Talk:All the President's Men

Untitled
There seems to be an error on the DVD of this movie: Bob Woodward's birthdate is given as 1944, while the correct date seems to be March 26, 1943 in all other sources I could find. I've also noted this on the Bob Woodward talk page. -tristanreid


 * How come this article is about the film, giving the briefest metnion of the book, when the book is at least as important and significant as the film? It should really have a re-write to cover both. -R. fiend 21:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No one is stopping you... :) Cburnett 22:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess I can take a stab at it, though other than having read the book I don't know a hell of a lot about it. -R. fiend 23:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The page has gotten really quote heavy now. This is generally why I dislike quotes in these articles except in the most famous examples; damn slippery slope. Anyway, remove some? Remove all? Transwiki to wikiquote? -R. fiend 06:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redford Produced?
At the beginning of the movie there's a credit which says "A Robert Redford, Alan J. Pakula Film", but Redford's not actually listed as a producer anywhere in the credits. I think it's probably correct and should be left as is. -- Pangloss
 * The DVD credits list Walter Coblenz as the producer; IMDb confirms this. Neither list Redford as the producer; I've changed the text accordingly. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 19:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Redford says he's a producer in the DVD's commentary track 66.36.146.182 00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Source of title of book?

 * The article says that the book's title derives from the Robert Penn Warren's Huey Long roman à clef All the King's Men. Do we have a source for this? Isn't it possible that ATPM, like ATKM, is a direct reference to the "Humpty Dumpty" rhyme? (i.e. that the president "fell" in the Watergate, and all the president's men--despite their cover-up efforts--couldn't "put Humpty together again", i.e., save the presidency.) -- Narsil 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree...I'm curious about that myself -??? 03:56, 9 January 2007 User:70.252.139.195

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All the President& → All the President's Men &mdash; It's a famous non-fiction work, not a novel. Deserves the name slot per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Recent move made no sense. — Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or move to All the President's Men (book)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support a quick revert of today's move, then discuss a proposal if necessary. No need for a dab page for only two articles; the hatnote still points directly to the film. Links are now pointing to a dab page instead of the article. And "novel" is just plain wrong. Station1 (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I've temporarily redirected All the President's Men here pending discussion, easily revertible. See here for the dab page that had been created. Station1 (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DAB. If there's no current collision, then adding a disambiguator should be avoided. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 07:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support All the President's Men already redirects here and the book is not a novel. Per Ohms Law.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The book is famous in it's own right, the film is derivative, and with only two ambiguous items, a separate disambiguation page is not needed. Hatnotes can handle this. older ≠ wiser 17:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Historical accuracy and impact?
How about a discussion of the historical accuracy of this book? There's none here or in the movie.

How about a discussion of the cultural impact of the book? How did this book impact the public perception of Watergate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.240.111 (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)