Talk:13 Reasons Why/Archive 1

Social Impact section
It seems to me this one line section not only goes against the style manual, but is also completely superfluous, and the source link cited is an opinion piece, and doesn't exactly seem credible. In addition, it would be nice to clean up the Reception section which is currently exceedingly verbose and redundant. I don't think we need to quote every critic's opinion on this show. Why is IGN a relevant source for film critique, for instance? --201.52.35.121 (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We can fold credible information from social impact into reception. Let's wait until May to start tearing down the reception section. By then, most or all of the critical reviews will be in and we can determine which ones are worth keeping and which ones (most) should be removed.-RM (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017
Could this be added to the "Social impact" section?

Australian youth mental health service for 12-25 year-olds headspace, issued a warning in late April 2017 over the graphic content featured in the series due to the increased number of calls to the service following the show's release in the country. 121.214.113.242 (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Joeyconnick (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017
Add to Social Impact section: The show "13 reasons why" has received several criticisms about the danger of depicting suicide in a positive light. Several news agencies and celebrities have come out against the show for this reason. 184.90.236.77 (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide reliable sources. This has already been added and removed because it was unsourced. Sundayclose (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017
Could this be added to the "Mental health controversy" section?

Psychologists have said the series' portrayal of suicide can lead to the increase of a phenomenon known as "suicide contagion" among teenagers and young adults. Clinical psychologist Erika Martinez said, "For Millennials and Generation Z, what they see in media is canon... it can certainly glamorize suicide and lead to this copycat sort of effect." 121.214.165.96 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you requested this with the sources you provided. The first source has nothing to do with the TV series. The second source is an opinion piece from an unreliable source that says nothing about what psychologists think. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017
Can you please change the wording in the description of the show that says "series of culminating failures." Only because it sounds like it was her own failures in life made her commit suicide. I just don't want people to feel like they are failures. Thanks. Rking5555 (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but the end of that sentences reads, "brought on by select individuals within their school", which is quite clear that other people were involved. As for your concern that you "don't want people to feel like they are failures", sorry but Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about anyone's noble cause. Sundayclose (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017
change experiences that triggered her to experiences that triggered her suicide 47.187.104.125 (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done For the sake of clarity. ChamithN   (talk)  16:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017
Merge the "Mental health controversy" section with reception and remove mention from the lead.
 * A Teen Vogue source isn't exactly compelling and if included shouldn't be given undue weight, either in support of a reference in the lead or a controversy section
 * The warning from the Aussie youth mental health service wasn't a criticism of the series, it was a warning on the graphical nature of it for people who watch
 * The national manager of headspace is fine, but again, undue weight if used to support a mention in the lead or a controversy section
 * The website Junkee asking anything is pretty much irrelevant so should be removed
 * The doubling of calls in Brazil is fine to include, but it doesn't belong in a controversy section 2.102.186.102 (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree completely. The content you mention is plagued with poor sourcing and excessive WP:WEIGHT. There's also a problem with WP:RECENT; if we get reliable sourcing a year or two from now that there were a lot of mental health problems related to the series, we can come back to this issue. But this is not a newspaper that reports premature speculation from bad sources. It can wait. Sundayclose (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Except the source used for the Brazil case is not credible. The HuffPost opinion piece linked refers to "25 messages mentioning 13 Reasons Why" to the suicide hotline. Even if you made the leap to state that this is relevant information to add to the page, a quick search will reveal that the only source where this is stated is HuffPost itself and other media vehicles that cite HuffPost as their source. It's not credible or relevant. --201.52.35.121 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. I removed it. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017
Can someone remove "female audience" from the introductory sentence?

"Originally conceived as a film set to be released by Universal Pictures for a with Selena Gomez in the lead role, the adaptation was picked up as a television series by Netflix in late 2015. Gomez served as an executive producer."

There is no source to support such a claim, all I know is that the book is aimed at a teen/young adult audience and is not gender specific. 110.149.140.84 (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Seems like original research. I too couldn't find any reliable sources that support the claim, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it. ChamithN   (talk)  15:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017
Could this be added to the "Critical response" section?

Psychologists have said the series' portrayal of suicide can lead to the increase of a phenomenon known as "suicide contagion" among teenagers and young adults. Clinical psychologist Erika Martinez said, "For Millennials and Generation Z, what they see in media is canon... it can certainly glamorize suicide and lead to this copycat sort of effect."

121.220.3.123 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I'm not sure if the source can be considered reliable. Maybe another editor can chime in. Note that there's a similar edit request above, which also was rejected on the basis of source not being reliable. ChamithN   (talk)  01:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable the reason why it was rejected was because I had initially added the wrong source in and an opinion piece and the original user questioned me as to why I would submit a request with sources that did not support the information that I was requesting to be added to the page. I resubmitted the request, as seen here, with the correct source and removed the opinion piece (source). I hope that makes sense. (121.214.141.54 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Fair enough. And, given that there are multiple sources backing the claim, it doesn't sound like a fringe theory either. So, I personally don't object to this whole "suicide contagion" thing being mentioned in the article; however, before proceeding, I first want to know what has to say about this, as s/he was the one who initially answered your request here. --  ChamithN   (talk)  06:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ignored my "ping" and deleted my message to them for some reason and things got a little bitter after that. So I removed my second attempt at the edit request and opened it again in hope that someone else will answer it. (101.160.157.182 (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC))
 * ✅ Oh well. It's quite hard to keep track of your contributions as an individual because you have a dynamic IP address like many other IP editors do. Regardless of that, clearly Sundayclose doesn't want any further interaction with you. I assume that this has nothing to do with the edit request itself, or the content you're trying to add; therefore, I added a paragraph regarding the controversy to the critical reception section. Though, I think it would be better to split the content regarding the controversy into two separate sections as suggested above in another edit request. -- ChamithN   (talk)  12:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding it in but I have never interacted with before, that's why I was confused as to why they ignored me. My subsequent messages on their page expressed my frustration as to why they continue to ignore my messages and to how they should have just told me that they weren't interested in dealing with the edit, I left three in total and all of them were ignored. I understand my messages would have exacerbated the situation but I still do not understand why they ignored me in the first place as they could have just told that they weren't interested. (121.220.69.82 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017
Can this be added to the "Critical reception" section?

In response to the graphic nature of the show and New Zealand's high youth suicide rates, which are the highest in the developed world, censors in the country created a new television rating, "RP18" allowing individuals over the age of 18 to watch the series alone and those below having to watch it with supervision from a parent or guardian. 121.219.253.81 (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done with some slight changes in the phrasing to include specifics. ChamithN   (talk)  22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Auditory, not "audial"
In the description for Episode 7, the article reads "Clay is having both audial and visual hallucinations..." which should be auditory hallucinations (is audial even a word?) and probably link out to the article. Please fix. 2601:145:4004:590:DD4D:BB05:6C1D:381C (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I didn't link it, though... in context with "visual", it should be clear what it means. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

 * Can somebody remove this unsourced statement in the lead - "However, the series also garnered backlash from a group of audience and critics who criticized the sensational treatment of a sensitive issue like suicide."
 * Remove this unsourced statement in the reception section - "However, it has also been criticized by suicide prevention experts for romanticizing suicide and for going against standard reporting guidelines meant to prevent copycat suicides." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GateShift (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sundayclose (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

How about we put it back, with the links to the sources that said that? It is very important to note that this show has literally violated every guideline on reporting suicide and that experts are very concerned. I remember the part that was deleted did link to the reporting guidelines, and a simple google search reviles dozens of articles with major concerns with this show and Netflix's responsibility in ignoring the people they consulted.

Etc, Etc.

98.233.83.153 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Heather


 * ❌: See WP:PROPORTION. This topic has been addressed adequately in the article. There's only so much attention we can give to criticism if we want to maintain a NPOV. -- ChamithN   (talk)  22:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems laughable that this article is concerned about NPOV. Every mental health agency that has weighed in on the subject has been highly critical but this whole article reads like it was written by a PR firm. Since when is including the controversy of a highly controversial topic, with sources, "too much attention?" Gtheule (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the point is more that the criticism section of the article is becoming too overgrown. The series has been out for a month now, so it's probably high time to start paring that section down to a reasonable size, which means summarizing the controversy without describing it in infinite detail. -RM (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, just because every mental health agency that has weighed in on the subject, doesn't mean we have to present all of their opinions in the article. "Paying too much attention" is not including the controversy of a highly controversial topic, with sources, it's weighing unduly towards criticism; I thought that would be pretty self-explanatory, apparently not. -- ChamithN   (talk)  06:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017
hannah is clay 138.25.131.51 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --  Dane talk  03:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

First Season??
Is there any reason to suppose this will be continued? As far as I understand it is a complete serialization of the stand alone novel of the same title, so why would it be called "First" season? --5.146.47.75 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a possibly to have a second season, although Hannah would not be in it. Also, the season has to be given a number and "final" season doesn't fit. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Netflix announced today (May 7, 2017), that the series has been renewed for a second season. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  20:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Attribution to June 2017 Peruvian Suicide
I'd suggest that the suicide of Franco Alonso Lazo Medrano this past week mimicking the plotline of 13 Reasons Why, and suspected to be inspired by the show, be added to this system. I'm not making this edit myself since this page has been vandolized several times and I haven't edited this page in the past. This hasn't gotten a ton of press outside of Peru and a few side publications, but seems fairly serious and a good example of what other items are discussing in the Societal Impact section. --Immediate-retrospective (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, at least at this point. Discussing a single case that may have been inspired by the series is placing too much WP:WEIGHT on speculation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or popular magazine. "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". If additional evidence emerges more clearly linking this event to the show, or if other notable suicides with such a similarity are made known, this issue can be revisited. But not now. Sundayclose (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Episode 11
A couple things. I've seen us flop back and forth between "with..." and "without Justin's consent" in the episode description, so I removed the phrase temporarily. It seemed to me when watching the show that this was done not only without Justin's consent but in spite of unsuccessful attempts to stop it from happening. Maybe I interpreted this differently than others did. Thoughts? Also, any outcomes will potentially change the phrase (under tape subject), "Justin Foley, for allowing Bryce to rape his girlfriend Jessica." Again, I did not interpret Justin's actions as "allowing" Bryce to do anything. Rather, he appeared to be too drunk to physically stop Bryce. Again, just my two cents. But we should really settle on a description rather than flip-flop on our wording. -RM (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2017
Under the Social Impact heading add the following text:

A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine [1] found the release of 13 Reasons Why corresponded with between 900,000 and 1,500,000 more suicide related searches in the United States, including a 26% increase in searches for “how to commit suicide” a 18% increase for “commit suicide” and  9% increase for “how to kill yourself.” The study's authors told CNN "the show's makers must swiftly change their course of action, including removing the show and postponing a second season" because of its role as a trigger for those suffering with suicidal thoughts.

[1] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2646773 [2] http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/13-reasons-why-suicide-study/index.html D wiki 54 (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2017
Under Reception --> Audience Viewership, marketing research company "Jumpshot" is mislabeled as "Jumpstart". 136.24.41.34 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Added learning resources on Wikiversity for 13 Reasons Why
Hello! I added a link to Wikiversity, under External Links, where there are learning resources for 13 Reasons Why. The page breaks down each episode, explains the psychological phenomena, and lists resources where people could seek help. I would be so glad if anyone would be interested in viewing and editing the information on there! My aim is to help provide more context to the movie for those interested, and hopefully guide people towards seeking help if they need it! Ongmianli (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Attaching Wikiversity link -- wikiversity: What We Wish They Knew: 13 Reasons Why Ongmianli (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Season 2 Table
Why is Season 2 being hidden? There is nothing in MOS:TV about hiding a season table for an upcoming Netflix season until the season has been released; see Luke Cage (season 2) as an example, that is another upcoming Netflix season. If the titles and dates are available, then that's enough to display the table, as it is for any show that would air on television as well. There's no difference. How is it premature? --  Alex TW 13:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion is now null since the season has been released, but I'm still interested in the reasoning behind your edits, . --  Alex TW 08:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Season Two summaries
I added one and two. Warsong66 (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Recurring
Do we want to add who from the recurring characters list appeared in what season? Like, Chlöe was only in season 2, do we want to note that? (Also not done the season yet, or I would)--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Narration
Katherine Langford narrates season 1 but each episode in season 2 seems to be narrated by a different actor/character. Listing every single narrator is obviously not ideal but maybe we should do something like Katherine Langford (season 1) and then Various (season 2)? Dhalh (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea to me, and have no opposition unless someone else brings up something.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * IMPORTANT The person who narrates each episode is the person who testifies that day.--Rev. Cory A. Parkinson, Composer (ASCAP), Conductor, Pianist/Vocalist, Musicologist, Minister &#38; Film Critic (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018
Hello I am Ivan Lisandro Garcia (age 16), and I would like to do an expansion on the section of season two of 13 reasons why. I feel like I am prepared for this because I have watched the full series and feel like I can write for this section of the article. Also, I have considered suicide so I feel like I am fit to do this section of 13 reasons why 96.40.160.71 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

13 Reasons Why Wikia
Hello, I want to know if I can copy some text from this web page.-- Philip J Fry   Talk  02:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My guess would be no, given that:
 * No Wikia site is a reliable source because it is user generated (really, no site with "wiki" in the name is reliable, including us).
 * There'd be all kinds of attribution problems even if WP:COPYVIO wasn't a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I've always known that the content of Wikia is free, so I asked, I had no knowledge of this. But, thank's.-- Philip J Fry   Talk  02:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Production values in the lede
TimmyAU and Brojam, there are obviously strong opinions about including production info in the lede. It is standard practice to include a potted history of no more than a sentence or two for production, especially if - in this case - there is anomalous detail, such as it being originally a film planned, rather than a series.

Additionally, the names of those removed and the production companies all appear in the article in the infobox and in the Production section of the article with sources to back up the claims. Factoids in the lede do not need to be sourced, so long as they are sourced in the article itself - as these are.

TimmyAU, can you rationalise why the info should not be present? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I see no problem with including a small history of the series production in the lead. As well, as information about the production companies and showrunners of the series. - Brojam (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, first, I probably need to apologise to all involved for drinking way too much sometimes and becoming somewhat.. useless as a contributor? Also, whilst alcohol and writing are close partners, fixation and intoxication are lovers. Therefore, please let me say sorry for stupid things previously written.

In consideration of my strong opinions about including production info in the lede, it basically comes down to how Google interprets the data we feed into the web. I have a strong belief that the text displayed by Google in an organic search ought to both inform and interest its reader. Prolonged details about production of a film or TV series are a category in themselves, and ought to be allocated to a latter category, further down in the wikipedia article. The first two sentences of the article needs to sympathise with the plight of the Google searcher, what they are looking for and how they might encounter it.

I don't like the fact that Google commands so much influence, but i advocate for the searcher who lazily accepts the Google algorithm as their informer without any consideration: I want that lazy, stupid searcher to get an immediate sense of their searched topic and so I really want to see the first two sentences of a wikipedia article to reflect an overall sense of the topic: especially when it's a film or TV series.

Hope this soberly clarifies my potentially valid view: credibility tainted; behaviour bad history; intentions honourable (I Hope). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimmyAU (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Chlöe
Or Chloë? Or Chloe? MBG02 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Create article for episode list
13 Reasons Why it has more than two seasons and was confirmed for a third would not it be better to split into a list of episodes? Fábio47447 (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"largely positive reviews from critics and audiences, who praised its subject matter and casting."
That sentence is going to need to be changed, obviously. 111.220.121.41 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, adding some sort of Controversy/Backlash section seems like an appropriate way to break up the overly long Critical Response section. 111.220.121.41 (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not recommended. WP:CSECTION —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I would recommend a "Criticism" section.


 * 1. WP:CSECTION Is an essay. The headnote says, "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines."


 * 2. WP:CSECTION itself says:


 * In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material.


 * I think this is one of those situations, because an enormous number of WP:RS and in particular WP:MEDRS have criticized the series for causing more suicides. --Nbauman (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Netflix alters suicide scene two years after release
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/netflix-alters-graphic-13-reasons-why-suicide-scene-controversy-1224489

Where's the best place to incorporate this into the article? Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

JAMA study
Under the guidelines of WP:MEDRS, this pair of studies is the best evidence on the question of whether 13 Reasons Why caused increased suicides. This is a meta-analysis, which is a review of all the previous studies; the editorial is a commentary on the meta-analysis, which is even better evidence under WP:MEDRS. The big question they're trying to answer is whether it's merely association (which is proven) or causation. Their use of the word "media contagion" indicates causation.

I think a good way to summarize this for Wikipedia would be,


 * A study in JAMA Psychiatry concluded that there were approximately 94 additional suicides in the three months following its release, and those suicides appear to be "media contagion", caused by the series.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2734859 May 29, 2019 Association of Increased Youth Suicides in the United States With the Release of 13 Reasons Why Thomas Niederkrotenthaler, MD, PhD, MMSc1; Steven Stack, PhD2; Benedikt Till, DSc1; et al Mark Sinyor, MSc, MD3,4; Jane Pirkis, PhD5,6; David Garcia, DSc7,8; Ian R. H. Rockett, PhD, MPH9,10; Ulrich S. Tran, DSc11 JAMA Psychiatry. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0922

Question Was the release of the Netflix show 13 Reasons Why associated with excess suicides in the United States?

Findings In this time series analysis of monthly suicide data from 1999 to 2017, an immediate increase in suicides beyond the generally increasing trend was observed among the target audience of 10- to 19-year-old individuals in the 3 months after the show’s release. Age- and sex-specific models indicated that the association with suicide mortality was restricted to 10- to 19-year-old individuals, and proportional increases were stronger in females.

Meaning The increase in suicides in only the youth population and the signal of a potentially larger proportional increase in young females all appeared to be consistent with media contagion and seem to reinforce the need for safer and more thoughtful portrayal of suicide in the media.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2734855 Editorial May 29, 2019 Media Portrayals and Public Health Implications for Suicide and Other Behaviors Tyler J. VanderWeele, PhD1,2; Maya B. Mathur, PhD1,3; Ying Chen, ScD2 JAMA Psychiatry. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0842

In this issue of JAMA Psychiatry, Niederkrotenthaler et al provide strong evidence from a time series analysis that the Netflix series 13 Reasons Why, which portrayed the suicide of a 17-year-old girl, led to an approximately 13% increase in suicides for youth aged 10 to 19 years in the 3 months that followed its release; they estimated approximately 94 excess suicides in those months owing to the series. No similar percentage increase was seen in any other age group.

--Nbauman (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a WP:MEDRS news story
 * https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2739494
 * Medical News & Perspectives
 * July 24, 2019
 * Mounting Evidence and Netflix’s Decision to Pull a Controversial Suicide Scene
 * Rebecca Voelker
 * JAMA.
 * July 24, 2019.
 * doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9492
 * --Nbauman (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Gary Sinise

 * He is cast as Clay's family therapist for the final season according to Hollywood Reporter.Espngeek (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Separate articles Seasoms
I don’t if anyone can agree with me, but I want to create individual and separate articles for the seasons of 13 reasons why, because for me the series deserve their own space separated. Well I want them separated so they can have more distribution, that’s my point of view. I'm waiting for your answers. Alvrix3108 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Season 1 and Season 2
I have declined the drafts for 13 Reasons Why (season 1) and 13 Reasons Why (season 2). This is not because I think that we should not have separate articles on the two seasons, or because I think that we should have separate articles, but because a centralized discussion is in order on whether to create season articles. If there is rough consensus for season articles, the drafts may be resubmitted after discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a List of episodes would be more appropriate over individual season articles. These episodes need major trimming (especially season 3), but I think a List of 13 Reasons Why episodes page is enough rather than individual articles. QueerFilmNerd  talk 22:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t agree. I want expanded information to the seasons, because I think that’s would be better or the entire series. So I would like separate articles by season. Alvrix3108 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with him, I think that would be better if separate articles for each season of the series is made. Only a suggestion Babylik345 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with him. I really prefer separate articles because that can give much more information for each individual page. I suggest to allow him to create the pages of each seasons. Cullen2456 (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes allow him to create this articles of seasons. This is gonna give much more information about this, so it's gonna be much more easy to get information of each season. Wilkinson2405 (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My recommendation is to create drafts for every season and see if there is enough real world information to justify making articles for seasons 2, 3, and 4. The article has to have enough out of universe information via casting and development and such sections. I do believe episodes should be moved, by the time we get to season 4 and the episodes are added they're going to be taking up a chunk of space, it's just determining where they go. QueerFilmNerd talk 08:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

,, and are sock puppets of  which is confirmed: Sockpuppet investigations/Alvrix3108. — Young Forever (talk)   22:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal
Okay, let's nail down whether there is enough to split this. You can choose: Split by season (creates 3 articles, (4 if you include a separate list), Split to list of episodes (creates 1 article), or Keep in main (no split)   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 04:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC) updated 00:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Split to List of episodes as with List of Riverdale episodes (okay this one was on CW first, but still has Netflix following), List of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt episodes, and other very notable Netflix offerings. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 04:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just wanna note that we're (and I mean I am) currently in the process of splitting the Riverdale episodes as we came to a conclusion that with the upcoming fifth season of 22 episodes, the page was getting too long. QueerFilmNerd  talk 06:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Split to List of episodes, I don't personally see anything beyond the first season having enough material to justify separate season pages. Even then, we can store most of the information here. QueerFilmNerd  talk 06:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Split to List of episodes because I don't think there are enough information to split into three different season articles once they are trim down. — Young Forever (talk)   06:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Split to list of episodes – splits for lists of episodes/season articles should only ever be done because of WP:SPLITSIZE as episode lists are not notable enough in and of themselves to qualify on their own merits and as is touching on, it's highly unlikely there's enough sourced material on seasons 2, 3, and 4 to justify separate articles for each season. Conveniently, if you take out the episode listings from the main 13 Reasons Why article, you're left with an article that is around 44 kB of prose, so that works. Since we know there will only be 4 seasons/52 episodes, we won't face any Riverdale-esque issues. Some of the episode summaries,  the s3 ones, need to be majorly condensed, though, so if while things are being split that can be addressed, that would be stellar. Specifically having them divvied up into "Flashback"/"Present" is awkward and clunky. We shouldn't be making reference to the "real world" in plot summaries like that. And the whole "Suspect" thing? 🙄 —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Split to list of episodes — The table seems to be taking a lot of space. This would make the page easier to navigate/scroll. Oppose Split by season for now.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  11:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Split to list of episodes and split by season. An episode list is definitely appropriate, per above, but I don't see a good reason why season articles can't exist as well.  I took a look at the season drafts that were rejected, and they were both well-written and included enough production and reception information there to warrant separate articles, including details that wouldn't be appropriate for an episode list alone.  This discussion is framing a split as if it's a binary choice when we can have both options.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would disagree, beyond the first season, none of the draft articles have near enough out of universe content to justify a split. Even the production information on the first season is short, and it's main content is the reception that it got. There's nothing on any of the pages that could not reasonably be on the main page. QueerFilmNerd  talk 18:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's another option. I'll put that up there. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Split to List of episodes, per previous discussions. = paul2520 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Apology
I want to apology for all the changes I did to the series, and using different accounts. I was obsessed so I think it would be a good idea. Please forgive me for what I did. Alvrix3108 (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Release section
I saw that what should be strictly about the broadcast of the series is loaded with non-broadcast related content. Per Manual of Style/Television, this section is for information about the premiere, season renewals, final episode; network changes; noteworthy international network(s); distribution deals. //Home media// is a subsection of Release. Per MOS, the Release section is not for content about reviews, audience reaction, and awards. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 07:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin’s Death
Someone keeps making edits to Justin’s section removing his death. I understand his death is at the series finale and is a spoiler, but for the sake of consistency, either remove it and everyone else's death in the character description or keep it. Conmon1015 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Spoiler

Controversy section cleanup
The "Controversy" section needs a major cleanup. This section and its subordinate "Criticisms" section contain a lot of redundant and contradictory information. Clearly, there are two sides to the issue regarding this series' controversy: does the fictional depiction of suicide engender a real world rise in suicide rates among the show's audience. I believe the section needs to be organized in something of a pro/con manner to present both sides of the issue, with the reliable sources available for each. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1300 Reasons WHY NOT.jpg