Talk:Timeline skew theories for The West Wing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-07. The result of the discussion was No consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

The West Wing is generally very careful to always show what they mean and nothing else. Buildings shown in the show are generally what they really are in real life. I don't think that this was intended to be a huge hint that Reagan was once president in The West Wing, just something that a fan noticed. This page is entirely "things that fans noticed". Therefore, I don't find the reference at all a problem. Please discuss here on talk before deleting again, if you think that is appropriate. -Scm83x 06:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fair, no one ever showed me that screenshot before, and I didn't catch that background data in the episode. That doesn't change that the bulk of the episode is fancruft, so I'm putting the afd tag back. Please don't take that off for no reason either. Staxringold 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the big question is whether or not this should be a separate article from the main West Wing article. I think that there can be more added to this article, and as such, it probably should stand apart as re-incorporating it into the main article can make it convoluted. - Keillan 15:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Maybe

There's definitely some work to be done. I don't know if it should be deleted or not but the second theory reads just like the first one and makes a lot less sense. At least put a clean up tag on it. - 69.162.26.132 05:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (signature added by Scm83x 05:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC))

The conversation concerning this article's deletion is over. The second theory was just recently added back by User:WestWingTheory. It had been there in the past but was deleted in order to get the article past a AfD. I will try to work through the second theory when I get a chance, but remember to be bold when editing. If you see something that needs to be done, do it. Don't wait for someone else to do it and get the credit for your idea. Thank you. -Scm83x 05:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible page move

During this article's AfD, a better page name was discussed. I think the article should move. I like Timeline issues in The West Wing. What does everyone think? I will move the article in 24 hours if there's no objection. Thanks! -Scm83x 10:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I like the new name and have no objection to it. Just remember though, when you change the name of the article, you must update the name on the pages that link to the article. -- OldRight 18:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon's early resignation

The early resignation theory is full of highly unsubstantiated guesses and original research. I eliminated all of the portions of this text that are not strictly needed to explain the theory. This article was almost deleted because of the original research and fancruft portions. I am trying to eliminate those portions and avoid another AfD. Thank you. -Scm83x 21:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There are currently two issues in this article. Where the missing year went and the (to be honest) silly guesses at why the elections are off by two years. Neither deserve their own article. The missing year is important enough to mention (briefly) in the main article: The show started less than a year into the first year in office, the second season spans, say, 1.5 years - 2.5 years, and so on, until the fourth, which spawns 3.5 ~ 4.5 years. This is made evident by comments, midterms, State of the Unions, and the elections in the middle of the fourth season (sticking it right at year 4.0). The fifth season, in turn, is missing nearly a year. John Wells has cast this aside saying the show started around year 1.5, not 0.5, but we see this is wrong. The writers in the fifth/sixth seasons were just sloppy and/or wanted to get to the elections.
The remaining theories about Nixon and everything else are silly. The show has elections two years off simply because that is what it has. It is a TV show. And this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Rlove 21:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Clinton

Question... His portrait is seen in the Sit room and his policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is in effect, but he's not in the theoretical presidential line... Staxringold 03:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a TV show. It is a mistake, a joke, an omission, or an attempt to make fans go crazy. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Rlove 03:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
When do we see his picture? What ep or what is the situation aurrounding the ep? -Scm83x 03:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I knew you were going to ask that. I honestly can't remember, I just know I've seen Clinton's portrait in the sit room. Staxringold 02:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The dates

I'm a bit confused by the article. Are the dates of Nixon etc actually mentioned in the show? If not, it seems rather silly to infer the dates in the shows universe must match up with real life dates. From this article, the presidential terms are 2 years off from the real life presidential terms. So unless the dates are actually mentioned in the show, it could equally be true that Nixon's term was 2 years diff from the real life dates Nil Einne 11:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the dates are never mentioned. At one point Josh (I think) says "since Nixon" so the man lived but not necessarily as President. To be honest, as I keep repeating like a broken record, this whole article is fan speculation and not encyclopedic in content whatsoever. Rlove 17:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Real-life discontinuities/characters referenced

I think this article is West Wing "cruft", but I also think cruft should be much more allowed on Wikipedia than it is now. For that reason, this article ought to stop hiding itself as *purely* encyclopedic. At any rate, I noticed a reference to George Bush in a recent episode and I thought this was worth putting into the article, and any such references that poke holes in the timeline skew theory ought to be added as well. I think the timeline skew theories are important and interesting as well, but quite obviously they are not meant to be precise and they are not airtight. However, as long as we're going to have an article about them, it's worth noting where the skew is violated, especially when it comes to references to contemporary political figures, such as our current or last President. Ario 23:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Snap, I got owned. I just listened again and she does indeed say George *Washington*. She lowers her voice and speaks quickly, so it sounded a lot like Bush. Sorry for the mix up. Ario 08:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes referenced

Since some episodes were written by people who were more aware of the rest of the West Wing Universe than others (because some episodes were written by guest writers), I think it's important to document where the references made in the article came from. This is also in line with Wikipedia standards anyway, so from now on when people make another reference, try to make your best effort to cite the episode and the time into the episode where the reference is from. This should also be done with already-existing references at some point. Ario 23:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ronald Reagan Institute of Emergency Medicine

In the second season episode "In The Shadow of Two Gunmen Part II" Toby Ziegler and Ron Butterfield are filmed in Washington D.C. talking outside the emergency facility at George Washington University Medical Center. Has can clearly be seen from watching the episode the facilty is called The Ronald Reagan Institute of Emergency Medicine not the Ronald Reagan Ambulatory Care Center. According to it's web site it was established in 1991 and named such for its role in saving the life of President Reagan after the 1981 assassination attempt.

[edit] Problem with the timeline and Carl Albert

Something that bothers me about the attempt to explain the timeline being two years off "the real world" is the whole situation with Carl Albert becoming president and then calling a "special presidential election" under provisions of the 1886 Presidential Succession Act.

The 1947 Act specifically states that "An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that..." and then mentions a couple of exceptions which are not germaine to this case. In this case, subsection (a) refers to the Speaker becoming president due to the presidency and vice-presidency being vacant.

It seems to me that the 1947 act supercedes the 1886 Act, and therefore a special election could not be called. Albert could still become president, but he would have served until Nixon's second term expired on Jan 20, 1977.

I've never edited a Wiki page, and didn't want to futz things up unless people thought it was a resonable change.


[edit] The table of Presidents in this article

It could well be wrong. In "The Stormy Present", Newman says something about Lassiter calling him to offer advice, which implies that Lassiter was President before Newman. How many Presidents frequently take calls from someone running for their job from the opposite party? I always assumed that we had 8 years of Lassiter, 4 of Newman, and then 4 of an unidentified Republican, although that is all speculation. A lot like this article, really.

[edit] Edit about reference to H.W. Bush

Danny's reference to CJ as "Bushleague" wasn't referring to President Bush. "Bushleague" is a colloquial English term to refer to the minor leagues, hence, her offence at him calling her an amateur.

[edit] Special Election

I removed speculation regarding a special election following Nixon's resignation. The quoted legislation from the 1800's was rendered irrelevant by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, which provides no provision for an election under "extraordinary circumstances". Also, it is unlikely that the GOP would allow a sitting Republican president to throw away control of the White House, considering what public sentiment regarding the Republican Party was in the wake of Nixon's resignation.

[edit] The two theories

What exactly is the difference between the TV Zone theory and the theory below it? The article says the TV Zone theory is negated, because we know the 25th Amendment was passed; but it then goes on to state what appears to be the same theory. What difference would the 25th Amendment make - with or without it, Carl Albert becomes President when Nixon resigns and then calls a special election.

[edit] Sources

  • Can someone please provide some sources for this? As it is, there really isn't much verified information here. If after a couple weeks or so this isn't sourced, I will nominate this article for deletion. Wickethewok 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleting an article is not the proper way to fix referencing issues and threatening to delete an established article if sourcing is not provided is silly. Please see already completed AfD for this article. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If material can't be verified, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Its as simple as that. The entire article is a "referencing issue", as you put it. Simply slapping {{references}} on an article doesn't fix it. I believe that almost all of this article is unverifiable. If you prove me wrong, I'm perfectly happy. Wickethewok 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest that if nobody provides that verification than you propose the article be stripped down to its facts and those merged with the main article on the TV series, rather than simply deleting?
Actually, reading through the article, it's clear only one section is a "referencing problem" - the one on the theory of Nixon's early retirement. The rest is all referenced to particular episodes, interviews, etc. I'll move the tags to that section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.7.135.24 (talk • contribs).
  • Yes, several sections do mention parts of episodes, but then these sections go on to create a new synthesis/analysis, which is original research. Wickethewok 13:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
They draw some basic conclusions, like pointing out where one thing contradicts another, or contradicts reality. But that's all linked to primary sources. The first of the explanations offered refers to secondary sources. It's only the last two explanations contain uncited theories. 62.7.135.24 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I added some of the creative itent stuff, which is directly taken from the epsiodes should not be delted which is the same as the comparrison to the real world part of the article which again is based on information from epsiodes.

  • Absolutely terrible that this rubbish didn't get deleted... Wickethewok 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/Talk%7ETimeline_skew_theories_for_The_West_Wing_3e5a.html"