Talk:The West Wing (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/archive1

 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Featured article star The West Wing (TV series) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy The West Wing (TV series) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 18, 2006.
Peer review The West Wing (TV series) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Philip Stevens, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "The audio file for this page was done in December 2005 and a lot has changed since then. As the show is now off the air, it is unlike that this page will change radically, so would it be possible for the audio file be updated to a more definitive version of the page.".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.
TV This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, which collaborates on television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Featured Article

I am saying very tentatively that I would like to put this article up for peer review so that it can begin the long road to Featured Article status. There are a lot of issues for those of us who edit the page regularly before we submit the article to review by the entire community. Let's start getting serious about the issues in this article. The West Wing is definitely capable of reaching FA status. Let's get started today. - Scm83x 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to say, I think peer review to become a Featured Article is a very good idea. The most recent edits to the page have really been helpful in establishing a wide basis for the West Wing's political universe. Bravo, West Wing fans of Wiki. Skywaterblue 06:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations to the writers and editors of the article! I'm a big fan and series owner, so it was a pleasant surprise to see this! TKE 02:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though I don't believe that I have ever even edited this page, it's nice to see one of my favorite TV shows and watched articles to make it to the front page. Congrats, everybody. RPH 06:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great article!

I just wanted to say that, having visited this article numerous times before when it was relatively bare bones, it is now one of the BEST I have EVER read on Wikipedia. Kudos to everyone who contributed! --IRelayer 23:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a lil late...

can someone tell me when/if this article was featured? thankz, skizzno logic3 03:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has not been on the main page yet. It became a featured article, I believe, on December 14th. — Scm83x talk 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Real" West Wing

[edit] 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)

[edit] Disambiguity

[edit] "(television)"?

The disambiguation page at The West Wing is dreadfully short, and I think it would be more convenient for everyone if we just added a This is for the television series; for the actual building see White House at the top of the article, deleted the disambig page and moved this article there. LeoDV 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment on disambiguation vs separate article

At Talk:The West Wing I began a discussion about whether that article should focus on the West Wing of the White House, or revert to its state a day or two ago when it was a disambiguation page which redirected people to either a section of the White House article or here. Please consider participating in that discussion. Thanks. 66.167.139.201 20:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Disambiguation phrases for The West Wing and its linked articles

I've edited the disambiguation phrases at the top of both this article and the other one in this disambiguation pair. The previous wordings seemed too wordy and clumsy. They didn't flow from the title, and the first sentences of the articles ended up repeating what was in the disambiguation phrases, making the writing feel redundant and obstructing the flow of reading the article. The disambiguation page The West Wing also needs tidying up to conform to the style of disambig pages. Carcharoth 10:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Layout

[edit] 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

[edit] TV Template

Someone should put in a TV show template box. Benw 06:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fork for first runs and video releases

First, this articles length has become unwieldy at times. I think the most unnecessary portion of the article is the first run and home video release portion. Perhaps we should create a fork? - Scm83x 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler tags

I wouldn't say that I agree with the movement of the spoiler tags. The character list also lists the jobs, which are spoilers (as the jobs change throughout the show). The show evolution section mentions Rob Lowe departure, a spoiler. Also, TWW universe section contains spoilers and so does all of the presidential election section. I am RVing these changes until we can doscuss on talk. I don't want people to have the show ruined for them because of a misplaced spoiler tag. -Scm83x 10:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The spoiler tags did need to be moved so that this article can go on to FA status soon. I changed the character list to a "cast" section and referred the section to the List of characters on The West Wing page, which contains the exact same information, and much much more. Snipping the words "in the fourth season" from the "show evolution" section, I believe, made that not a spoiler anymore. I shuffled a bit more to move the spoiler tag all the way to halfway through the page. Hopefully this helps! -Scm83x 22:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an improvement, but much of this article is still considered a spoiler. Unfortunately, I can't find any Wikipedia guidance on what constitutes a spoiler, so all I can ask is that you consider what movie critics say and don't say about a film's plot and use that as an example of what constitutes a spoiler here. And if you are interested in the broader topic of how significant a plot development has to be in a TV series to reach the level of a spoiler, consider contributing to this thread at the talk page for Policies and guidelines... 66.167.253.58 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

I used a different spoiler tag but did not change its location. The tag I used now reads:

Spoiler warning: Plot details from previous seasons of The West Wing follow. Plot details of future episodes are not discussed.

I believe that this new tag makes it clear that if you want to watch the series from the start, you shouldn't read the following section. However, if you started watching the series in the middle and already know the basic details of past seasons, it is OK to read. Finally, I wanted to make it abundantly clear that the section does not reveal information from advanced script copies of unaired future episodes. I think this multipurpose tag will clear up any problems with the page raised by 66.167.253.58. -Scm83x 09:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This section Italic textdoesItalic textinclude spoilers of future episodes though.

Also the spolier warning assumes that the reader is in the US, whereas in the UK (and elsewhere?) we are only just seeing the Sixth Season. The spolier tag should give more specific detail.

[edit] Picture and Caption

Scm83x, you reverted my edit to the picture caption because you say it's the cast for the majority of the show. But I still think it's incorrect to label it as the cast, especially considering how much change there's been (just look at the credits screen) since. Rob Lowe is still in the picture, and he leaves after the fourth season--that means there have been almost three seasons since without him. Since the picture is near the top, I feel like we should maintain a current picture, or else label it as something else (now that I think about it, I think it's from the second season since Moira Kelly (if I remember her name correctly) isn't there). Thoughts? WLGades 08:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Most of the pictures that you will find are of this cast set. The reasoning behind using this picture is:
  • Fair use applies (difficult to find an image of this quality where fair use applies)
  • Doesn't give away any spoilers
  • High quality image
  • Minus Sam, this is the primary cast for all seven seasons of the show.
The photos in the article apprear dark to me. Is it permissible for me to lighten them, upload them, and then edit to the lightened versions? r3 04:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope you understand my reasoning a little bit better now. If not, feel free to comment again with your concerns. -Scm83x 08:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hm, is it possible to use a more recent DVD cover then, like this? http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0007SMDU0.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg WLGades 09:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This image just adds Will and subtracts Sam. Again, I want to avoid spoilers and keep the highest quality image that I can. Most of the DVD cover image is fluff, with the image we have now, the photograph is just about the cast. Additionally, people often forget that we have to consider the series as a whole, not just recent events. It was decided in the recent peer review and featured article candidacy that this article had that this was the best solution. -Scm83x 09:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
A comment: We want this article to present the best possible overview of the entire series. Changing group cast photos isn't going to help - Rob Lowe leaves before Joshua Malina comes, Moira Kelly leaves well before Alda and Smitts are introduced, and so on. As such, introducing another photo isn't going to help solve that problem. Either way, the existing cast photo was the consensus decision during the entire peer review and the featured article candidacy process - and it's a excellent, high quality image at that.
I would be willing to change the caption to something like, "Cast members of The West Wing include...," and take it from there. However, it's unnecessary to find a new photo, as a perfect solution is unfeasible. -Rebelguys2 09:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that change would be fine with me. I just don't like implying those are the primary cast members for the entire show. WLGades 22:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making the Article a bit more User Friendly

It seems to me that it would be a good idea to include the link to the List of The West Wing episodes in the 'See Also' category at the end of the article as well as in the 'plot' section. Casual browsers are going to check 'see also' for episode guides and suchlike because that's where they're conventionally put in articles of this kind. As it currently is people can only find the episode guide when they decide to read the whole article or if they do a seperate search for the episode guide article within Wikipedia. Given that the episode guide is linked to twice in the short 'plot' section, adding it to end of the article along with the other pertinent links would seem far from redundant. MagicBez 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See Also is to contain non-redundant links. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other WikiSpace articles. We could look into making the existing link bold. Rlove 15:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
If we're solely interested in avoiding redundancy then why is the list linked twice in one short section of the article? Given the size of the article I think that a repeat of the link in the links section at the bottom is entirely warranted. Wikipeida is ultimately a reference resource, and as such, we should make key information as easy to find as possible (within reason). Given how popular episode guides are it seems counter-intuitive to have the link to it buried in the main text and not repeat it where people are accustomed to looking for such links in other TV-Show related articles. I just don't see what harm it does to have the link repeated in an obvious place for it to be. As I said before, putting a link there would be far from redundant, in fact it would be useful, sensible and practical. MagicBez 18:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The way I see it, if a user is interested in episodes and the plot they will go to the subsection "plot" and look there, or perform a CTRL-F with "episodes" as the term. This argument isn't really about this article; it is about the WP:MoS. This argument doesn't belong here, it belongs there. And truly, if a user wants epguide information, they should head to an external link, because our epguide is paltry compared to others on the web. -Scm83x 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree 100% with Scm83x. But answering the previous reply: Maybe the second link under Plot should be removed, too. That is unrelated to the fact that the WP:MoS says See Also is for related but unreferenced items. It is things to also see, not a refresh of things already linked. I think this issue is stems from the fact that you had a hard time finding the episode link yourself, which is fine, but a simple search on 'episodes' would have sufficed. Rlove 21:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar Actors

Since the list of actors in the sidebar appears to mimic the listing of the current cast in the show's credits (beginning with Alan Alda, ending in "with Jimmy Smits and Martin Sheen" - then perhaps Moira Kelly and Rob Low should be removed from the list, since they are no longer with the show. mtz206 15:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree that it looks like the sidebar tries to mimic the opening credits of the show. However, it's important to realize that this article encompasses the show as a whole - it's not a fan site concentrating on the newest season. You simply cannot discuss the show by only mentioning the most recent events and characters.
Do we leave Nicholas Colasanto off of the Cheers article because he passed away halfway through the series? Absolutely not. Are we going to take John Spencer out of this article now that he's passed away? Of course not.
Rob Lowe and Moira Kelly are and always will be integral characters in The West Wing, regardless of how long ago they left. The former, in addition, was surely around longer than, for example, Alan Alda will most likely be. When we look back at the series as a whole, it would not do this series justice to leave off such important characters. -Rebelguys2 18:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
So, if the purpose of the list of actors in the sidebar is to catalog all of the main credited actors throughout the series history (which makes sense), perhaps they should be listed alphabetically, and not in a way that tries to mimic the opening credits "with....and....". Just a suggestion. mtz206 22:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this; particularly, the "with" and "and" should go. Rlove 22:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure. This was just something left over from the first time someone put in the TV infobox. I'm guessing they just copied the names down as they watched the opening sequence. I'll make the change now. -Scm83x 23:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Why get rid of "with" and "and", these two actors for whatever reason earned the honorary ranks of "with" and "and", I don't know why we wouldn't include that. I also think Rob Lowe and Moira Kelly should be put at the beginning (it's unknown if Alan Alda would have been given this position had his name not been first alphabetically anyway, but likely he would have, but I still think he should be third.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.202 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Ref-tag

Would anyone object to implementation of a different referencing style? I would like to switch to the ref-tag, as per timeline of evolution. An advantage would be that the numbering would automatically be correct. -- Ec5618 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Should I take silence as approval? -- Ec5618 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I had actually been planning to do this for a while. I'll take care of it shortly. — Scm83x talk 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. -- Ec5618 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film criticism?

Why is there a section titled "Film criticism"? This is a television production. And the Emmy's are awared by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, not "the film community." Futher, the paragraph about criticsm about the show's "unrealistic optimism" has nothing to do with film criticism, film theory, film asthetics, etc. Perhaps this section should be renamed/worded as "Critical reaction" or something like that. --mtz206 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Links

[edit] Bad link

I am removing a bad link to the following web page: http://westwing.bewarne.com/seventh/706alsmith.htm

That is fine; I don't think it needs to be mentioned on this page. I went ahead and remove the text of the link, too -- aside from the now-lack of link, we should not do inline citations like that. Nor should a spoiler website, with a leak of the teleplay, act as a reference and now that the episode aired, it needs no justification. This article is rapidly sounding like a fansite, not an encyclopedia entry. Rlove 00:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:External links style guidelines

At the requst of User:Scm83x, here are excerpts from Wikipedia:External links which apply here:

[edit] What should be linked to

  1. Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site.
  2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.
  3. If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.
  4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.
  5. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.

[edit] Maybe OK to add

  1. For albums, movies, books: one or two links to professional reviews which express some sort of general sentiment. For films, Movie Review Query Engine, Internet Movie DataBase, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic offer especially large collections of reviews. To access the list of other collections of movie reviews available online, please use this link.
  2. Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included.
  3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.

The changes introduced by 66.167.252.133 (talk • contribs) reflect these recommendations. In particular, fansites are to be limited to at most one, with a link to a web directory being the only other option.

I will post a message to User:Scm83x so that he can explain the reasons for his reversion...—66.167.252.72 07:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

First, I reverted the change because it was a large change to a large article by an anonymous user. The change deleted a large portion of the page's external links content and I did not believe that all of the changes were in the best interest of the page. I also do not think that there is any reason to be hostile or smug about knowing WIkipedia policy when a user has yet to avail himself of the full priveleges of a username (or any reason to be hostile or smug even after they have). I was making the appropriate changes just as I received this message. -Scm83x 07:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't misinterpret terseness for smugness. Having referenced the style guide article that motivated the changes in the comment that accompanied the changes, it was hard to understand why the change was reverted, particularly in an article that you asked to be Wikipedia:Peer reviewed. I realize much vandalism comes from anonymous users, but there are those like myself who have chosen to regularly contribute on an anonymous basis. I appreciate your rapid response and willingness to consider the change on its merits, regardless of its anonymity.
I notice to my chagrin that Newsjunkie (talk • contribs) has chosen to do a more customized reversion of the changes. Since the comment proves he's aware of this discussion, I find it hard to understand why he didn't read the style guide and defend his interpretation of it here. I'll wait to see if he or someone else cares to defend his choices. FWIW, I noticed from User talk:Newsjunkie and User talk:Scm83x that Newsjunkie runs this West Wing blog and was admonished by User:Tverbeek earlier for linking to commercial sites. 66.167.139.129 13:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC).
I have no problem explaining what I did. The style guide does not forbid fan sites completely, just says they should be limited. Most fictional works have links to 1 or more fansites, eg Harry Potter. There are now links to 2 major fansites and 2 of the major discussion groups, the first one of which is especially significant, because of the lemonlyman.com episode. I added the spoilers group because it is something many people are looking for, and unlike some other groups, does not require spoiler space or other conventions that take into consideration people who do not like to be spoiled. Anyone can post there who has info or is looking for info. Readers can get information at these groups and get answers to specific questions they might have. Other than that, I think the statistics page speaks for itself. I did not reinclude some lesser fan sites and absolutely noninformational links. And the theme song and the extra reports I would say count as primary sources, if you will, a theme song is an important characteristic of a show. The SNL clip and the Dr Laura are well-known, and in my experience are clips that people are often looking for or can't find. Alternatively, someone who has more time then me could try to mention those last 2 in the evolution of the show somewhere, or treatment of real world issues, and then link them as footnotes or something. None of the sites linked to are commercial. I on purpose did not link to my blog, because I know that is frowned upon. I hope we can come to come kind of compromise here.--newsjunkie 15:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
As newsjunkie suggeted, I have commented out the links that I will, later tonight, incorporate into the article as citations. -Scm83x 21:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Good job, Scm83x, but could we maybe at least add in the *The West Wing Continuity Guide and Bartlet4America.org back to major fan sites? Also, the West Wing Continuity Guide has a resources page with lots of other links. We could use this page in lieu of a directory. Another separate thought, which is partly inspired by the WW Continuity Guide. One could perhaps mention a lot of the similarities between Sports Night and West Wing. I am just seeing the former for the first time and there really are a lot - whole plot lines and dialogue. The WW continuity guide quite a bit of comparison here., but there is more than that, I think. Also, similarities differences to Commander in Chief?--newsjunkie 12:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commander-in-Chief and Yes, Minister

What the hell does a 1980 British Satire have to do with The West Wing? Okay, so both have to do with politics. But one's about British politics, is a comedy, and was on 25 years ago and hardly anyone even knows what it is. One's a contemporary, well-known, drama about American politics. I don't see any reason to connect the two. Likely it was just some "Yes, Minister" fan who wanted to include it on The West Wing because they knew more people would go there and maybe then it would get some fans. It's idiotic that we're connecting two series that have nothing to do with each other.

Likewise is it idiotic to include a link to Commander-in-Chief, a show I notice that has no such "See Also The West Wing" link. Commander-in-Chief is like a bad WB-version of The West Wing, and West Wing is cheapened by the statement that comparisons have been drawn. Most critics pan Commander-in-Chief for it's horrible writing and lack of realism and if they compare them at all, its to point out how much better written The West Wing is.

I'm deleting them both. -This unsigned comment was added by Harlequin212121 (talk • contribs) .

I agree and support the deletion. Rlove 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi there. I'm going to stay out of the debate for now, but I'd like to let you know of a few policies and guidelines. First, please sign your comments by typing in ~~~~. It really helps in following discussions. Second, when there is a disagreement in an article such as this, it is usually best to leave the content in place until a discussion is made first and a consensus is reached. Reverting each other multiple times over a few days before going to the talk page is a bad idea. Going to the talk page and dropping a message after a few reverts is a good idea, but reverting it again after that before any discussion has taken place is premature. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflicts)First, I have reverted your removal of the see also CinC link. The convention is to wait for consensus before making a change that is disputed. Second, I ask you to please be civil when speaking about other contributors. Remember to comment on content not contributors.
On the Commander in Chief page, there is no see also link because the page already mentions The West Wing in the main article text. The Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view regarding the quality of the shows. We should not remove the link to Commander in Chief just because some contributors think it is a "horrible" copy of The West Wing. The show has many connections to The West Wing and the format of the Wikipedia lends itself to creating as many links between relevant articles as possible. — Scm83x hook 'em 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I just don't see the comparison. The other Sorkin series' make sense because Sorkin's storylines, characters and often actors are very similair and those who are interested in one Sorkin thing will likely be interested in the others. But Commander-in-Chief has no such connection. Yes, it's another politics show, but so what? Are we expecting Law & Order to be connected to every show that features lawyers or cops? Harlequin212121 01:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that Commander in Chief should stay up there in the "See also" section. I don't think anyone here would disagree with you that it's a terrible show; in fact, I think that your assessment of Commander as a "bad WB-version of The West Wing" is a bit mild for me. However, we have to look at the article as a comprehensive whole, including our discussion of media criticism. Hear me out. The West Wing is getting plenty of entertainment press coverage at the moment; obviously, much of the recent news has come from the fact that show itself is ending and John Spencer's death. However, it is impossible to deny that much of that coverage is in the context of Commander in Chief; see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]; this is just the tip of the iceberg. If so many sources can draw such parallels to Law & Order, per your example, it would certainly be linked in this article. However, they don't do so. I'd much rather link Commander with a short description under "See also," than give it a pointlessly drawn out paragraph in the main West Wing article for the sake of comprehensiveness when we discuss press coverage, because, at the moment, the show's comparison with Commander is a major part of entertainment criticism. It's also not a good idea to compare this article with the one at Commander in Chief (TV series); the other article simply isn't comprehensive and up to standard. Rebelguys2 talk 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe both links are appropriate, Commander in Chief for the reasons mentioned above, and Yes, Minster for the fact that it is the British equivalent of The West Wing. And while Yes, Minister is a comedy, there are instances where the humor is not unsimilar, since the The West Wing often looks for the humor in politics and satirizes it in small ways. I would say the link is a useful resource if people are doing research on this kind of show and would like to compare. Yes, Minister is often compared with "West Wing" in the British media. It was mentioned in a special broadcast on More4 before the premiere of "West Wing" Season 6. Other references:

"In Yes, Minister, the conceit was that the civil service assistants recognised their superiors as hopeless twits and covered for them. In The West Wing, the young staffers, supervised by a wizened, indulgent chief of staff, serve a president who is a thatch-haired New England aristo, Nobel prize-winning economist"

  • From an IGN interview with Yes, Minister creator:

"GNFF: There were discussions at one time to mount an American version of Yes, Minister, weren't there? LYNN: There was, yes. IGNFF: How quickly did that break down? LYNN: Pretty fast. IGNFF: Due to the dictates that were coming down from on high? LYNN: Yes... they wanted to make it very cozy. They wanted to make it a family show. They wanted to make it like, you know, Cosby in the White House. IGNFF: So they wanted to sand off the edges... LYNN: Yes. And there was a show that tried to do that called Mr. President, starring George C. Scott, that failed for those reasons. IGNFF: It died a very quick death. But even drama-wise, when one looks at The West Wing, there are a lot of elements that dilute the edge in representing the true workings of the government... LYNN: Oh, tremendously. It's full of heartwarming music. IGNFF: And soap opera bromides... LYNN: Absolutely right. IGNFF: It's amazing that it's viewed as some sort of grand critique of the American political system, when it really isn't. LYNN: No, it really isn't. It's a view of what goes on in the White House, but to describe it as a critique would be a mistake, I think. IGNFF: And West Wing is considered the most political show on TV right now... LYNN: Spin City was much better in terms of its satirical content. "

"It would be good one day to have a Clinton-Lewinsky Behind Closed Doors, but, until then, The West Wing is smart, tough stuff. With the exception of the 1970s Trevor Griffiths series Bill Brand, about a Labour MP, British TV drama has usually treated politics as comedy (Yes, Minister, House Of Cards) or fantasy (A Very British Coup.) Americans are more solemn about politics, but The West Wing achieves the difficult feat of dramatising the nuts and bolts of office while also showing you the screws."

"Tony Blair was recently asked if he watched the White House drama The West Wing, having been accused of the West Wing-isation of Downing Street. No, he replied. After a hard day on the job, he said, 'the last thing I want to watch is anything to do with politics.'

The fool. Even Thatcher, who famously hated TV (especially the BBC), admitted to loving the satirical Yes, Minister"

"With a new president pouting in the White House and an old one on the hustings, you can't help thinking the free world is in trouble.

Until the death of the actor John Spencer last year, there were two high-quality award-winning series dramatising fictional American presidencies airing on prime time in the United States. During the Thatcher years, we all enjoyed the bureaucratic machinations of Yes, Minister, and then Yes, Prime Minister. It seems to follow that the more bizarre the actual government and leadership, the more necessary it is to create a palatable fiction....

The West Wing (Thursdays) has found a new home on the ABC, where it is most comfortable."

From the Guardian "That is partly because the West Wing held up a flattering mirror to their craft. While British TV usually depicted politics as a trade for the stupid, venal or evil - think Yes, Minister, the New Statesman or House of Cards - the West Wing insisted that politics was a noble calling. The players might not be glamorous - a fact that always made Rob Lowe an odd fit in the early seasons - but they were sincere, witty and uncannily smart."

"Although its ratings are down, and the American TV show ends after the current series, The West Wing works for the same reasons our own Yes, Minister did" (for some reason you can only see this quote if you do a Google search for "West wing" + "yes minister", but you can't view the cache or the original article)

From the BBC: "If he is taking his cues from anywhere, you suspect, it is slick US drama The West Wing, in which President Martin Sheen sweeps through the corridors of power making decisions on the hoof, rather than, say, the traditional British model parodied so effectively in Yes, Minister."

"YES, MINISTER (1980-1984) and YES, PRIME MINISTER (1986-1987)

THE WEST WING was by no means the beginning of politics in prime time… at least in the UK. Ostensibly a comedy, YES, MINISTER and its sequel series showcased with hilarity the essential dysfunction of a democracy where the politicians are perpetually at odds with the civil service meant to carry out their policies. With sparkling dialogue and pointed satire, the two series astonish while entertaining. "

From the BBC: "BBC Four: Were there any other TV shows you had in mind while writing? Jesse Armstrong: I'm a big fan of Robert Altman's Tanner 88, but in a way, Armando had such a clear vision of what he wanted, it's got a great look, that what I thought wasn't that important. He always said it's sort of The West Wing meets Yes Minister. But it's also obviously influenced by that sort of hand-held, gritty, docu feel which I think Tanner 88 is great for."

From the Guardian: "Two weeks ago, however, Armando Iannucci produced the first three parts of The Thick Of It on BBC4 - an eventual six-part cross between The Office, The West Wing and Yes, Minister."

This is why I disagree with saying that they have "Nothing To Do" with each other: they have much more in common than say "The West Wing" and Fawlty Towers, and it was one of the first shows to prove that stories going behind-the-scenes of government could be entertaining. These articles also show that it isn't true that "nobody knows what it is". It is perhaps comparatively unknown in the United States (although it can be found on public TV once in a while), but in Britain people are still very aware of it, refer to it in the press, and it is often rerun on BBC. This is not the "American" edition of Wikipedia, but the English-speaking one and I am pretty sure most British people would at least think of Yes, Minister in connection with West Wing.

Perhaps another solution could be to have a category or list for TV shows about politics? --newsjunkie 13:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Newsjunkie, great research! I believe that we can now say confidently that both shows have a huge connection to The West Wing, and they should stay. — Scm83x hook 'em 18:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Television Without Pity link

The following item listed in "External links" does not directly provide the cited information:

I was trying to track down the specific thread, but I seem to be stuck in a TWoP ID-approval cycle. Can someone provide a more specific link? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast & Characters

[edit] 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 (look under Voyager). -- Redge 11:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Starring whom?

If we change the starring list everytime there is a change int he opening sequence this season, we will change it every week. All of the person removed are still on the show but will only be credited when they appear. With a 40 second intro sequence this is reasonable, otherwise the open sequence would be like Lost. I am going to revert these changes because they are not accurate. - Scm83x 15:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Note how Stockard Channing's name only appeared when she was in the episode, and likewise with Alan Alda when he first signed on as Vinick. Sahasrahla 19:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First or last names?

I was reading the Charlie Young page and noticed that when he is referred to, it is as "Charlie". This is similar to most everyone else's pages, except for Leo's, which uses a mix of "Leo" and "McGarry" and President Bartlet's, which uses a mix of "Bartlet", "the President" and "President Bartlet". Should these be brought to the same standard? Cigarette 20:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the mixing of first and last names is part of the style of person who wrote the article. In the show, the viewer has a casual relationship with the character, so it is OK to use the first name. At the same time, the president can be referred to as the president, President Bartlet, or Bartlet. His office seems to imply a greater air of improtance. The one thing that does need to be done in regards to name standardization is the decapitalization of "the president" across all articles. Yes, we have respect for him but the capitalization is not necessary when preceded by an article. Thanks -Scm83x 21:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Spencer

I see no mention of his death in the article and its effect on the series. Should this be included somewhere? --Hetar 07:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you'll look to the cast section, you'll find that the last paragraph reads:
The show suffered a surprising loss following the death of John Spencer, who played Leo McGarry. Spencer experienced a fatal heart attack in December 2005, about a year after his character experienced a nearly fatal heart attack. As of February 2006, Spencer's death had not been addressed by the series, except for an opening message from Martin Sheen before the first new episode after Spencer's death.
It's, admittedly, quite important. ;) — Rebelguys2 talk 07:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Question, more on spoiler policy than specific details. (I'll spoiler warning this though - go away if you haven't seen Election Day pt 1). Is it too much of a spoiler to mention that Leo McGarry's character has been found dead? I was about to edit that into of the 2006 campaign (in place of the relatively out-of-context repeat mention of Spencer's death) and then thought about the spoiler concerns. User:acroyear.

[edit] Lawrence Lessig

  • Did Christopher Lloyd really portray the real Lawrence Lessig, or a different fictional Lessig? dml 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, he protrayed the real Lessig. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
here is lessig's comments: [7]. --mtz206 22:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More characters

Is it possible for anybody to add a list of regular characters since our only current list is the first season? I'm not asking for everybody, more along the lines of Alan Alda, and other major individuals of the new administration.

[edit] The Character and Position in 1st Season Table

Why don't we add onto that table where the characters were in Season 1 and where they are now? Quite a lot of changes have taken place since then and there could be some who simply glance at that table to get a sense of the positions, when Jed and Abbey are the only ones who have the same job. --Harlequin212121 04:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This was a decision reached during the PR and FAC to lessen the number of spoilers in the article. Anyone interested in the progression of any character can just go to their individual article to see. Most of those characters have also held those jobs for the majority of the series. — Scm83x hook 'em 05:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Timeline

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

Oh, come on! Who put "An article in the current issue of the British Magazine TV Zone"? Which issue is the 'current' issue? Also, the paragraph later refers to the magazine being in some way an official publication. It's a TV rag! It doesn't issue edicts or hold royal court. It's not even the most official of the TV rags - this title goes to the Radio Times. I will come back soon and maybe edit this if no objections/comments left. --Rossjamesparker 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Santos v. Vinick: 2005 or 2006?

There seems to be many edits back and forth between listing the Santos v. Vinick election as 2005 or 2006? What is the definitive answer? It seems that some feel it should be listed as 2005, since that's the "real time" year in which the fictional election occurs. But why do some insist on 2006? Is it a year ahead in the fictional timeline of the show? --mtz206 12:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's right. Previous elections in the show's timeline took place in 1998 and 2002, so the upcoming one should logically be interpreted to happen in 2006. However, the writers/producers of the show have sped up the timeline, for whatever reason. So this 2006 election will take place on the show in the fall of 2005 real world time. So, it's really either way, I don't know. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 14:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The series made no mentioning of altering the constitution to have elections happen earlier. On the contrary, many quotes were made which imply the election happening in 2006. Wouter Lievens 14:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
However, John Wells was quoted as saying: "We were a year and a half into the administration when we started the show," Wells said of the NBC drama entering its sixth season. "We have term limits in this country and so, on our electoral schedule, Bartlet's second term would end a year from this coming January." I would say he's implying that the election is being held at its correct time with no speed-up, thought that doesn't explain the 3 years since the last one or why for example the midterm elections were left. I would vote for keeping it 2005 because it's the only thing we really know for sure, it's the official line, and it puts the facts on the table as they are so everybody can make up their own mind - a while back I tried to explain it in the article at the end of the "show's evolution" paragraph. And I would think that people not so involved in the show will more likely think of it being 2005, and I could also imagine media quotes like "the fictional election taking place this year."--newsjunkie 20:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to add, the show does overtly place the election in 2006. In the Season 6 finale, when Mr. and Mrs. Santos and Josh walk into the convention, a marquee behind them clearly reads "2006 Democratic Convention". 71.200.83.199 13:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Clue to Election Year Being 2005

If you look at the "campaign blog" for Santos, the first entry is Wednesday, August 3. August 3rd was only a Wednesday in 2005, not in 2006. Since we know it's only a couple of weeks/days till Election Day, it looks like the Election is in 2005. In the same way, Vinick's blog is dated Thursday, August 4. --newsjunkie 19:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding literary present tense (was and is)

Over the past few hours, with the end of the series, many editors have been changing all of the tense agreements to the past tense across every The West Wing related article. Please read the sentences before making tense changes and remember the rules of literary present tense that we all learned back in high school. When writing about the actions of book, movie, TV shows, etc, the actions always occur in the present tense because the action is assumed to occur in the "eternal present". It is correct to say:

"The series was produced by John Wells."

But it is not correct to say:

"The series was set in the White House."

For further reasoning on why the above is true, please see this link, which does a good job explaining the reasoning of LPT. Thanks all. — Scm83x hook 'em 08:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The series still "is" a show that "is" set in the White House, but it "was" broadcast on Sunday nights on NBC. --mtz206 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course. If The West Wing was a show, what is it now? A Broadway musical? Unfortunately there are going to be many editors who come across the word 'is' and, without considering any further, will change it to 'was'. I expect this to go on for a while into the future. Ramallite (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree. I feel the tense should reflect the distinction between an ongoing television series and one which is only be rerun; The Simpsons is a primetime animated TV show, The Flintstones was a primetime animated TV show. MK2 17:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The question here is concerning the first line of the article:

"The West Wing is/was a popular and widely acclaimed American television serial drama created by Aaron Sorkin."

Here is my view. The word "was" represents a past occurence. Although the show is over now, it is still a television show in the present. The West Wing is a television show. Period. Despite the show's finale, the show is still a show. You wouldn't say any of the following:

"The Divine Comedy was a poem."
"Citizen Kane was a movie."
"Cats was a musical."

Because of literary present tense, these things can exist at any given time that someone is reading/watching/hearing them in the present. Therefore it sounds better and is more correct to say:

"The Divine Comedy is a poem."
"Citizen Kane is a movie."
"Cats is a musical."

Therefore, it is correct to say "The West Wing is a ... television serial drama..." — Scm83x hook 'em 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. sounds fair to me. Don't really understand why people are objecting to this! Super Ted 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Because every single television series no longer actively filming is like this. See Who's the Boss?, Married... with Children and Friends. If you insist on keeping this as "is", why not make an effort on changing the others? Bssc81 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the use of the word "is". The precedence set by most other TV shows is to used the past tense "was". For internal consistency, "was" is the appropriate usage. kurtm3 21:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Precedent can be wrong and, in this case, is wrong. All the other TV show articles use "was" (incorrectly) because that is how we speak. However, spoken language is often incorrect. I agree that there should be internal consistency, but since we must also obey the rules of the English language, this means that all other past TV show articles need to show the correct "is" and not the incorrect "was." (Sometimes it is good to simply follow precedent. However, in this case, there is a compelling argument indicating that the precedent is wrong and no equally compelling counter-argument.) --Hnsampat 21:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though the show is still viewable by anyone "in the present" it is nonetheless over. You would not say "Super Bowl XL IS the 40th Super Bowl.", even though you can still watch it on video. Of course you would say "Super Bowl XL WAS the 40th Super Bowl."

Keyword: this is literary present tense. Super Bowl XL was a sporting event, and events are subject to our usual is/was usage. However, The West Wing is a TV show and so literary present tense applies. To use an analogy, there is no doubt right now that Harry Potter series of books is a series of fantasy books. However, when the 7th and final book is written, are we going to now start saying that Harry Potter "was" a series of books? No, we're going to say "is" because, even though the books are no longer written, the series still exists. Ditto for The West Wing. They may not be broadcasting any new episodes of the series, but the series still exists. --Hnsampat 22:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the key here is the adjective(s) that precede(s) "TV series" in the first sentence. If the sentence stated "The West Wing is a TV series that ran from ___ to ____", that'd be one thing. But it includes certain adjectives. Think about this - if the words "long-running and critically acclaimed" appear before "TV series", then it should be "was", not "is". Look at Friends. Since the show is no longer long-running nor critically acclaimed (although it once was), then the word "was" is appropriate. As it stands, at best it is arguable, and at worst it is obvious, that The West Wing is no longer widely acclaimed (popular is more subjective). It was both of those things however. Thus, while there should be no debate that "The West Wing was a popular and widely acclaimed American television serial drama created by Aaron Sorkin that was televised from 1999 to 2006." is a correct first sentence, the use of "is" is indeed up for debate. Thus, I would suggest the word be changed to was (it would be a literally correct thing to do.) Bssc81 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It's an interesting point, but I beg to differ. The West Wing did not cease to be critically acclaimed nor did it cease to be popular the moment the series ended. Critics will still say that it is a terrific show and people still watch it (in reruns and on DVD). If I may re-use an analogy I used earlier, will the Harry Potter series of books cease to be popular the moment the 7th book is published? Will we stop calling the Harry Potter books "critically acclaimed" once Book 7 is released? Of course not. Same thing applies here.
Somebody earlier argued against the use of "is" citing the example of the Super Bowl (i.e. even though the Super Bowl can be viewed on video, we still say that Super Bowl XL was a sporting event). What that person correctly pointed out was that literary present tense does not automatically apply simply because something is viewable in the present. S/he was correct in saying that the Super Bowl "was" a sporting event (i.e. it doesn't become "is" just because we can view it on video).
However, it is different with The West Wing because it is a literary work, albeit in the medium of television. Literary works must abide by literary present tense. We colloquially tend to say that it "was" a TV show simply because it used to air regularly and no longer does. However, it is still present as a literary work, just as the Harry Potter books will continue to exist even after the series ends. The Super Bowl was an event and so it exists in the past. A TV show is not an event; it's a literary work. The fact that there are adjectives present in that sentence doesn't change that. --Hnsampat 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
(pardon me for interjecting a comment here) While I wholly agree with the stance about literary present tense, a thought occurred to me concerning "popular". It's a word that requires citations, and because we retain literary present tense in the first sentence, it always implies that TWW is popular. Which may or may not be true. While I may think it is, I wonder: is that encylopedic? The first season of Commander-in-Chief was popular, but were later seasons? Would we say that now? What is the definition of "popular" in the context? (I also note that even in this article, it is claimed that the shows popularity waned...) I think that we should remove "popular" from the first line, especially since it's much more clearly explained in the 3rd paragraph (removing "widely acclaimed" for the same reasons). And perhaps that will possibly further stem the tide of confusion about literary present tense. - jc37 16:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Good call. — Scm83x hook 'em 16:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur. --Hnsampat 17:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with that too. What I would say is that Wikipedians should consider updating other pages (like the ones I listed above) to reflect the "is" instead of the "was". -Bssc81 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the other pages should be updated to have "is" instead of "was," although I imagine that this will lead to the same kind of extensive debate as the kind that occurred here. :) --Hnsampat 21:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps an effort at the Television WikiProject? Then it would be a top-down effort. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree, I think before everyone starts trying to change all articles to reflect this, it might be a good idea to see if it could be written into Wikipedia guidelines (although I'm unaware exactly how this is done - I'm assuming it's possible). Changing the past/present tense of such articles without being able to refer to such a rule, or just by putting 'please see The West Wing Discussion Page' may cause some conflict. ~~ Peteb16 21:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Man, Peteb16, I had the same idea, but you said it first! ;) --Hnsampat 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] General Comments and Questions

[edit] Help

No source for this, but I remember that Bartlett's VP was the republican oppenent. There was a flashback to there debates and Bartlett asking him in one of the earlier seasons. I think I need a citation for this, and I don't want to ruin this great article with a missing citation. Thanks. User: False Prophet

You're thinking of the scene in the third-season episode Bartlet for America where Bartlet asks John Hoynes to be his running mate. Hoynes isn't his Republican opponent, though. Hoynes was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination during the primaries, until Bartlet defeated him. So, Bartlet asks his one-time Democratic primary opponent to be his running mate (so that the two of them can run against the Republican nominee and his running mate). Bartlet and his VP are both Democrats.--Hnsampat 01:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 7th Season is last?

The entry states " The seventh season is also likely to be its last." Is there a citation for this, or is it merely fan speculation? mtz206 21:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

well, this is old news now, as its been confirmed that the series finale is coming as part of may sweeps. User:acroyear

[edit] Clinton's picture

Recently a user added a line stating that there was a picture of President Clinton behind Bartlet's seat in the Situation Room. If someone could cite a particular episode that you can see the picture in, it'd be a great new addition to the article. Thanks!! -Scm83x 07:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "set in the West Wing"? not very much so recently

The opening paragraph says that the show is set in the West Wing. That is not true of every episode, especially recently. I tried to reword, but was reverted with the reason "we don't know if the series is going on, best stay without speculation in the lead". I don't really know what that meant. I tried to change:

 The show is set in the West Wing of the White House, the location of the
 Oval Office and offices of presidential senior staff, during the fictional
 Democratic administration of Josiah Bartlet (Martin Sheen).

to

 The show is named for the West Wing of the White House, the location of the
 Oval Office and offices of presidential senior staff. The series thus far is
 set during the fictional Democratic administration of Josiah Bartlet (Martin
 Sheen).

I guess I could wait until the next administration is in place, when that paragraph will definitely need some revision, but am wondering if someone else sees a need at this point to revise it? - Bevo 23:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Howsabout:
 Action centers around the West Wing of the White House, the location of the
 Oval Office and offices of presidential senior staff.   The show follows
 fictional Democrat president Josiah Bartlet (Martin Sheen), members of
 his senior staff, and (in later episodes) the competing candidates to
 succeed him as president.
-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I would say that, in general for the lead, "set in the West Wing" is a good general decription. We have no idea if the show is going on after this season. I think the idea here is similar to the description of other shows. For example, you would say that ER is set in a hospital in Chicago, even though a lot of the storyline takes place outside of the hospital. Until we know if the series is going to continue with a new administration, we should leave the lead alone. Even if the series does continue, it will still be set in the west wing of the White House. The campaign are a little diversion every 4 years, just like "4 years ago" in 2002. -Scm83x 00:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Except ... its not. There have been more then just a handful of episodes where the west wing isn't even there. How many ER episodes have been outside of that hospital for the WHOLE EPISODE, no seeing ANYTHING going on there? Just add "Primarily set" and you are all set.
What about something to the effect of...
Action centers around the activities of the Executive Branch of the American 
government,  which primarily works out of the West Wing of the White House, 
as well as around candidates for the Presidency.
Perhaps not (probably not) those words, but something in that spirit. After all, the story has been, up until this election cycle, about the Bartlet administration, and is at the moment also focused on Bartlet's successor. So the office of the president seems to be the through-line of the series taken as a whole. Cigarette 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on some of the wording in this article

There's room for improvement in the wording of parts of this article:

  • The series intended to center around Sam Seaborn, Bartlet's deputy communications director, with the president in an unseen or a secondary role.
A series has no intentions. Most likely it is Sorkin, the show's creator and writer, who intended to center the show around Seaborn. The other way to word this is to describe the end result, and ignore intents. Thus one could say either "Sorkin intended to center the show around Seaborn" or something like "Although an ensemble show at its core, early episodes of the show were somewhat centered around Sam Seaborn"...
  • The series developed from the 1995 theatrical film The American President, for which Aaron Sorkin wrote the screenplay. Unused plot elements from the film were used to create The West Wing.... For the first four seasons, Sorkin wrote almost every episode of the series, reusing many of the same plot elements, character names, and actors from his previous work, Sports Night....
The narrative quoted above is disjointed and perhaps contradictory. Did Sorkin base it on The American President or Sports Night or perhaps both? If both, how?
  • Sorkin opted to leave the show after the fourth season.... Following his departure, many expected the show to develop a more bipartisan footing.
By not explaining earlier in the section that Sorkin's style was particularly liberal and/or pro-Democrat, a reader is unprepared for the out-of-the-blue comment about a "more bipartisan footing". That is easy to fix by adding a sentence or two citing a couple of Sorkin's liberal and pro-Democrat themes.
  • Many opinions have been weighed and considered as to whether or not this insider's view is entirely accurate or beneficial to the general viewing public.
This wording is clumsy. It should be replaced with a paragraph that previews the topics covered in each of the five subsections that it is meant to introduce.
  • The West Wing is not completely accurate in its portrayal of the actual West Wing because of the certain amount of melodrama that must be added to each episode to captivate viewers.
This could be tightened, perhaps like this:
Like most drama, The West Wing takes dramatic license with its subject matter.
I don't know the show well enough to know what to say next, but most dramas of its ilk balance between a commitment to authenticity (hence the political consultants here and the medical consultants on ER) and a typical dramatic need to eliminate the mundane, compress the plotline, "heighten" the reality.

I'll stop my review here, to judge by any responses whether it is worthwhile continuing. 66.167.252.89 07:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC).

  • Just to let you know, this article just completed a lengthy peer review and featured article candidacy that completed reviewed all of these topics. The decisions reached were the consensus of the persons commenting and voting, which are reflected in the article. I am extremely hesitant to add large sections of material, such as the preview paragraphs, because this article has started to become large again, dropping from 37kb to 30kb, and now up to 38kb. The preferred size is under 32kb. In regards to the changes that you suggest:
  • I will change to "Sorkin intended to center the show around Seaborn"
  • I will change to "unused plot elements inspired the creation"
  • I will add a new portion about Sorkin's liberal slant... though I will have to find a reference...
  • The sentence may need to be changed, but I do no think this merits a new paragraph.
  • I think the sentence works well, mentioned the loss of accuracy due to addition of melodrama. The sentence, I believe, is actually a paraphrase of the next source mentioned.
Thanks for your input. I'm sorry you didn't get here two months ago when we were doing the peer review. This article has been reviewed in-depth by more than 2 dozen vigilant pairs of eyes. I generally try to avoid large sweeping changes. -Scm83x 07:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Remember, the template says "If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute"...
  • Changes made. -Scm83x 07:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't your job to make changes I propose; it's a talk page--when someone proposes a change, your role is to respond here. I was waiting to see if others had comments as well. 66.167.139.148 10:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC).
  • It is wiki policy to assume good faith, but when I saw that an anonymous user was making large changes to a featured article, I asked that you make comment on the talk page about the changes that you thought were necessary. The changes you recommended were mostly great and original, since you hadn't read the article before. I appreciated the comments and immediately incorporated the ideas into the article. -Scm83x 10:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left Wing, Katrina Discussion

Here are 4 (and this is a tiny sampling) blogs discussing the obvious Katrina disaster parallel. I don't think that this sentence falls under the original work or research rule. http://jeffords.blogspot.com/2006/01/west-wing-duck-and-cover-tonight-began.html http://themediablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/west-left-wing.html http://culturecurse.blogspot.com/2006/01/west-wing-countdown.html http://large-regular.blogspot.com/2006/01/west-wing-last-nights-episode-about.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brockmanah (talk • contribs).

This article went through a long featured article candidacy and peer review. One of the most striking problems about the article was the original research that was being done and the scope of the article. One episode does not define the scope of the entire show, and proper credible sources must be cited. This information is not appropriate for this article. If you read the section, it does not even flow smoothly in the place it was put. — Scm83x talk 17:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Scm83x. He brings up two good points. One is that a blog entry does not make this not original research -- the text is still fan speculation and opinion. But this is not my most pressing concern. My biggest problem is that additions such as this have too much of a knee-jerk reaction to recent episodes. This episode is one of over 100 episodes aired. Its impact on the entirity of this article, the full bredth of the season, and the series as a whole is (a) yet unknown and (b) probably small. Leave it out. Rlove 18:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I also tend to agree, it is only one episode and doesn't play a major role in the series as a whole. Furthermore, if anyone isn't aware of the 3 revert rule, please take a quick read through it now. I'd hate to see someone disciplined over something as small as this. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add section on cancellation?

There is a discussion at the Allison Janney talk page about having a section noting the cancellation of the West Wing on her page. Perhaps it should be inserted in this article instead? --mtz206 16:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If anywhere, it should definitely be here, not there. And I think we certainly wish to treat the cancellation of the series ex post facto. The only question is if we want to cover the subject now, before hand, and to what extent. Of course Allison's entry is not CJ's, and if the cancellation has ramifications on her career, editors there are free to present it. Rlove 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I read the first 3 paragraphz

"among high income viewers" is retarded even if it's true and cited. 'popularity has waned but... it's still a cool, relevant, educational show' is what I would say if it were my wiki. o, wait... KzzemeVision 02:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The popularity of the show among high income viewers affects what advertising is sold during the show. Therefore, this is the relevance of this fact. — Scm83x hook 'em 02:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, the article that talks about "high-income viewers" was written in the October 2002, and only states that the network is touting it as such. My biggest problem is that it's a three and a half year old article. If there are more recent numbers, that would be a different story.

[edit] Pedeconferencing

Someone has removed the term 'pedeconferencing' as uncited. A Google search, however, shows over 3,000 hits for this term - many with reference to The West Wing. One page claims it was coined by Television Without Pity. Should this term be reinstated? Njjh201 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Several people have tried to add this term to the article, but it is simply not popular outside of "fandom". If we can find several critical articles (i.e. published in a film criticism or political journal) about the topic, I suppose that the term may merit inclusion. However, it just seems that, in the scope, of the series a neologism that only garners 3000 Google hits really doesn't make the cut in an FA. — Scm83x hook 'em 17:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

I agree. It would be hard to imagine the networks doing a GOP version of the West Wing. I just can't imagine a pilot like that getting in front of an NBC producer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Morello (talk • contribs).

[edit] Emmy

The article has it a record 9 for 1 yr; my impression was, it was a record for a debut yr. Correction? Trekphiler 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a record for any year of any series. Nine awards is the most won by any show ever; The West Wing is just good enough that they did it in their first season. [8] ;-) -Scm83x 23:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac and Ishmael

  • Some months after this special 9/11 episode aired, I was at a talk given at an university by various TV writers, including a lead writer for The West Wing (a woman, I forget her name). The woman was asked about how the 9/11 episode was created, but she seemed unhappy about saying anything and basically said something like "no comment, Sorkin was responsible for that, I wasn't" (but politer). I wonder if there is anything out there which talks about this apparent disagreement amongst the writing staff about that episode. Bwithh 00:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it a spin-off of The American President?

I only got to see The West Wing recently by seeing the first few episodes of season 4 and months ago I heard that it was a spin-off of The American President. Did some checking on Wikipedia and all I find is that Aaron Sorkin had written the screenplay of The American President and some aspects of it was used on The West Wing even the casting of Martin Sheen. So in terms of storylines and characters am I right to assume that The West Wing is not in any way related to The American President. --The Shadow Treasurer 03:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

From a plot or fictional universe perspective, it has no relationship to The American President. --mtz206 03:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, you are correct that most of the aspects of the show are dissimilar and there is really no spin-off connection. I do believe that the West Wing set was the same one used in the movie. If you are interested in other Sorkin works, you may want to rent/buy Sports Night, which was a series run on ABC for two years by Sorkin. They share many of the same characters and plotlines. The show is really a great favorite of mine and many other West Wing fans. Thanks for the inquiry. — Scm83x hook 'em 03:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writers and Directors article?

In the vein of List of Six Feet Under writers and directors, I suggest that there should be a West Wing writers and directors article. It could be useful, seeing as writers and directors are not listed in the List of The West Wing episodes article, and I think it would be interesting to compare the number of episodes that writers/directors have worked on the show. I can't create an article, but perhaps someone else can. 24.245.44.227 00:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This would be cool, and can offer explanations of the styles and fan response of each writer (i.e. Sorkin's considered the best and tends to be the most proficient with dialogue, O'Donnell's considered dry and too full of fact and not as much with story/character, Cahn's are considered the best since Sorkin, etc. etc.)--Harlequin212121 01:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I never thought of that angle! This could be a very good analysis article as well as statistics. (I'm such a nerd.) Someone who thinks the idea is good, please make this article! 24.245.44.227 18:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somebody's Going to Emergency, Somebody's Going to Jail

If I remember correctly there was a song with this lyric played at the beginning of the episode of that name. Does anyone know whether it is an actual song?–Clpalmore 23:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Don Henly's "New York Minute". --mtz206 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks–Clpalmore

[edit] Portrayal of mental illness

Commentary by some self-appointed shrink, with similar paragraph headings, was posted on What About Bob? a couple of days ago, and who knows where else? This uncited POV junk should be zapped, not just commented out. Wahkeenah 02:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wahkeenah. I'll take care of it. — Scm83x hook 'em 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed some other ID briefly added it back. A sock puppet named Argyle? Not much subtlety there, eh? Wahkeenah 03:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foucault and The West Wing

I'm in the middle of watching the finale episode of The West Wing, in which the fictional United States President Josiah Bartlet is handing over power to his successor. As the White House staff are moving Bartlets' belongings out of the White House, a book with the cover with the title or author name "Michel Foucault" (the French radical intellectual) is prominently displayed being taken off the President's bookshelves. President Bartlet, in addition to being an American patriot of the Democrat variety, is a Nobel Prize winning economist and devout Catholic who originally wanted to be a priest. He seems highly unlikely to be a fan of Foucault, or even to own a book about him - and The West Wing is not an exercise in radical irony or anti-historical problematization. Cultural critics and TV scholars - what are to make of this insertion of a Foucault shout-out in the final episode then? Bwithh 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe it was a subliminal reference to a pendulum. Wahkeenah 01:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
nope, you're thinking of Léon Foucault, the physicist. Michel Foucault is known for his political writing and activism amongst other things. Bwithh 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I know. I was being creative. Just like the writers of the final episode. :) Wahkeenah 01:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be out of character for Bartlet to want to be versed in continental views on power. --mtz206 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that's stretching it a little, as Foucault is radical even in French political theory. But regardless, could it be that the show's writers are sending a message? It was the one interesting moment in a pretty blah utterly predictable and conventional finaleBwithh 01:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It also could have been a gift. --mtz206 01:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Bartlett was an intelectually curious man. There are a lot of people who read, re-read and even enjoy books that don't particularly jibe with their own beliefs. That is how you are able to form opinions on the subject. Its not at all unusual that Bartlett would have this book. Foucault is very well known and widely read, even if he is "radical", and Bartlett would want to have an intelligent counter to anyone who brings him up in conversation. That being said it could have been an in joke for the writters.--Betsyb81 00:22, 18 November 2006) (UTC)

[edit] Question....

Why is the running time 42 minutes? Wouldn't it be 1 hour? the_ed17(talk)(contribs) 19:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The show has 42 minutes of content in the span of one hour, while the rest of the time is take up by commercials. RPH 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

While I admit that The West Wing is aired in Ireland, it is also aired in Sweden and dozens of other countries. Where do you draw the line of notability for countries? When the line was first composed, I included those three countries because they are all large major countries where the show is broadcast. While Ireland is a country where the show is aired, why include it? I'm not sure at all where to draw that line. — Scm83x hook 'em 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bravo

is the west wing still playing on bravo tv at all? anyone know? I haven't seen it lately. I'm pretty mad about that. CrackityKzz 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess they stopped for summer? -MBlume 05:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New audio file

The audio file for this page was done in December 2005 and a lot has changed since then. As the show is now off the air, it is unlike that this page will change radically. Would it be possible for the audio file be updated to a more definitive version of the page? Philip Stevens 14:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 25 Amendment

I wunder should a section or trivia note, be put in this article. This Fictional series, gave the Amendment an inaccurate discription, when the Speaker Walken became 'Acting President'? First the Speaker (in the real world), under the amendment couldn't become acting president ONLY the Vice President can. Further more, if the Speaker could become 'Acting President' He/She would not take the presidential oath of office, (VP GHW Bush in 1985 and VP Cheney in 2002, didn't take the presidential oath). GoodDay 14:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone please correct me if I'm incorrect, but I believe that the RL instances are as a result of a series of new laws in relation to that. - jc37 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You're both partially right. The 25th Amendment only says that, if something were to happen to the President, the Vice President takes over his duties as Acting President. However, in the case of The West Wing, they were faced with a situation where the President was declaring himself incapacitated and there was no Vice President. Here, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 takes effect. By that law, if neither the President nor the Vice President can perform the duties of the office, then the Speaker becomes Acting President. The rest of the presidential line of succession follows, with the President pro tempore of the Senate and then the entire Cabinet. So, Jc37 is correct in saying that there are new laws that supplement the 25th Amendment.
I believe GoodDay is also right, though, that Bush, Sr., and Cheney didn't take the oaths of office when they became Acting President. Then again, I don't know for sure. We should check up on this. (It's actually a gray area in constitutional law as well.) --Hnsampat 17:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
However in the episode 'Bartlett' says he's invoking the 25 amendment, making no mention of th 1947 Succession Act. I ain't questioning the US Constitution, I'm questioning the accurracy of the 'West Wing' series writers (and their [the writers] lack of research). Keeping in mind this is a fictional drama. GoodDay 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that none of this will ever end up on the page unless a reputable verifiable source identifies an error in the writing. Wikipedia is not original research. — Scm83x hook 'em 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, valid point. Wouldn't ya know it, I have no verifiable sources. GoodDay 20:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bartlet says that he's invoking the 25th Amendment because that's where it is written that the President can declare himself incapacitated (which is what Bartlet is doing). So, it's not a goof. Bartlet invokes the 25th to get himself temporarily removed from office and then the Speaker takes over per the 1947 Presidential Succession Act. The show doesn't need to completely spell it out for us. I think we can reasonably say the writers knew what they were doing. --Hnsampat 04:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Except for the taking of the presidential oath of office. That only occurs when assuming the office Not when only assuming the powers & duties. GoodDay 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, can anyone say dramatic license? — Scm83x hook 'em 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] needs correction

>> W.G. "Snuffy" Walden received an Emmy Award for Main Title Design in 2000 for "The West Wing Opening Theme". <<

Snuffy is a composer. He won the 2000 Emmy for "Outstanding Main Title Theme Music". The West Wing was also nominated for "Outstanding Main Title Design" that year, but did not win, and Snuffy was not the designer. source: http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.193.221.202 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for the note; I'll make the change right away. Remember that the beauty of Wikipedia is that you can make corrections to any mistake that you see. Get a user name and join us! Thanks! — Scm83x hook 'em 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant

"All contemporary domestic government officials in The West Wing universe have been fictional." Well duh, obviously. Do we really need this sentence? Richard75 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that that sentence is there to contrast with the statement at the beginning of the next section that many foreign officials in the West Wing universe are real (e.g. Fidel Castro, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and Queen Elizabeth II). Also, it shows that many past domestic officials have been real (e.g. every President from Washington to Nixon). --Hnsampat 03:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_West_Wing_%28TV_series%29_2327.html"