Perhaps they were implying the name of the county is Mayberry as well? Wavy G 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I do remember something about "Mayberry County". However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the writers were often very inconsistent. --rogerd 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I had always wondered about this. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.9.132.191 (talk • contribs) 05:44, June 10, 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get in on this conversation earlier. In the episode "Aunt Bee the Crusader", Aunt Bee leads a protest against the County for forcing an old farmer off his land to make room for a new highway. There's a scene where Aunt Bee gets Barney all riled up about it, until Andy reminds him that they are both employees of the County. Besides that, the jurisdiction of a Sheriff is almost always county-wide. See Sheriff#United_States. Now the flip side of all this is that Rogerd is right that the writers were not consistent. Andy always took orders from the Mayors of the Town of Mayberry, which a county sheriff wouldn't do but a town police chief would. Fife Club 02:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and Andy and Barney enforced town ordinances sometimes, like in Lawman Barney (#73), which a county sheriff normally wouldn't do. --rogerd 03:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are to believe that in Mayberry's case, a county sheriff and a city police chief would be overkill. Wavy G 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Rehabilitation of Otis"

is an episode where the script seems self-contradictory about whether various cities are in other counties.

list of The Andy Griffith Show episodes January 18, 1965 The Rehabilitation of Otis

Otis rides into Mayberry on a cow under the impression it is a horse. Barney takes on the task of curing Otis' moonshine habit.

On what map is it West Los Angeles? A century or so old? How about Hollywood District {Despite this page that claims Portland, I'm referring to neither Oregon nor Maine.}?

I am very familiar w/ a lot in Hollywood, near Hollywood Park Cemetery; there may be another in Culver{?}. {Hollywood Forever Cemetery, Hollywood Memorial Park Cemetery, Hollywood Forever Memorial Park Cemetery.}

The TV show itself was filmed entirely in Hollywood, at Desilu Productions on the former RKO Pictures lot (now merged with the Paramount Pictures lot in West Los Angeles)."

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 09:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sub article

Why is the short list of the regular cast put into a separate article, while the long list of guest stars is kept here? It should be the other way round. Any objections to doing this? Clarityfiend 08:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing what? The character article can be (and needs to be) expanded. Character lists generally have the chracter, the actor, and a brief description. For some reason (myself included) nobody has taken the dive and expanded it. On the other hand, the long list of guest stars needs to be trimmed down, as in its current form, it is extraordinarily unencyclopedic, and indiscriminate (We could list every single person who ever appeared on the show, but why?. This is not IMDB). As far as I know, the "guest stars" is a recent addition that has expanded like wildfire in the past few months. If anything, the guest stars could be moved as a subsection of the characters list. Wavy G 01:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see a guest stars article has already been created. I don't know how long something like that will last though. We'll see... Wavy G

I don't know exactly where this needs to go, so please excuse me if I add it in the wrong place. But shouldn't the list of "Recurring Characters" include Ernest T. Bass and the Darlings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.33.83 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess whoever made the list used a cutoff of 10+ episodes. (I've removed Ken Berry, who is nowhere close to qualifying.) Ernest T. and the others are in List of The Andy Griffith Show cast members. They strike me as people who drop by now and then rather than permanent residents anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:The Andy Griffith Show

Category:The Andy Griffith Show is being proposed for deletion. You may comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 7#Category:The Andy Griffith Show --rogerd 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Andy Griffith Show1.jpg

Image:Andy Griffith Show1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

Since the debate about trivia and pop culture sections is still highly debated, I decided to remove the cultural references section from this article. As interesting as the facts may be, they don't add anything more to the article and since they are unsourced, it makes more sense to get rid of the section until the statements can be properly sourced. By that time, I hope the trivia debate will be resolved. Leaving it in as it was only leaves the article tagged for no references and having a trivia section, two tags that no article needs. Pinkadelica (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. TimmyTruck (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable crew members: Delete?

Is this of any real importance in an article about TAGS? Should this sort of info be carried over into every article about a television show? Shouldn't these accomplishments be noted on individual pages for each person rather than in a section of TAGS? Just a thought.TimmyTruck (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mayberry change

User:TimmyTruck and I disagree on his 6:26, November 26 addition to the section, specifically the layout of the town, so I would like to get other editors' opinions. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure which change you are referring to. Since he has made so many changes, it is hard to keep track. Please include a link to the diff --rogerd (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it's more than one edit. I feel that most of the Mayberry section is fancruft, with the worst offenders being The Andy Griffith Show#Panorama and The Andy Griffith Show#Principal settings; per WP:NOT#TRAVEL, Wikipedia should not be a travel guide for Mayberry, Andy's house and Floyd's barbershop. For someone who is unfamiliar with the show, the locations are essentially meaningless, and the level of detail excessive. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode count

These apparently come from IMDb. Does anybody know how accurate they are? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Minorities in Mayberry

Most of the statements in this section are unnecessary. Almost no shows that aired prior to 1968 had any mention of Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, Hispanics, Homosexuals, divorced people, children out of wedlock, or anything but a generic treatment of religion. The fact that this show also didn't mention these things is completely unremarkable. --rogerd (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] ....WRONG!!!! The early fifties had a show about a Jewish family, "The Goldbergs". Wildly popular. "Amos and Andy" about African Americans. Wildly popular. Some viewers today regard "Amos and Andy" as racist. Should that be mentioned in a WikiP article about the show? TimmyTruck (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] ...Disagree with generic treatment of religion. Generic treatment of Protestantism. Yes. It's obvious the Taylors are Christian. There's no evidence they are Roman Catholics. TimmyTruck (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely in disagreement with you, but for the most part the information appears to be factual, even if unremarkable. It does reflect the tone of TV in that era, and TAGS is one of the most popular shows then and now. I am OK with leaving it as an illustration of TV at the time. If the information is redundant with pages on other shows from the era, then someone might create a separate page such as "TV in the 1950s" (or 1960s) if one doesn't already exist. Ward3001 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This section or one similar to it could be added to the article about most 50's and 60's TV shows, both sitcoms and dramas. Also, Mayberry is a fictional small town, and most real rural small towns did not have any synagogues or mosques in the 60's and most don't today, either. --rogerd (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] ...I can't understand why this section is a problem for you. It is an accuate record of what occurs on TAGS without bias or comment. What other 50s-60s shows did or didn't do is irrelevant in an article about TAGS. And what happened in "real rural small towns" is also irrelevant. TAGS doesn't pretend to be an accurate picture of life in real rural towns. I can't understand why you compare TAGS to real life in small towns. TimmyTruck (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You say it is an accurate record of what occurred? No, for the most part the minority and women sections talk about what didn't occur on the show. Just because something is "accurate" doesn't mean it is relevant and belongs in the article. It would be just as accurate to point out that the show didn't talk about the Arab/Israeli situation of the time or about quantum mechanics. Would these be relevant to the article? Of course not. If TAGS were the only show of its era to not deal with those topics, it would be encyclopedic. But it wasn't remarkable in those aspects at all. Right or wrong, it was normal for a TV show of its time. To point out all of these things is POV and perhaps violates WP:POINT. --rogerd (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've only recorded what happened on the show and I've cited instances. Suppressing the information would be POV. "IMO, it's irrelevant and should be suppressed." The way women were treated in TAGS is relevant because TAGS was filmed during the early and turbulent years of the modern women's movement, of the pill, of women going to college in record numbers, of women entering the workforce in droves, etc. The way women were treated and presented in TAGS is unique and relevant to its place in television history, and considering it was one of the most popular shows of all time, how women were treated on the show should be included in an article on TAGS. How women were treated and presented on the show is relevant because that treatment was unique to TAGS and occured at a critical time in women's history. TimmyTruck (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this belongs in a different article. Also, the Women in Mayberry section is written along similar lines. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

...While "Women in 50s-60s TV Shows" would contain similar info, this article is about what happens in TAGS. WP wants detailed articles. Check some of the Gold Star articles. TimmyTruck (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we supposed to add the same information to every 1950s TV series with women in them? This article is about information specific to the show, not a common element of most programs of that era. I'd be interested in having you point out a top-rated article that has similar content (so I can go kick up a fuss over there, lol). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

... You are assuming almost every 60s TV show regards women in the same vein as TAGS. Not so. What occured on TAGS is not a "common element" in almost every 60s TV show as you would like to believe. Ozzie and Harriet, The Donna Reed Show, Bewitched, and even Lassie take quite a different direction regarding women. Women were treated and regarded in a certain way in TAGS and that way is not a "common element" in 60s TV shows. It is unique to TAGS. And, please! Take a look at some Gold Star articles. They are detailed and "in-depth" arcticles of something more than complete lists of every electrician that worked on a TV show. Yes, many TV articles at WikiP are simply collections of trivia dressed up as prose rather than bulleted lists.

And why do we have complete lists of every TAGS episode and other shows. I thought WikiP was more than a directory? Lists of episodes can be found at several TV show "episode guide" sites all over the place. When information is deleted from an article and replaced with an external link, why is WikiP copying lists of episodes? Wouldn't an external link do the job?

And I can't understand why you're making an issue about the section called Panorama. The section is a far cry from a Travel book. I can't understand why you hang out at this article. As far as I can discern you've contributing no information to the article whatsoever. I wonder if you've even bothered to look at the complete TAGS? TimmyTruck (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, I don't recall this article being called "TimmyTruck's Private Preserve". As for my contributions, have you even bothered to check my edits in the history? I just don't believe an article is necessarily improved by throwing everything including the kitchen sink into it. (That would be the one with the back door next to it for the first five seasons.) You might want to review WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:CIVIL. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gender politics

Kinda related to the above discussion. I have no issue with the fact that women are not portrayed in a more modern liberated light, but the Gender Politics section is blatantly not NPOV. Very insulting to men, draws conclusions, and the writer has a definite feministic axe to grind. It needs to be cleaned up a bit, but unfortunately I haven't seen all the episodes so I don't want to make any changes. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

... You are going to have a difficult time "cleaning it up a bit" because the section is an accurate record of what occurs on the show. I'm male and I don't have an feminist axe to grind. While the section was not written to insult men, it is nonetheless an accurate record of the show. Hey, I didn't write the show! TimmyTruck (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Males sally forth, males have adventures, males make decisions, males solve problems, males rule." That is not only repetitive and a run-on sentence, but also is trying to drive home a political point. "Males rule"? Also: "The message is clear: women, no matter how ardent in their beliefs or faith in their abilities to better their communities, are no match for Mayberry's good ol' boys." Is that not drawing a conclusion? "No match"? I wouldn't exactly call that completely neutral.

I am not disputing that the show does indeed portray women in a generally peripheral position and in much more traditional light than we would expect nowadays. And, the focus is usually on Andy, Barney and Opie versus any female characters. However, I can imagine a disgruntled feminist writing that section. I really don't think it portrays it quite fairly. I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of the show, so I don't feel I have the right to change it. But I strongly disagree with some of the wording in that section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform to (intentional or otherwise) bash a television show because of a male bias.

Just my opinion...but the article as a whole seems to be really good, though...exhaustive and well-organized. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place

-->This whole discussion about TAGS and culture (race, gender, etc) teeters on the line of original research as well as NPOV. If it's notable, then cite it's notability. Don't cite random nuggets of info and facts from the show and draw conclusions about their relevance to contemporary culture. That's what blog are for, not wikipedia. Bwilder1998 (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Never-ending expansion

I was fine with a section on minorities, but I think the article's detailed description of every conceivable aspect of the show, the characters, Mayberry, and the architecture is getting out of control. Someone commented above that "WP wants detailed articles". That may be true, but WP wants quality articles that say a lot in a few words more than WP wants endless detail. If we stay on the current trajectory, soon we'll have sections on "Squad car models", "Civic organizations in Mayberry", "Miss Crump's lesson plans", "Opie's fashion sense", and "Floor plans of the jail cells". I'm not entirely opposed to additions to the article, but can we please start tightening up, condensing, and integrating before we add any more? Ward3001 (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's about time for a vote, so here goes:

Crime in Mayberry

Delete, merging a sentence or two in Mayberry and vicinity. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Women in Mayberry

Delete as WP:POV. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion in Mayberry

Trim down to the two sentences with references. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Trim --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

African Americans in Mayberry

Delete as non-notable, unless someone can find contemporary references complaining about their portrayal, or rather lack thereof. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Teenagers in Mayberry

Delete for the same reason as African Americans. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicities in Mayberry

Delete for the same reason as African Americans. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete with a possible short sentence, not under a separate header --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Minorities in Mayberry

Delete as above. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete 74.131.22.99 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Magic" doors.

Strong delete. Fancruft that is more appropriate in IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete entire Miscellanea section. Trivia. Jollyoldelf (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fancruft. EatNoPig (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Opie's "Maw"

Delete --rogerd (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge with "Recurring characters" Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge with "Recurring characters" Forallthytendermercies (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge per Ward. Jollyoldelf (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge as suggested. EatNoPig (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment How can you be a recurring character if you've never recurred, or even "curred"? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well ... Opie's mother is mentioned in the pilot and one episode so she qualifies as a recurring character. She is an "unseen" character just as Sarah, the telephone operator, and many others on the show are "unseen" characters. TimmyTruck (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - If necessary, the section can be retitled, such as "Recurring and unseen characters", or something similar. Ward3001 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge "Mayberry and vicinity" and "Crime in Mayberry" Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge "Mayberry and vicinity" and "Crime in Mayberry" Forallthytendermercies (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge "Minorities in Mayberry", "Ethnicities in Mayberry", "African Americans in Mayberry", "Women in Mayberry", "Religion in Mayberry", and "Teenagers in Mayberry". Ward3001 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge "Minorities in Mayberry", "Ethnicities in Mayberry", "African Americans in Mayberry", "Women in Mayberry", "Religion in Mayberry", and "Teenagers in Mayberry". Forallthytendermercies (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge per Ward Jollyoldelf (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Condense and Merge as suggested. EatNoPig (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims about locations

Please do not use this article to make claims about Mayberry or other fictional sites on the show being based on actual locations. No evidence exists in the show or in real life to support such claims. They are speculation and do not belong in this article. TimmyTruck (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... I thought Andy Griffith based Mayberry on Mt. Airy, his home town, and Mt. Pilot on Pilot Mountain? EatNoPig (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Griffith has denied basing Mayberry on his home town of Mt. Airy. TimmyTruck (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed condensation

Comments are solicited. The second section in particular is a little underdeveloped.

Portrayal of minorities

thumb|right|Rockne Tarkington. Minorities rarely appeared on the show, and, when they did, were generally treated briefly and in a stereotypical manner somewhat atypical of 1960s television. Although the program was produced during the civil rights era, African Americans were, with one exception, seen only in the background as part of the crowd. Only Rockne Tarkington had a speaking role, as Opie's football coach in a seventh season episode. Other minorities were equally scarce. A Japanese actor appeared as a martial arts instructor in one episode and two Chinese men join Aunt Bee in opening her "Canton Palace" restaurant.

Portrayal of women and children

Women play a subordinate role in Mayberry, unlike contemporary programs such as The Donna Reed Show. For example, when Ellie Walker and Aunt Bee run for the town council, they are not taken seriously.

Teenagers are for the most part strangely absent from the show. None are seen on the streets of Mayberry or get in trouble with the law. Nor are there any teen "hang outs" in town, like malt shops and hamburger joints. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks fine to me. But I wonder if we should have just one section: "Portrayal of minorities, women, and children"? Ward3001 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ward3001, but could live with Clarityfiend's proposal --rogerd (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to putting it all in one section. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I forgot about the religion section. Here's my take on it:

Religion was more than a minor thread in the show – a situation not typical of other sitcoms during the period. In Leave It to Beaver for example, anything remotely related to religion is rarely mentioned. Not so The Andy Griffith Show. The Taylors attend All Souls Church regularly; Aunt Bee sings in the choir, Opie yawns in the front pew, and Andy serves on the church's finance committee.

Some Christian viewers feel the show has a moral backbone virtually unrivaled by other television sitcoms and have singled out episodes for use as instructional and inspirational tools for their congregations.^[1] Others question the use of the show for Christian instruction.^[2]

Since the title "Portrayal of religion, minorities, women and children" seems a little unwieldy, I would prefer to put this in its own section.

I leave it to somebody else to figure out how to integrate Opie's "Maw". I'll wait a few days for further comments before making these changes in the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good! EatNoPig (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merchandise section

Please add info to this section. Thanks! TimmyTruck (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

TimmyTruck, I'm thinking of deleting this section as Non-Notable. There's nothing notable about two comic books. Although merchandise is being produced today like Mayberry-opoly it can hardly be included in this section without appearing to be SPAM. EatNoPig (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is notable when you consider other tv shows of the period had considerably more comic books published based on the show. Bewitched had 14 books, for example, while Lassie had just as many. In TAGS case, it's the lack of many comic books that is notable. TimmyTruck (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Um...wow

I just read the sections entitled "XXXXX in Mayberry." That is horribly POV. Someone needs to get off their soapbox. All of those sections are almost entirely someone's opinion. Clinevol98 (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

FACTS are not opinions. It is a FACT, for instance, that only one black performer appeared in a speaking role on the show. That's a FACT, not an opinion. Is it notable? That's the question. EatNoPig (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I said that it was "almost entirely" someone's opinion, not entirely someone's opinion. It's how the entire section is written that conveys a bias. The person(s) who wrote this seem like they're trying to portray the show as sexist, racist, homophobic, and bigoted. Saying that women in the show are portrayed only as "sex objects," "gossipers and backbiters," or some other negative stereotype is someone's opinion, not a fact. Notice how there are only 2 citations in all of those sections.

Viewers would need to turn to programs like The Donna Reed Show to find more positive views on American women. I mean, come on. This is so overtly biased and opinionated it's not even funny. It has no business being in an encyclopedia article.

How the sections overall, but particularly about religion, go on and on and on is ridiculous and pointless. It's not notable, so it leads me to believe that someone is trying to make some sort of point by mentioning it. OK, so the show takes place in the Bible Belt and most of the main characters go to church. What's your point? So what? Clinevol98 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are more than two citations in the "all those sections". Each episode mentioned as an example of one thing or another is a citation. "Religion in Mayberry" is notable because most sitcoms of the period rarely (if ever) mentioned religion. The Andy Griffith Show is atypical in that repsect -- and therefore notable. EatNoPig (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, well not counting mentions of the show itself, I only count 2 real citations in the sections I'm talking about that verify the statements of the writer(s), and they're both from this paragraph:

"Some Christian viewers feel the show has a moral backbone virtually unrivaled by other television sitcoms and have singled out particular episodes for use as instructional and/or inspirational materials among their congregations.[4] Others question the use of the show for Christian instruction.[5] While moral and ethical concerns are apparent in many episodes, these concerns are not uniquely Christian. They are found in non-Christian religions and philosophies that pre-date Christianity. Unique Christian concerns – sin and salvation, Christ's sacrifice on the cross, eternal life – are never mentioned on the show."

Comments like "This episode, more than any other in the series, demonstrates the show's reactionary male viewpoint regarding women" is entirely someone's opinion, especially the "more than any other in the series" comment. As Doctorcherokee said above, these sections are blatantly biased. It's as if someone saw the show, was offended by these various portrayals, and then, after some more research to find out about the show and further develop their opinion, came to Wikipedia and wrote these sections. They draw conclusions based on the opinion(s) of the writer(s) and make personal interpretations of elements in the show. That doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

I'm not denying that women are definitely portrayed in a more traditional, old-fashioned role and are not as important to the main plot as the main characters like Andy or Barney. I also don't deny that minorities are not an integral part of the show, but the tone and wording of the article seems as if it was written to make a political point rather than have an objective analysis of the show. White people are not all that integral to the plots of BarberShop or Family Matters, so can I go over to those articles and write entire sections about how white people don't factor that much into the plot or provide detailed explanations about when and where white people do appear?

If religion is notable in this show, then it deserves about 2 sentences about what church most of the town's residents attend, not a dissertation about the exactness of the Christian doctrine that was mentioned in the show. The fact that only one black person had a speaking role deserves about one sentence. Again, as I said before, the unnecessary details lead me to believe that someone has an agenda here and a political point to make with these comments rather than objectively and neutrally interpreting these various aspects of the show. It doesn't portray the show fairly at all. Clinevol98 (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Opie's Maw Rewrite

Update for "Unseen characters".

Awaiting feedback before adding to article.

Unseen characters

The Andy Griffith Show is peopled with countless unseen characters who add color and depth to the show. Three are notable:

Sarah, the telephone operator. Sarah (with Andy, Opie, Bee, Barney, and Clara) remained with the show for its entire run.
Juanita Beasley, a diner waitress. Barney reports dating Juanita and often speaks with her over the courthouse telephone.
Opie's "Maw". Little is known about her; even her name is unknown. In the backdoor pilot, Andy says he lost her when Opie was "the least little speck of a baby." While "lost" is sometimes employed euphemistically for death, the word may suggest other possibilities. It is not definitely established that Opie's mother is dead. Opie's mother is mentioned again in the second season episode, "Wedding Bells for Aunt Bee" when Andy says he had the kind of love for her that leads to marriage. Andy never says he was married to Opie's mother nor does any other character refer to her as Andy's wife. There are no souvenirs (like photos or portraits) of Opie's mother in Andy's house nor does anyone mention or visit a grave. Opie apparently has no maternal relatives; only paternal relatives appear on the show.

EatNoPig (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks good and is notable because these unseen characters "appear" frequently in the show, especially the phone operator Sarah. Clinevol98 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In season 3 episode 28 ("The Rivals"), Andy mentions that he was married and the context of the conversation suggests that he is speaking of Opie's mother though it isn't stated definitively. At any rate it does say definitively that he was married to someone. Bgrooster (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a quote? Does he say it definitively, such as "I was married" or "When I was married ..."? I'm not denying what you say; I just want to be sure it's crystal clear and not something that requires inference, such as "We set up housekeeping..." or "She was my true love...". Ward3001 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

^ "Finding the Way Back to Mayberry". Retrieved 2007-10-16.
^ "Sunday School: What Would Andy Do?". Retrieved 2007-10-16.

[1] "Finding the Way Back to Mayberry". Retrieved 2007-10-16.

[2] "Sunday School: What Would Andy Do?". Retrieved 2007-10-16.

[1]

[2]