Talk:Olivia Benson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scenes with a district attorney[edit]

Benson has thus far shared a scene with a district attorney twice:

Arthur Branch in the Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes "Shaken" and "Goliath".

Could someone explain the significance of this, or why it should be included? Captain Jackson 05:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of information is standard for LaO Character pages. Especially Cops. Part of every show's theme is the trial and the DAs or ADAs are almost always main characters. I'm not sure whose idea it was, But (and forgive me for reversing this on you) can you tell me what is what's wrong with featuring this information? Ace Class Shadow 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of saying that she meet with the District Attorney? In a show about "law and order" it shouldn't be significant enough to mention, meaning that it should just go without saying. Captain Jackson 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Actually, Not all officiers share scenes with a DA or even an ADA. Plus, It's a point of interest because of the theme, Not in spite of it.

Personally, I find it valid and useful enough as information. It's kind trivial, but then so is the whole page.

And hey, At least it's not a stub. Ace Class Shadow 04:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite silly to mention it in the first place, let along give it its own section. Captain Jackson 22:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You took a while to reply. Well, the fact is, as trivial as it may seem, people care about this stuff. Especially considering Aruther Branch is currently the universal DA for LaO: Trial by Jury, SVU and the original LaO, it's not like he'll be able to meet with every officer every episode. The given of law and order is that there will be detective work (Although it was slightly lacking in TbJ) and Ledigation.

It cannot be assumed that the detectives will ever, let alone always met with a (A)DA onscreen. Thus, on the rare occasions that Arthur can and does meet up with one of the officiers, It's note worthy. Furthermore, sharing scenes with multiple DAs would probably be a sign of seniority.

To simplify, think of it this way, what would you think of an officer who has made your local DA versus one who has not? Ace Class Shadow 04:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Special Victims Unit the detectives meet with the ADA in almost every episode. It looks odd having a section for one sentence, so I'm incorporating it in with the rest of the article. Captain Jackson 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scenes with the DA are highly notable, as they are incredibly rare, as are scenes of the DA with the police captain/sergeant. Scenes involving the ADAs and whom they encounter are not included, yet the DA is the chief prosecutor of Manahattan, in this case. The ADAs and police officers often interact with each other. Likewise, as ADAs work for the DA, they are often seen with him or her. It is rare, though, that the DA is in the same room as a police officer or detective. You can typically only find one or two examples of such, and it is quite noteworthy. Michael 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality[edit]

Over and over a bit regarding Benson's sexuality has been added and deleted. The episodes alluded to do in fact have a bit of subtext about them, so it doesn't seem like people are trying to slander the show or character, or are just around for controversy. I'm starting to wonder if the paragraph's continual deletion is less about faulty information, and more about homophobia, or something else unsavory.

The paragraph, as it appeared the first time I saw it: To many viewers, Olivia's sexuality is questionable, or at least has been in previous seasons. Some claim there was is subtext to support a romantic relationship between ADA Alexandra Cabot, which may have been deliberately written into the show in order to play on the viewers' suspicions (th. Two of the most heavily subtexted episodes are 5.4, "Loss" and 6.16, "Ghost"). However, with the airing of Season 7, which has been filled with many allusions to dating men and having children (episode 7.3, "911", and 7.8, "Starved"), Detective Benson's orientation is becoming less enigmatic. - Jes

Why was that information about the controversy over Benson's sexuality deleted? Even Dick Wolf, the executive producer, has admitting to toying with the viewers by using subtext. Sweetsasami 08:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Observation is the only way to summarize content on Wikipedia. Original research is more along the lines of making up an entire article. Do not violate misintrepret Wikipedia's policies. BTW, look at Poison Ivy (comics) if you need a better example of why this sort of thing is notible and worthy of inclusion. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To include the info. on the character's sexuality, find a source that says it is regarded as ambiguous. The controversy above may stand as a necessity in doing such. Michael 03:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an all right article saying that while she is presumably straight, the show has a good deal of subtext. Which is basically what the deleted paragraph had been saying. http://www.afterellen.com/TV/svu.html

And here's another: http://community.livejournal.com/ship_manifesto/43570.html

Even more speculation can be found at TWoP...



All right, here is a pretty definitive article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/23/DDGHTBSLLF1.DTL It's from the S.F. Chronicle, and not only mentions fans seeing the subtext, but Neal Baer and the writers intentionally adding it to the stories. So, anyone with more Wiki experience than I want to format the whole thing together? --69.92.118.83 18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Novus Questus[reply]

Father[edit]

The article currently says Olivia has no idea about who her father is. However, in season 2 or 3, I remember an episode ended with her looking up at the man she believed to be her father sitting by the window in an apartment... Can we get some reference for this? I don't own the box sets, so... ThuranX 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She says that she doesn't think it's him.

Emmys[edit]

Mariska did not win two Emmys.....only one.......I changed this

Benson speaks English? No kidding.[edit]

One of the trivia bylines stated that Olivia spoke English, "as well as some Spanish and French." I was wondering if whomever wrote that meant to say Italian or Hungarian, the latter being Hargitay's own language. Messy Thinking

Perhaps they were just trying to be thorough. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info about sexua... oh wait, this is old news[edit]

I came to leave a note about this and see it's already a been addressed at #Sexuality above. Anyway, I took out some stuff about fan speculation about a relationship between her and Stabler, since it's not cited or anything. But I took out this whole paragraph:

To many viewers, Olivia's sexuality is questionable,[1] or at least has been in previous seasons. Some claim there was is subtext to support a romantic relationship between ADA Alexandra Cabot, which may have been deliberately written into the show in order to play on the viewers' suspicions. Two of the most heavily subtexted episodes are 5.4, "Loss" and 6.16, "Ghost". However, with the airing of Season 7, which has been filled with many allusions to dating men and having children (episode 7.3, "911", and 7.8, "Starved"), Detective Benson's orientation is becoming less enigmatic.

The paragraph has two sources, but look at them: the first is a website devoted to promoting ideas of lesbian subtext, and the first is a posting from livejournal... doesn't seem real reliable. So, there you have it, any feedback? ScottchS 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, those sources are unreliable. I suppose one of them could work to show that there are many viewers who think that, but that's a streatch. However, thisis an article from the San Francisco Chronicle that has Neal Baer saying that they did intentionally write in subtext between Oliva and Alex. If the info is rewritten to reflect what Baer says, it should meet quality standards. --NovusQuestus 05:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the old stuff was removed, I rewrote in my own words (I didn't read what was there before, so I don't know what it said), and included the source which, as you said, is certainly notable. Whoever removed it before was right in doing so (well, maybe they could have tried to source it, but anyway), but I can't see anyone having a problem with the information as currently written. Cheers, faithless (speak) 09:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Can someone who knows what they're doing get a better screen capture for the infobox? The current picture is atrocious, and doesn't represent the subject very well. faithless (speak) 09:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Background[edit]

Either the show is wrong or the person who made this page is wrong. I attend Siena college currently, and there are absolutely no sororities or fraternities on campus. I would like to know at what point in the show she admits to attending a sorority. 208.125.84.65 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was the episode Consent. In it, Olivia tries to get a girl to turn on her sorority sisters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.157.32 (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kill count section[edit]

The character has a 17 season history, covering hundreds of cases. To parse out two of them into a separate section is uncalled for. Yes, the title is crass, making it sound like a video game. Second, the section doesn't add anything to the bio. All it does it parse them out and say shot. If they are significant enough to mention in a separate section, then we should be showing that significance. Preferably, it should be shown in the overall history. Lastly, none of the other characters in the show have a "kill count" section, despite having killed in-universe. That's why I'm removing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BRD - your bold edit is in dispute, hence why it's been undone. The onus is on you as to explain why it should be removed. In fact, I see the section of value.
Secondly: it's of your view that said section is crass (it's a fictional character for crying out loud, not a real individual. No sympathy needed for fictional deaths). I believe it's not crass. So does @Little kingsfan2005: who added said content a year ago.
Regarding the other characters: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —MelbourneStar☆talk 03:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • BRD isn't a policy. So reverting it on the grounds that I'm not following BRD is crap. I also started a discussion. You reverted AGAIN without allowing for discussion. And OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't applicable here. That's an argument to avoid at AfD. This isn't an AfD. It's a valid point that no other characters in this universe have a section like that, despite also having killed in the show. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a policy, you're right there – it's something that generally should be followed by to avoid silly instances such as the one you're providing now. Othercrapexists is applicable here, actually, considering your argument is that "x, y, z articles don't have a kill count - this one shouldn't." Now, I'm not going to edit war over this — I wouldn't want to get blocked over something as silly as edit warring. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't applicable here. Go read it on the page called "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". When the majority of similar articles use a particular style, it's common to use them as a guide. The others mention kills in the character history, integrating them into the narrative. Can you explain why you feel this character should be different than the others? So far your reasoning has been little more than "I like it" and "I think it's useful". Niteshift36 (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also wonder why you think crass means sympathy. Do you think "crass commercialism" has to do with sympathy? Crass, in this case, means without refinement. In other words, we can do better here. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you forgot to read the 'see also' provided in the link which had Wikipedia:Other stuff exists? and might I add: the styles of other articles may be used as a comparison should it involve policy issues; a kill count has absolutely no policy issues whatsover. My argument is strictly regarding this character – perhaps the other characters should have a kill count section too? I wouldn't mind that. But my argument is about this character, not every character as yours seems to be.
I will not play a game of semantics with you, as it looks as though we're going to be disagreeing a lot. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you meant to link to OSE, then why did you wikilink to OTHERCRAP exists? I don't think you're incompetent, so maybe is was just laziness? Is that it? Sloppiness? Help me out. Why would you waste time by linking to the wrong guide, wasting more time telling me it really applies, then finally bothering to link to what you allegedly meant in the first place. (this is where you reply with some implication that I should have known you "really" meant that, should read everything linked to the page or just read your mind. But I'm betting it won't be just taking responsibility) My argument is also about this character, using the format of the others to support my position. You've done nothing besides say I like it a few times. If all the other articles treat kills in one manner, it can be implied that there is a consensus. You should be able to articulate some reason this one departs from that, at least more than "I see value". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might enjoy the rest of WP:SSEFAR: "...arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred.". It also says :"This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology.". Yes, that's the essay you linked to and it seems to support what I'm saying in terms of using other articles as precedent. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New "first partner"[edit]

Patrick Griffin (Anthony Edwards) was introduced in tonight's episode as her mentor/first partner right out of the academy.Not sure how this fits with her previously established history with Karen Smythe.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Olivia Benson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

longest running prime-time live-action character[edit]

claim was reverted but that was a season ago, and not supported by sources, who already in 2019 supported the claim CapnZapp (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goojrr (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absences[edit]

Parts Name Clock Recall Uncle Confrontation Cage Baggage Reparations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goojrr (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity errors in Paragraph 2[edit]

This does not feel like "above the fold" (above the TOC?) content. There isn't anywhere else for it to be moved to neatly, and I don't want to delete content without giving the chance to others to move it elsewhere, but it does not belong there. Signed, someone who edits other wikis but not this one. Nov 22 2021 03:43 GMT

Added decoration for valor: Medal of Honor[edit]

On her office wall as a Captain, is a Medal of Honor certificate. It is not mentioned in her wkiipedia inclusions. 174.253.192.248 (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Olivia_Benson&oldid=1212518482"