Talk:The West Wing (television)

From Academic Kids

Contents

1 What is "the west wing"? 2 Copy Vio? 3 dorks and markonen 4 Character Synopses 5 Extraneous Additions 6 Star Trek 7 Arafat in the West Wing? 8 Nixon 9 The Cabinet entry 10 Election Timeline 11 Republican press? 12 Syndication in the US

What is "the west wing"?

The West Wing is the part of the building housing the President's Oval Office and the offices of his political staff.

Removed the above. Who keeps putting it in? The WW is not part of the building housing the POTUS's oval office, etc, it is the building. It is a separate administrative office building attached to the White House, erected in the early 20th century and into which the President's administrative staff were moved. Since then, the numbers of staff have rocketed to such an extent that many are now based in the Old Executive Office building nearby and in nooks and crannies in the actual White House. But the White House is quite clear in its description of the WW as a separate administrative building joined to the White House. The White House proper is a national monument, not a functioning governmental building. It consists of the original building, now used almost exclusively for head of state ceremonial and symbolic functions, and the modern residence built into the old roof space when the original White House was demolished and rebuilt in the 1940s and 1950s (Under Truman it was discovered that the building was in imminent danger of collapse; he joked that he was advised to walk very slowly out and not to slam the door! The interior furnishings and decoration were removed and then the building demolished, leaving only the four outer walls. A replica was then built inside the outer walls, largely made of concrete, and most of the original furnishings and decor grafted onto the new building, with a new presidential 'residence' created by adding a partial new floor on the top behind the parapet, with the incorporation of what had been old servants rooms. 10 Downing Street underwent a similar process of demolition and rebuild in the early 1960s.) Governmental functions for the most part are focused in the WW, notably in the modern Oval Office and what used to be the original Oval Office but is now the Roosevelt Room. In effect the White House fulfils the functions played in Britain by Buckingham Palace (ceremonial, head of state), while the West Wing is the US version of Downing Street, where actual government takes place. FearÉIREANN 18:01, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nobody keeps putting it in, it was there since the start and as I rewrote the sentence to remove the unnecessary "the title refers to" part, the old language creeped in. I didn't grasp the distinction you illustrate here -- that while it is okay to refer to the West Wing of the White House, the West Wing nevertheless isn't a part of the White House. Markonen 18:15, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

White House and West Wing have a number of meanings.

White House can mean

• The original eighteenth century building that is now used for state functions;
• The compound of presidential offices and residences, which includes the main state residence (in which no-one actually lives except during state visits,. eg, the Lincoln bedroom, the Queen's bedroom, the Green Drawing Room, etc), the modern presidential residence in the old roof space, the East Wing, the West Wing and the Old Executive Office building;
• The administration;
• The presidency;

West Wing can mean

• The 1920s wing built on at basement level to the original house to house administration staff and the President's governmental office. (Originally the President divided his time between an office in the main house and an office in the Capitol.)
• The administration (ie government)
• The staff of the President.

Because the West Wing is physically connected to the White House at basement level, not to the main building (hence all those shots of Bartlet and all the real presidents exiting the Oval Office and walking to the White House in the open along the colonnade) and because it fulfils a different function to the actual White House (governmental and administrative as opposed to head of state ceremonial) it is usually regarded as a different building attached to the White House. The article as originally written implied that the presidency was based in the White House, and the WW is part of it. In reality, the administration is based in the West Wing (and other bits, namely the East Wing (where the First Lady is based) and the Old Executive Office Building (formerly I think the Departments of State and War) and in some rooms in the basement of the actual White House. So the wording blurred the distinction between the state residence/head of state building that is the actual White House, and the other bits that are governmental, not head of state. It is important that people understand the central distinction, hence the change in wording. FearÉIREANN 18:38, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Do you just want to have the last word or what? You are putting in your bit about the "cult following" after only one sentence since the previous mention. Come on. Markonen 18:57, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jtdir, if you have a reason to revert a working paragraph into a version that is not only syntactically incorrect but also highly redundant, I expect you to share it here. You might start by telling why high production values has to be mentioned twice, why you think "though rarely winning the ratings match in sheer bulk of viewers, Though focused on American politics" is correct English, or indeed why "a cult following internationally among viewers" is a better sentence than the one you replaced. I'd also be glad to hear why you think the sentence "acclaimed standard of ensemble acting" needs to be boosted with "quality of acting" a few rows later. Markonen 21:26, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Copy Vio?

The caption re copyright on the screen capture cites a contention that IMO is at odds with the thrust of Fair use#Amount and substantiality. I am reverting to remove the screen capture; if WP policy does smile on this screencap, i make no apology: copyvio is serious stuff, and even to appear to be pushing the envelope requires a much clearer link to a consensus that, e.g., a still from a screen cap is acceptable. Those who want to include screencaps must bear the burden of showing clearly they are within our policy.

Nice shot, tho; hope it turns out we can keep it. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 18:09, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

There are 24 frames a second and over 50,000 frames an episode (not to mention the scores of episodes!). That screenshot is just one of those frames. --mav 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IANAL, Mav, but i feel safe in saying that

• When lawyers say "ignorance of the law is no excuse", they mean "It's your own fault if you don't know what laws apply to you." But it's also true, even when misconstrued to mean "No matter how little awareness of common sense the law shows, that doesn't give us an out from following it."
• What you say below about your screenshot contributions is prudent.

--Jerzy(t) 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

User:Jerzy & User:Maveric149 (in alphabetical order) have jointly reworked part of the discussion above to reflect their common desire to avoid offense and distraction from the matter at hand.

Has anyone tried just emailing NBC and asking if we can use their photographs? DJ Clayworth 18:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here are some screenshots I took. I'm waiting for the server image issue to be fixed before putting them back in. --mav 01:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to the above, aren't you also waiting for the copyvio issue to be resolved? DJ Clayworth 15:12, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No because there is no copyvio - screenshots like the above are fair use even in the strictest fair use sense. --mav

If Mav (or i) were capable of resolving the conflict between his argument and the seemingly relevant passage (2nd sentence of 2nd 'graph of the section) that WP is asserting to the world, virtually every law-school graduate would be fighting to take a job away from an English-lit major. I'm not interested in being the WP Copyvio Squad, but if what Mav has said on the subject satisfies WP standards, then WP policy should also be either

• "Never worry about copyvio at all" or
• "Never exercise the right of fair use."

This matter requires the advice of an attorney specializing in international intellectual-property law. (There's probably one on the foundation's board.) --Jerzy(t) 16:53, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

A screenshot is not a sample of a sound recording. It is a single frame of a moving picture. meta:avoid copyright paranoia and use some common sense. A single frame from a 50,000 frame+ episode is in the same ballpark as quoting a single sentence in a book's chapter. I'm done with this argument. --mav

dorks and markonen

First of all, markonen's a dork. I'm cool with West Wing dorkiness, but this page is about the west wing show, dogg. And your whole thing is about copyright dumb stuff?? <sigh> kzzl

Character Synopses

Read like soap opera charcter bios. cooler than you

• Haha. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:55, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Extraneous Additions

Is it just me, or are there way too many specifics appearing in this entry, particularly in the character bios? Charlie's entry is now bigger than Bartlet's. If I wanted to know when specific thing happened to specific character in specific episode, I'd look up an episode guide - that's why there's a link to an episode guide at the bottom of the article ... and stuff about Josh and Donna's unrequited love? Is this entry encyclopedic or fanfic?  :( neuropedia 21:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And yet you think that the fact that Sheen wasn't planned to be a major character isn't pertinent to the entry? Expand. Baylink 16:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• What you wrote seemed extraneous since it is already written that the series was intended to revolve around Sam, not the President. Neuropedia 00:58, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

As fascinating as the Josh and Donna section is, shouldn't it be left to the hardcore fan sites? I'd say it's extraneous to the vast majority of those looking at the article. Perhaps it should be moved to the Donna Moss page? --LostLeviathan 02:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this. The main reason is that it seemed inappropriate to have a long, season-spanning spoiler in the middle of a general article on a series that has several related articles. --LostLeviathan 00:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good stuff :) -- Neuropedia 14:20, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Star Trek

The producers in Star Trek made a list of casualties for Star Trek: Voyager which envolved the names of several characters of West Wing as an in-joke. Perhaps someone would like to add some sort of note on this? See here (http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/List_of_Starfleet_casualties) (look under Voyager). -- Redge 11:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arafat in the West Wing?

In an article, Yassir Arafat is mentioned as a real-world figure who exists in the universe of the show. Not sure about the earlier episodes, but the recent Israeli-Palestinian arc featured "Chairman Fahrad" (or "Fahrat"; that's what the pronounciation sounds like to me, anyway). While this character seemed to be a pretty obvious stand-in for Arafat, he's also pretty obviously not Arafat -- there's a sequence where Fahrad talks about growing up near Nazareth, whereas Arafat grew up in Cairo and Jerusalem; and whereas Arafat almost always appeared in public wearing fatigues and a headdress, Fahrad generally appeared in a suit and bareheaded. Anyway, like I said, maybe Arafat was mentioned earlier in the show, but in the current season Fahrad seems to be the guy. He also seems to still be alive.

--Jfruh 21:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arafat was mentioned by name in an early episode. His title was not given but it was implied from the context that he held the same position in TWW universe as he held in real life. Late in season 5 the show tackled the Israel/Palestine issue head-on, and the fictional proxy Chairman Nizar Farad was created (as was Eli Zahavy, the Israeli President). It is possible that an Arafat exists in TWW universe but not in the position of Chairman. It is more possible that the writers forgot or deliberately ignored the earlier reference.

Malfourmed 04:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The forgetting seems most likely, as the death of Arafat in, say, 2002, would've been material for at least half an episode. Wouter Lievens 22:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nixon

Richard Nixon is mentioned as Vice President in 17 People, but to my knowledge he is never referred to as President Nixon.

Actually, "Deep Throat" is mentioned in a third season episode by character Donna Moss speaking on the telephone to House Majority Chief Counsel Clifford Calley. Additionally, other references are made to the entire string of illegalities that comprised the 'Watergate' scandals.

The Cabinet entry

There is simply no need to get snippy about it. 'Your' list of Cabinet members is not owned by you, nor will it ever be. Constantly insisting that the known surgeon general from multiple episodes is the secretary of a Cabinet department is simply not appropriate.

I don't know who's in the Cabinet, but IMDb says Millicent Griffith (Mary Kay Place) is Surgeon General, which is not Secretary of anything. In reality, there never was a "Department of Health and Education", it was the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, HEW for short.

It would help if you guys would log-in/register.

—wwoods 17:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In an episode (I can't remember which one...), President Bartlet does a sort of roll-call of the cabinet members (a vote on something, I think...) and he mentions the Secretary of Health and Education. I'm pretty sure that it's mentioned on the DVD's commentary or somewhere else as a mistake, but that explains why it keeps getting added. It may not be a real position, but it was mentioned on the show. kmccoy (talk) 19:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe the episode you're likely to be referring to is Twenty-Five (Season Four Finale; post-kidnap response and elevation of the Speaker to Acting President). Can't remember if SecHealthEd was mentioned though. Must watch again. AE.

I think it's earlier than that, I was pretty sure I saw it on DVD and I only have seasons 1-3. kmccoy (talk) 16:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Election Timeline

Someone added that the discrepency between real world elections and WW elections is now down to only on year because the election is going to take place in the 7th season. This is incorrect, because the election hasn't occured 'earlier' in the show's universe; the show's timeline has speeded up one year. The discrepency is still 2 years.

Republican press?

What has been the reaction of the Republican press to the series? It is kind of hard to imagine making the WW in a Republican administration - what do people in the US make of this? Guttlekraw 12:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Syndication in the US

The show airs on many CBS affiliates, but it is distributed by Telepictures and airs on non-CBS affiliates. Case in point: in New York it airs on independent station WLNY-TV, but also airs on WCBS-TV the CBS flagship. --Spotteddogsdotorg 06:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)