Talk:Mad Men season 7

Episode 3 quote
Does anyone know the source of the quote in episode 3, where right before Betty and her husband start talking, a man on TV says, "Oculist? Who needs an oculist? I need a dentist!" I can't find anything. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.97.18 (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Some" vs. "most" critics
Without concrete numerical data, we cannot say "most" critics interpreted the ending one way or another. We can cite that some believe Don created the ad, and some that believe the ending was left ambiguous. That's neutral, of equal WP:WEIGHT, and avoids POV. --Tenebrae (talk)

I don't have numerical data, but searching online you can see the people against don writing the commercial are definitely the minority.

Thehack771 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see that at all. I'm finding that most of the critics readily acknowledge that Weiner wrote an ambiguous ending, as is his wont (i.e. The Sopranos). But that's my POV the way you have yours. To avoid POV, in the absence of hard data, we have to write neutrally. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this changes anything, but Weiner has now confirmed that don did write the ad: https://www.yahoo.com/tv/mad-men-finale-matthew-weiner-119490567755.html

Thehack771 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, it's not about "Don definitely wrote it" and "Don definitely didn't." It's "Don definitely wrote it" and "Maybe he he wrote it, maybe he didn't." That's a big difference from what you're saying ("people against don writing the commercial"). --Tenebrae (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit changing "Some" to "Many" seems a fair and neutral reading.


 * I'm going to the actual interview at http://livestream.com/theNYPL/Weiner so we can use Weiner's exact words. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I do see that some writers, such as at The Hollywood Reporter and Yahoo!  take Weiner's New York Public Library interview quote as confirmation that Don created the ad, but the line they point to does not concretely state that:


 * "And the idea that some enlightened state and not just cooption might have created something that is very pure." (emphasis added)


 * He didn't say, "And the idea that some enlightened state and not just cooption created something that is very pure."


 * As written now, we give Weiner's exact quote. We've already said some critics interpret the ending as Don having written the ad, so there's no need to say it again. Because The Hollywood Reporter and Yahoo! etc. are interpreting the statement as definitely stating something that it does not. Weiner uses words carefully, and he specifically said "might." The citation is time-stamped, so you can hear it for yourself. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, he also says this [at 09:50]: "I am not that clear. I have always been able to live with ambiguities. … Naw, I mean it. I mean it. I don't really understand a lot of things that regular people understand. That's part of it. So holding those things in my head, people are like, ‘Well, which is it?' Well, why does it have to be one or the other?" --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Should we keep "Ending interpretation"?
I created the article on Person to Person (Mad Men) and copied that section to it. Should it be in both places or would it now be better to be in the specific episode alone? (I would have started that article earlier but I thought someone else might and then I decided to wait to see if it received awards nominations for notability)--T. Anthony (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I say it should be removed as it's only specific to a single episode, and the article for the episode has now been created. Maybe we just keep a very brief version in this article, explaining that critics questioned whether Don created the ad or not, but not go into specific details. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)