Talk:The West Wing

Redirect
If this just redirects to The West Wing (TV series), shouldn't that article be moved back to this name? -- Chuq (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed - why should the main entry for "The West Wing" be to a television series?

LookingGlass (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Chuq was talking about when this article wasn't under the current name. "West Wing" points to the part of the White House, and "The West Wing", which is the actual name of the show (with "the") is this article's name. Seems to work fine. – Toon (talk)  15:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Top-secret military space shuttle
I am not convinced that removing my minor contribution as "rv speculation" is the correct way ahead. The addition I made was :


 * ", a possible allusion to the persistent Blackstar / Aurora / TR3 rumours"

This seems a reasonable addition to aid readers in understanding the likely back-story. I am very tempted to restore this, noting that no one "owns" a page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles). Bill Martin 20:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. Nobody is claiming ownership of the page. However, the rules are that we cannot add our own guesswork to Wikipedia. That constitutes original research. Allow me to note that your addition said that the military space shuttle was a "possible" allusion to the Blackstar rumors and that you just noted above that your addition was meant to help readers understand the "likely" back-story. The reason why I emphasize "possible" and "likely" is to show how what you're adding is not an established fact but rather your guess as to what the military shuttle alludes to (if anything). Now, it certainly might be a good guess. However, Wikipedia is a publisher of fact, not hypotheses. As such, your edit was reverted. Now, if you can find a source from one of the writers or producers of The West Wing saying that this was indeed an allusion to the Blackstar rumors, then please cite the source and then feel free to add this back. However, unless such a source is found, your addition is only guesswork. --Hnsampat 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Bill if you are satisifed with Hnsampat's answer then fair enough. If you disagree then I'm sorry to say Wikipedia policy was perfectly enunciated in that response. Mark83 23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree there is no obvious canonical reference from West Wing sources to Blackstar being the issue under discussion, in this case I still feel that this is a borderline case for being deleted under the original research Policy, since it is a "nested unknown": if the mention of Blackstar here is not permitted, then logically neither should the Blackstar pages themselves be, since they encapsulate speculation and hearsay. As these latter pages do indeed form an existence proof of the permissibility of this (widely-accepted) speculation within Wikipedia, then by extension a cross-reference to them from a fiction series (where anyone aware of the Blackstar rumour will have automatically made the connection - as a number of Blogs do indeed attest) does not seem unreasonable - indeed, it could be argued that this "guarded reference" in the West Wing, without being specific about a (non-confirmed!) name, is similar to the dramatic convention at one time in law enforcement dramas of alluding to The Mafia by a variety of euphemism or even gestures (e.g. the bent nose gesture).Bill Martin 11:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than being "a borderline case for being deleted under the original research Policy" your argument simply goes on to confirm that it is very much original research to suggest "a possible allusion." As Hnsampat said "what you're adding is not an established fact but rather your guess as to what the military shuttle alludes to (if anything)" - and as such the term "possible allusion" is extremely unencyclopedic. Also, whether the Blackstar article is complete garbage or a featured article is not relevant in this instance, rather it is your assertion of a possible allusion to the subject of that article. The fact that you invoke what bloggers are saying further weakens your argument in my opinion. Mark83 13:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, rumors of military space vehicles have been in existence since the beginning of the space age. There's no reason to believe that The West Wing is referring specifically to Blackstar. It could be referring to any of a number of rumored military space vehicles. It is merely our guesswork that the reference is to Blackstar and not something else. --Hnsampat 15:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the time context, I think the Blackstar link is likely. Nonetheless, I don't think it's worth any more of any of our time discussing this further. NRN.Bill Martin 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm glad you mentioned the timing. Note that the Blackstar article indicates that Aviation Week first reported on the possible existence of Blackstar in March 2006. However, the military space shuttle is introduced at the end of season 6 of the show i.e. in March 2005, a full year earlier. Unless the producers and writers of The West Wing knew about Blackstar (presuming that it's real) a full year before Aviation Week reported on it, then I think this rules out the possibility of Blackstar being the source for The West Wing's military shuttle. --Hnsampat 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Aviation Week was hardly the first place that the Aurora / Blackstar / TR3 issues came up, but as this page seems to attract such a surprising degree of zealousness in content policing (an interesting inversion of the subject's status as a work of fiction) I propose we let the Blackstar topic drop.-- Bill Martin 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well, but please don't accuse me of "content policing." To quote something Toby once said to Sam on The West Wing, "It's not that I'm not listening or that I'm not understanding; I'm doing both at the same time. I am disagreeing with you, Sam." Likewise, I am not "content policing"; I am disagreeing with you. I have acted in good faith this entire time and it was not appropriate for you to accuse me of "content policing" (just as it was inappropriate at the beginning of this discussion for you to accuse me of claiming ownership on this article). I'm sorry if you were disappointed that if this discussion did not go in your favor, but please don't make such accusations. I just wanted to say that much. And yes, let's drop the issue now. --Hnsampat 11:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Real World Events- Iraq?
I posted a paragraph to the Exploration of Real World Issues section comparing similarites between Bartlet's military interventions in Kazakhstan and Palestine and Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was deleted because of the former being peacekeeping and the latter being a war of choice. Here's what I wrote:

The 2003 Iraq War also did not occur in The West Wing continuity, but two American military involvements in sixth and seventh seasons did seem to draw some similarites to the invasion of Iraq and the controversy surrounding it. At the beginning of season six, Bartlet deploys a force of 18,000 American troops (along with 2,000 European troops) to Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as part of a peace deal struck between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Some characters in the show voice concerns about President Bartlet deploying American troops in the hostile Middle East on a long-term basis with no clear exit strategy, criticisms that intensify when the first American soldier is killed there. In the seventh season, Bartlet deploys around 130,000 troops to Kazakhstan in order to prevent a war there between Russia and China over Kazakhstani oil supplies and to establish a democratic government. Bartlet is again criticized for making a long-term commitment with no clear exit strategy and for attempting to introduce democracy to an unstable state with little history of it. The criticisms of both missions parallel criticisms of the Bush Administration over the handling of the Iraq war.

I realise the differences, but there does seem to be some similarities and so it may be intended to be very loosely based on Iraq. The mentions of the lack of an exit strategies seems particularly relevant. Anyone else agree? If not I'll drop this. EJB341 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree (to others: I was the one who removed the passage). Primarily because the link between criticisms of the Iraq War and criticisms in the show is unproven and is thus original research. However even putting that to one side - to take the Kazakhstan story for example; Bartlet actually berates the Defense Secretary for doing his job badly, i.e. not planning for cold weather combat. That shows a considered approach. In contrast I think its fair to say that it is a widely held view now that planning of post-invasion Iraq was spectacularly inept. Mark83 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of what The West Wing does, however, is to take real-world events and then re-imagine them in the context of how Josiah Bartlet (an ideal president) would handle them. So, to that end, I do believe that Kazakhstan and the Middle East stuff are meant to be fictionalized, re-imagined versions of Iraq. However, I do agree with Mark83 that this whole matter is original research and so we should probably leave this out of the article. --Hnsampat 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Ford
OK, if the last mentioned real life president in the West Wing was Richard Nixon, can't we then infer that Gerald Ford came afterwards just like he did in real life? --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 10:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really, because, using that logic, we could then infer that Carter came after that and then Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and then Bush Jr. And then, there'd be no room for you, Mr. President. :) --Hnsampat 14:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger are NOT Senior and Junior as they do not share the same name. Similar, but not the same.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm...using that logic, no you wouldn't, actually. I only mention that because Ford was his vice president and since Nixon obviously resigned in the West Wing timeline, Ford would be president. How the election of 1976 went, if it went, is anyone's guess. --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the show never actually mentions Nixon's resignation. It only mentions Nixon by name at some point. Even if it does mention Nixon's resignation, that doesn't necessarily mean that Gerald Ford took over. In the West Wing universe, Nixon's VP could have been Owen Lassiter for all we know. --Hnsampat 19:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't it be assumed that Nixon was pretty much Nixon unless the show specifies otherwise? --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 08:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it can't. Since we're dealing with a fictional work, we really should presume that it is different from our universe unless stated otherwise. And even if Nixon was Nixon, there's no telling whether or not Gerald Ford was his successor in the West Wing universe. The whole point is somewhat mute, though. Since the show never states whether or not Gerald Ford was President in the West Wing universe, we can only speculate, and speculation is original research.--Hnsampat 14:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeesh...alright. Sorry. --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 09:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please understand that I wasn't trying to squash your opinion. I do, however, disagree with the notion that mentioning Nixon automatically implies that Ford also exists in the West Wing universe.--Hnsampat 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While it's not established fact, and therefore not for addition to the article, the fan community tends to go with the the idea that, because of the constitutional crisis caused by the resignations of both Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, some emergency constitutional amendment caused a Presidential election in 1974, realigning the election calendar by two years and diverging from history.--(207.172.249.139 (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

References to other Sorkin works
I will agree with Hnsampat that this section isn't particularly appropriate. Not only is the section completely unreferenced, it really doesn't add much to the article aside from trivia. And they're not even references to other works -- they're just originally researched parallels and coincidences. At most, we should only have a brief mention that there are a few parallels, like we do in the "Evolution" section. Anything more is overemphasized trivia. -- RG2 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna have to agree with you on the same grounds. This page should be about the West Wing itself, not unrelated stuff mentioned in the context of the show. Should we discuss deletion? --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll just remove the section now. -- RG2 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome. --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 19:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the bit about Sorkin writing 85 of the first 88 episodes. I just thought it was important to stress how much control he had over the show.


 * Could you add a reliable source for that? I.e. how do you know that? — User:the ed17 22:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just flipped through my DVD sets, and Sorkin wrote or co-wrote 84 of 88 episodes (two episodes in season 1 and two episodes in season 4 he had zero writing credit). A link you could use is http://www.tv.com/aaron-sorkin/person/3265/appearances.html, but unfortunately all his writing credits are listed, forcing the user to scroll down to view TWW episodes.


 * A reliable source for this is certainly IMDB.com. That site would list all credited writers for each episode.  The main problem is that the site is broken up by season and episode.  There is a page which lists the writing credits in total for the series, but Sorkin is credit with 155 episodes, even though everything after Season 4 he was only listed as "creator" and he didn't actually pen any drafts.Kp.murphy (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, everything on IMDb is user-submitted and IMDb is not fact-checked, which makes it unreliable for our purposes. :( --Hnsampat (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton Does Exist in the West Wing Universe
In the episode about the DEA agents in Columbia, Clinton's picture is hanging on the wall in the Situation room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.191.242 (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure it's Clinton? I'll have to check that out. --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Bill was President Bartlet's favourite saxophonist?ColourSarge 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia
I saw the request by Philip Stevens and I've begun recording the most recent version of the article, as edited by Hnsampat. Looking at the page history, it looks like any major issues have been sorted out and the article is pretty stable. This will be my first recording for the Spoken Wikipedia project, so of course I'm open to any suggestions or constructive criticism. Jjacobsmeyer (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The spoken version claims the show "is currently in its seventh season," implying the show is still running. The last episode was shown on May 14, 2006. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Qumar, Equatorial Kundu
Content from the above two articles has been merged into this article per Articles for deletion/Equatorial Kundu. Neıl ☎  11:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the two more extensive Qumar and Kundu articles be worked into a separate List of fictional places in The West Wing article, as previously suggested? It would be along the lines of the List of fictional places in Yes Minister article. The San Andreo article could also be merged into that, along with brief mentions of the Sahelise Republic and Hartsfield's Landing (NH) and any other fictional places that have come up. EJB341 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Sahilese Republic" was mentioned only once as far as I know, and that, too, only in passing. No real information exists about it. Not much has been said about San Andreo or Hartsfield's Landing either, even though entire episodes did focus on them, except that the former is supposed to represent a "typical" nuclear power plant in California and the latter is a fictional version to Hart's Location. Basically, there's not enough information out there about the handful of fictional places mentioned on The West Wing to justify a separate article. Qumar and Equatorial Kundu played some more prominent roles in several story arcs and so they are more significant fictional places than any of these others. The information about Qumar and Equatorial has been incorporated rather nicely into the current article. There is no need for a separate article. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose. But we should still defenitely merge the San Andreo article into the domestic section then, something like this;

Fictional locations inside the United States have been created to loosely represent certain places.

I just saw the season 7 episode "The Cold" and Qumar is clearly absent from a map of the Persian Gulf. I added the note in the article, but I certainly have no evidence that it's an intentional omission. If someone wants to delete, go for it. I'm still new to this contributing to Wikipedia thing...

San Andreo
San Andreo is a fictional Californian city. It is located near to San Diego. has a population of 42,000 and is the location of the San Andreo Nuclear Generating Station. The city's title, Spanish for St. Andrew, seems to be an attempt at an ambiguously Californian locale, due to the prevalence of Spanish place names in the region.

A near meltdown at the nuclear plant becomes the focus of an October surprise for Republican nominee Senator Arnold Vinick during the 2006 presidential election, due to Vinick's strong pro-nuclear stance and revelations of his active lobbying for the construction of the plant. This was seen to be a key factor in Vinick's narrow defeat in the election by Democratic nominee Congressman Matt Santos.


 * The location ("near San Diego") and other references in the episode, including its position near I-5, clearly make me think of San Onofre. Not sure how to work this into the existing format. AlanM1 (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't. You have to have a reliable source that indicates San Andreo is San Onofre.  It's common sense, of course, that it is, but without a source, there's nothing that can be added per WP:OR ~

And if you want to add Hartsfield...

Hartsfield's Landing
Hartsfield's Landing is a town in New Hamsphire. It is stated to be a very small community of only 63 people, of whom 42 are registered voters, that votes at one minute past twelve on the day of the New Hampshire primary, hours before the rest of the state, and has accurately predicted the winner of every presidential election since William Howard Taft in 1908. It is based on the true New Hampshire communities of Hart's Location and Dixville Notch, which in real life do vote before the rest of the state during the primaries. EJB341 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. (By the way I put the "nowiki" command around your comments above, just so it wouldn't create a huge section here. :) )--Hnsampat (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, I'll add them then. I'm not sure on how tol merge/delete articles, so you might want to go do that to the separate San Andreo article once I've added it under here. EJB341 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Once you've added the relevant information from those smaller articles into the main one, all you have to do is change the smaller articles into redirects to the main one. So, for San Andreo, just delete all of the text on that page and add the following: #REDIRECT The West Wing --Hnsampat (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Neıl ☎  14:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Qumar

In the first 10 seconds of "College Kids," the camera zooms out from the main strategy display in the White House Situation room after showing a satellite view of fictional Qumar which apparently replaces | Hormozgan Province in southern Iran at the Straight of Hormuz (27.01°N 55.30°E). Also displayed within the Qumari borders are references to "Jatara" and "Jabal Nafusah" which could be intended as fictional town and resident Libyan ethnic group, respectively. Veritas100 (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)mrbill66

Women of Qumar
Just watched this episode on DVD. I believe it's noteworthy as CJ confronts the issue of womens abuse and human rights in areas that USA requires for oil, military base or strategic alliance etc. More and more topical as the horrific treatment becomes more well known. Any comments? Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Timeline skew
I added a note in the timeline skew section commenting how the fact that the Republicans had the White House for eight years prior to Bartlet is a bit incongruous with the statement that Ashland has been Chief Justice for twelve years at some point in Bartlet's second term (i.e., he first was appointed chief at some point during a Republican presidency), as this seems like a continuity error and a point worth noting, but this was unceremoniously removed without explanation. Any reason why this shouldn't be in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.177.90.3 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contributing. However, that constitutes original research, which is why it was removed. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole "Fictional Timeline" section is made up of such observations, though. The section is nearly completely unreferenced, and yes, the process of picking a few select details from seven TV seasons to create an argument about the nature of the West Wing timeline could easily be construed as original research. Worse, it's not clearly explained how most of those details are relevant, the most obvious point of departure (the election cycle is offset by two years from reality) is buried near the end, and until my edit (which was reverted by Hnsampat), it was confusingly written because the different pieces of information are inconsistent, but the text did not acknowledge the conflicts. I'm pretty sure sources could be found that comment on the most important points (Nixon as the last acknowledged real-world president, two-year offset in election cycle, attempts to create ambiguity about the year(s) the show is set in). As for the other details and theories, various fan sites certainly point them out, but I'm not convinced those are reliable sources. Maybe it would be best to just say something like "viewers have attempted to piece together the history between the Nixon and Bartlet administrations from information stated or implied in the show, some of it apparently inconsistent," and link to something like The Unofficial West Wing Continuity Guide. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: edit comment "06:00, 4 January 2009 Hnsampat (Talk | contribs) (69,477 bytes) (There's no "conflict" because it's perfectly conceivable for an administration to have a Cabinet member of the opposite party (Bush had Norman Mineta and Obama will have Robert Gates and Ray LaHood))" I don't find the idea of Leo as a cabinet member in a Republican administration remotely plausible, but I'll concede that it is technically possible. However, if it's simply a comment about Leo's career, not a clue about the administration in power at that time, it's not relevant in this section. -Snarkibartfast (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Constitution skew
There are certain instances in WW that make me think there must have been a subtle difference in the Constitution in the WW universe.The re-timing of the presidential elections,Bartlet's last-episode reference to the January 20th inauguration day as a decision of the framers rather than a 1930s amendment,and how the choice of a vice president for Santos is handled. Under the real world constitution,any of the electors voting for any candidates would throw the choice of a VP to the Senate,with only the two top candidates chosen by those Electors permitted to be considered.Several states actually have statutes requiring Electors to choose the nominees of their parties,and some legislatures would not be in session to waive those penalties.The 25th Amendement procedure would never be involved.--L.E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you're completely wrong about that.  According to the 25th Amendment, upon being sworn in Santos would then submit the name of his choice of Vice President.  Nothing whatsoever to do with the electors.


 * Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.170 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

2006 Election
I have always assumed Santos was always meant to win the 2006 election, agreeing with John Wells account ahead of Lawrence O'Donnell's. At the start of series 7, when now ex-President Bartlett is awaiting for the incoming President to arrive at the dedication of his Presidential Library, its Josh Lyman who arrives to inform the group that the President has arrived. Given that Lyman is running the Santos Campaign, it can be assumed that Lyman would be a significant figure in the Santos administration and therefore likely to be informing that President Santos has arrived. This section was aired before John Spencer's death. (Also Leo McGarry's absence from this scene can be explained by him now being Vice President in the original filming, as surely if it was supposed to be President Vinnick then surely McGarry would be present at the gathering.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markymark74 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No dice, homey. The writers themselves have stated that Vinick was originally slated to win the election, but with the death of John Spencer, the writers felt that it was really messed up to lose his running mate and the election in the same day. --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have heard (though I don't know how reliable the source is) that Wells contradicts the writers and says that Santos was always slated to win, and that the writers are therefore "misleading" the viewers (i.e. lying). I'm somewhat inclined to believe him. Even before the episode showing the winner aired, I always predicted a Santos win based on how much the series had focused on him (and comparatively much less on Vinick) as well as the general tone of the episodes. But, that's just my hunch. And, of course, until we get a reliable source quoting Wells as contradicting the writers, we go with what the writers say. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam Seaborn's second position
Didn't Sam get a 2nd position after he lost in California? It was said when Toby convinced Jed to hire Will as Toby's Deputy. Osfan1011 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The show doesn't make it clear that Sam lost in California. The line of dialogue that you're talking about is from "Inauguration: Over There" and is equally ambiguous. It's not enough for us to go on to say that Sam actually had some kind of position in the White House after being Deputy Communications Director. The fact that we never see him again until the 7th season implies that he left the White House at that point. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen literally episode several times. The way I see it, he doesn't get another position until the Santos White House, in which it appears that he is given the roll of Deputy Chief of Staff, but this isn't even entirely certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.32.227 (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In "Inauguration: Over There" it is clearly stated that Sam has no hope of winning his election. Thata doesn't neceesarily mean he didn't; however if he had won it he would still be an incumbent when Josh approaches him in season 7 (which he clearly isn't). However it's all irrelevant as his 'second position' is obviously irrelevant to the show and so we don't need to record it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If Sam had won the election he would have served the remainder of the term, which would have lasted until January 3rd, 2005 meaning he could have won the special election and lost or chose not to run for re-election which would result in him not being a congressman in season 7. frantarkentonshailmary (talk) -- 05:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Camera style
When talking about the long tracking shot I think we should make explicit mention of the huge long tracking of Leo that opens the first episode. Any objections? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * None here, that type of thing became one of the trademarks of the show, the opening scene was no accident 76.182.32.227 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you watch the scene a little more closely, it's not at all the single tracking shot that our memory gives it credit for being. While Leo is in continuous motion, there are numerous edits.Claude (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

West Wing as a Teaching Tool
Would it be inappropriate to add a column to the table of main characters listing their modern day real-world counterparts in the White House? This would help people watching the show to relate the duties of the fictional White House with those of the present-day non-fictional one.

What say ye? 167.230.38.115 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that doing that might inadvertently imply more of a correlation than we want it to imply. It might imply that the character is similar in personality or in influence to the real-life counterpart. Besides, I think the fact that we have wikilinked to articles about the positions is sufficient. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast order in infobox
Minor issue, and I don't have a preference either way, but there was a recent edit (and other past edits) to the order of the cast in the infobox that was subsequently reverted. I appreciate that the cast may should be listed alphabetically since it is listed that way in the credits for the most part. However, if we're going to not list Smits and Sheen alphabetically, then shouldn't we put Lowe and Kelly at the top of the list since they were the "headliners" while they were members of the cast? The alternative (imho) would be to put all of the cast members in alphabetical order. My goal here is to avoid any other reverts or a possible edit war. Apr1fool (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Update
This just came up again. For what it's worth, this appears to be the only time this has been brought to talk recently; I think the order should be altered to list main cast members first. Even though it's an ensemble cast, listing Alda first just seems weird to me. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I argree, the order should be altered to list main cast members first User:Silverhorse 28 April 2009


 * I, too, like the idea and agree that listing Alan Alda first is a bit odd. However, is there really any objective way of deciding who goes first, who goes second, etc.? For instance, one might argue that Martin Sheen should be listed first, because he plays the President of the United States. However, the show also doesn't really focus on Bartlet as much as it focuses on Josh, Sam, and C.J. So, do we list them first? So, I propose this: how about we list the actors in the order used in the 2nd to 4th seasons, since that was the 3 solid seasons with no cast changes, and then add the other actors on to the end, in the order in which they appeared? That would make the order this: Rob Lowe, Stockard Channing, Dule Hill, Allison Janney, Janel Moloney, Richard Schiff, John Spencer, Bradley Whitford, Martin Sheen, Moira Kelly, Joshua Malina, Mary McCormack, Kristin Chenoweth, Jimmy Smits, Alan Alda. Does this work? If that doesn't work, then we should either put the cast in strict alphabetical order (Alda, Channing, Chenoweth, Hill, Janney, Kelly, Lowe, Malina, McCormack, Schiff, Sheen, Smits, Spencer, Whitford) or in the exact order they were credited (Alda, Lowe, Channing, Hill, Janney, Kelly, Malina, McCormack, Moloney, Schiff, Spencer, Whitford, Smits, Sheen). Thoughts? --Hnsampat (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Order by credit roll from season 4 followed by the rest in order of appearance sounds like a plan to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Several users recently have changed the cast order to the following: Lowe, Alda, Channing, Hill, Kelly, Chenoweth, Janney, Malina, McCormack, Moloney, Schiff, Spencer, Whitford, Smits, Sheen. This basically combines all of the cast orders from all of the seasons into one list, maintaining the order from each season. I do feel that this is an improvement upon all previous versions, but I'd also like to register my objection with those users making such changes without regard to the discussion there, even after I pointed out that this discussion existed and constituted a consensus (which User:Darrenhusted disagreed with). Nonetheless, this doesn't need to become a point of contention, as I do believe that the current cast order is good, fair, and one that people can agree on. --Hnsampat (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

and then a running mate from a small Republican state?
Last I checked Democratic registration in West Virginia was much higher than Republican numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.161.90 (talk) 07:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Typically when calling a state "Republican" or "Democratic" a person is refering to how they have traditionally voted in presidential elections, specifically 2000 & 2004. As in "Red State" or "Blue State". This may change due to Pres.-Elect Obama's large win of red states (Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Nevada).148.78.243.26 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Popularity
Can anyone give any decent figures for the popularity of the series? Strikes me there are three series running up to the latest elections West Wing, Commander-in-Chief, and 24, that oddly mimic the results. LookingGlass (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the point that this section was trying to make is that the Presidential Election that occurs during Season 7 of "The West Wing" happened 2 years BEFORE the actual Presidential election of 2008. Other series may mimic election circumstances for effect, but the Santos vs. Vinick election virtually foreshadowed the Obama vs. Clinton primary AND the Obama vs. McCain general election.Kp.murphy (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WW and 2008 Election
I've significantly pruned the discussion of similarities between the election and WW to what is actually referenced, removing original research and a couple disconnected statements. As it was, the section was far from encyclopedic and a major violation of WP:OR. The presence of a few reliable sources used to back up original research doesn't alter that. I'm still uncomfortable with the whiff of a suggestion that WW was somehow precognitive and able to anticipate the outcome of the election two years in advance. That's absurd. Moreover, I don't consider the Times of London a particularly reliable source where an American show is concerned (regarding Josh Lymon), especially given there is no similar documentation of the character's origins in the American media. This reads more like one writer's speculation than anything concrete. Likewise, what had the Bartlet interview with Obama got to do with this section? Find a place it fits or leave it out. Drmargi (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said, but I have reinstated the Emanuel bit - with a citation from ABC News. See also this Sun-Times article, this at US Magazine (!) and this at People.
 * -- Dafyd (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

CNN recently did a bit on both Josh Lymon being "possibly" inspired by Obama'a new chief-of-staff and on the last season being very similar to how the 2008 election played out (an outsider minority, new to congress, defeats in the primaries an establishment pick, goes on to win against a moderate non-christian right republican.) and also goes to show a clip of an interview with one of the writers on how obama was one of the inspirations for the jimmy smits character. I assume no one (other than a republican fox news watcher) would have a problem with CNN being a reliable source?148.78.243.26 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They're a reliable source, but what are they sourcing? I'm just concerned with drawing a line between fact and speculation on their part about what might be nothing more than coincidence. Drmargi (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Under the guidelines of "encyclopedia"; shouldn't we eliminate any comparisons to the 2008 election or any other real life events (since the show ended)? -- Mjquin_id (talk)
 * Not all comparisons. The fact is, many reliable third-party sources (including the Washington Post) have reported on these uncanny similarities between how events play out in the 6th and 7th seasons of The West Wing and how they played out in the 2008 election. What we need to be on the lookout for, however, is people adding originally researched similarities, i.e., similarities that have not been reported on in reliable third-party source. --Hnsampat (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears a couple OR additions have snuck in recently, hiding behind a legitimate source. Drmargi (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New Reading
Hey, Please check out the new recording...and leave comments here... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, America can!
I one of the episodes (the one with Jon Bon Jovi, I think it's 7-15, Welcome to Wherever You Are), one of the characters on the Santos campaign mentions Bon Jovi stealing their catchphrase. The catchphrase was "Yes, America can!", which is strikingly similar to president-elect Obama's "Yes we can!"

Should this be mentioned somehow in the Similarities section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.211.166 (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Only if we can find a reliable source saying that Obama's campaign deliberately copied the Santos campaign slogan, because otherwise we're just engaging in original research. Thanks for your find! --Hnsampat (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, do your homework. "Yes We Can!" was one of the battle cries of the American civil rights movement. If anything, "The West Wing" adapted it for their own uses, but Barak Obama certainly didn't "copy" anything from TWW.Drmargi (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The show didn't use "Yes We Can!" for their own uses. They used "Yes, America Can!". I was simply noting the similarity between Obama's catchphrase ("Yes We Can!") and the Santos campaign's catchphrase ("Yes, American Can!"). The last thing I need is to be talked down by you, when all I'm doing is making what might be a worthy contribution to the page. Keep your attitude to yourself, Drmargi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.211.166 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. The insinuation was Obama has somehow stolen a slogan from WW and adapted it. And please sign your posts. Drmargi (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Drmargi, I agree with you that we shouldn't be adding this "similarity" without a reliable source. However, please don't bite the newcomers. As a fellow established user, I just want to point out to you that you're being a bit unnecessarily harsh here with the IP user. You might strongly disagree with the very notion of adding information like this, but please remember to be civil. Thanks for understanding! --Hnsampat (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hnsampat. Drmargi can lick it.  Times of London not a reliable source?  Lick it.  Stuff it and lick it.


 * By the way, it was stolen from the Jungle Brothers: "Africa 'cause AfriCAN!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.71 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This whole civility thing works both ways. Just because Drmargi might have been out of line this time with this user doesn't give you free license to be uncivil with him. Also, for what it's worth, I think that the link you're pushing between "Yes, American can!" (or "Yes we can!") and "Africa cause AfriCAN!" is weak at best. Hardly enough to say it was "stolen." --Hnsampat (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How did this chestnut get dug up? First off, I don't agree I was uncivil, or out of line in this case, especially when such unsubstantiated claims of stealing were made.  But more importantly, why on earth is this still worth discussing all this time later?  Drmargi (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we might be extending the definition far beyond the spirit of the idea. The principle of original research in academia indicates that an author uses new information beyond simple, unstructured observation.  For instance, doing some kind of literary comparison of the Santos campaign and comparing it to Obama strategy memos would constitute original research.  Pointing out the similarity between their slogans isn't.  Basically, if a newspaper columnist could mention it offhand without a source, I don't think it constitutes original research.--(207.172.249.139 (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC))


 * However, the implicit purpose of pointing out such a similarity is to imply that one inspired the other, which is a conclusion drawn from original research. Speculation = original research. In any case, even if this nugget wasn't OR, it is still trivia at best and doesn't deserve to be in the article. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This similarity has often been mentioned in articles about TWW that I've read. "Guys do your homework" seems to be Biting as the IP was clearly just chatting about it. Probably nobody can find a cite that "proves" Obama's tame got this from TWW but it's a nice idea and it is of course peculiar how much the Obama campaign mirrored the Santos campaign and not OR at all in general terms. It may be trivial, but it's fun trivia and of course not trivia at all if true - if true, it would imply that a major US Presidential campaign took as it's template a completely fictional TV show. Perish the thought that something so wierd might have an influence. Lucky that never happened with Star Trek sliding doors and through-the-skin blast injections for example. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). Ikip (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Walk and talk"

 * Am I the only one here who saw Goodfellas with its famous long tracking shot in the nightclub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.170 (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This article says The West Wing developed this camera style, but ER has already used the technique since 1994, five years before TWW started. Jerkov (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Developed" and "created" are two entirely different things. While "ER" may have been the first to implement the technique, "The West Wing" did develop it by perfecting and popularizing it.  You could accurately say it was developed in "Sportsnight" and "Studio 60" as well.Jrsightes (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say it was ER that popularized it, don't underestimate the influence this show has had on TV drama. I don't see much difference between ER and WW's useage of the style, so I don't agree that ER merely came up with it only to have WW perfect it. It was already perfected on ER by the time WW started using it. I suppose the style drew more attention on WW because the show is lower and less intense than ER; on ER people's attention would be drawn to the gory trauma scenes. Either way, I think ER deserves more credit than WW for introducing and perfecting the "walk and talk" camera style. Jerkov (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We can speculate on the reasons why ER 's use of the "walk and talk" didn't gain as much notice as The West Wing's. I personally think it's not because The West Wing is in any way "lower" than ER but rather that The West Wing is a dialogue-driven show (Aaron Sorkin himself said in the DVD interviews for Season 1 that he paid more attention to dialogue than plot development) whereas ER is intrinsically plot-driven. So, in my opinion, The West Wing did perfect it because it made the "walk and talk" an integral part of the show's format, whereas "ER" just happened to use it, without really thinking about it. But, that's all just my opinon, just as what Jerkov says above is his own opinion. The fact remains, however, that we can't dictate what does and doesn't go into the article based on our opinions on what popularized what when. Rather, we have to rely upon third-party sources, which in this case would be articles and essays written by television experts and critics. And, in that regard, they overwhelmingly credit The West Wing with the "walk and talk" technique. So, Jerkov may personally feel that this is unfair to ER, but we have to go with what the experts say. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's "unfair", I just think it's illogical for a show to be credited for "creating" a filming technique that was already being used by another show five years earlier. It's like giving The Phantom Menace credit for featuring the first CGI characters realistically interacting with live actors even though we already had Draco in Dragonheart three years earlier. I can understand the explanations for the style gaining less attention on ER (of course everyone was talking about the Steadicam in the trauma scenes), but that's not really a justification for giving WW credit for developing something it didn't develop. Don't mean to sound arrogant but the experts are simply dead wrong for claiming WW invented it. Jerkov (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not saying that The West Wing invented it. They're saying that The West Wing developed it and perfected it. It's like how technically the automobile was invented in Germany, but it was developed and perfected by Henry Ford, or how the personal computer wasn't invented by Apple Computer but it was the staple of the company and they did popularize it. The rules of Wikipedia dictate that we go based on what reliable third-party sources say, not our own feelings. Otherwise, we're engaging in original research. Personally, I'm sure we'll find shows even before ER that used the "walk-and-talk," so I'm not comfortable saying that ER invented it, either. But, people really started to notice it thanks to The West Wing. That's what the experts say, that's what we're going with. If in the future you find experts who say otherwise, then please feel free to talk about it here. --Hnsampat (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Realism, physical
I recently inserted a few lines under the existing Realism sub-heading, on aspects of non-realism, viz no central character up to the 4th Series (I haven't watched the others yet) ever exhibits any sign of perspiration, with the exception of 2 sports-related scenes involving Josh Lynam. Similarly no character ever visits the bathroom or ever gets a zit; no character's hair or clothing is ever less than perfect, with the possible exception of Toby Zeigler, and no character ever burps or utters a line that is non-pc. My point is that this appears to be deliberate 'sanitization' on someone's part and is unusual enough (compare with the earthiness of The Sopranos) to warrant a mention. It is, to me, a conspicuous and very strange feature in a series that purports to be highly realistic. To portray frantically busy adults working very long hours, 7 days a week, under some of the highest pressure imaginable, as squeaky clean Ken & Barbie creatures is about as unrealistic as you can get. HnSampat deleted my addition, at first assuming from the subject matter that I was trying to be funny, then following a dialogue, pointed out that my opinion constitutes either/both original research, or non-notability. I accept his opinion, mostly because he is more experienced in Wikipedia than I, but I still feel that the subject deserves a mention, since it is such a consistent feature of The West Wing. Has anyone else noticed the phenomenon, does anyone else care?Mygodfrey (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I don't care. It is a television program not a documentary. It is entirely non-notable, and does not merit even a passing mention. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also original research, and as such, was reverted almost immediately. Drmargi (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, accepted, no sweat. However- and please don't all shoot at once, my kevlar is at the cleaners- if as you claim, Wiki is 'open to all', aren't you being just a little militant, just a little intolerant, in imposing so zealously this code of practice? What ever happened to open-mindedness? Is it not one of the cornerstones of learning? Guidelines are one thing, but policing them as if they were civil law is quite another. For me, Wikipedia is a fount of knowledge, not an iron-clad constitution of correctness. I can imagine Jed Bartlett saying, "Hey guys, ease up, let the little guy at the back speak." Thank you, I'll shut up now.Mygodfrey (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your sentiment, but here's the thing. Wikipedia is open to all and anyone can edit it, but there also have to be principles in order to maintain some semblence of order. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be pure anarchy, which would be counterproductive to its function as an online encyclopedia. So, over time, principles have been developed through discussion and community consensus . These policies include the policies of "no original research" and "notability". If Wikipedia were to allow original research, then anybody who came up with any theory or found out anything at all could publish it in Wikipedia and we'd be forced to keep it, and that would lead to rapid proliferation of unreliable and/or untrue information. Likewise, if Wikipedia were to allow non-notable information to be published in Wikipedia, then it would quickly fill with whatever random information anybody wanted to put in. This is why the community decided to implement these policies. Remember, Wikipedia first and foremost works through consensus. (I refer you to WP:NOT and WP:FIVE for more details.) Now, if you still strongly believe that your edits are notable enough to be included in the article, then please make the case here. Otherwise, you'll just have to accept the consensus of the community here. (If you ask me, then I'll say that I'm afraid that the information you contributed completely lacks notability. This is a TV show and its primary focus is to tell interesting stories. It doesn't claim to be "realistic" or documentary in any way, certainly not with regard to showing every possible bodily function. Sure, the show has won praise for the fact that the stories tend to be written very similar to real-life events, but the show doesn't say, "Look at me! We will show you how the White House staff works, right down to every single trip to the bathroom!" In fact, the very first paragraph of the "Realism" section says that White Houe staffers say that the show "captures the feel of the White House...shorn of a thousand undramatic details"...if you ask me, that includes "undramatic details" like perspiration, urination, flatulence, messy hair, etc. (And, speaking of messy hair, ever look at Josh Lyman? That guy could really use a barber.) The fact that you're treating these extraordinarily trivial details with a great deal of seriousness was a reason why, initially, I mistook your contribution for a joke edit.) Thanks for understanding. Please do continue to contribute useful information to this article and Wikipedia. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The president smokes in a cathedral then stands out in a rain storm and gets saturated right before a press conference in which he announces he has multiple sclerosis - his hair is somewhat dishevelled at the time; Josh goes on a bender and winds up wearing foul weather rowing gear and smelling like he slept in a dumpster; CJ spills crap on the last top that didn't already have crap spilt on it and gets shot in the boob with a rubber band because of it; most everybody has sex at some point, and, like real life, it's usually awkward as hell instead of rose petals and Fabio; Zoe visits the bathroom (from whence she is abducted at gunpoint); Ainsley Hayes never opens her mouth without saying something awkward or non-pc. But you want pimples? It's a TV show for God's sake. They still have to look good in front of the camera most of the time, and you still have to want to watch it, which you probably wouldn't want to do if they showed every time Leo took a crap. It shows as much humanity as is humanly possible without resorting to fart jokes. LethalCorpse (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you've done it. They should have shown Leo taking a crap at the beginning of ever episode.  Brilliant!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.71 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

fictional elections
FYI, at Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 25, several fictional elections articles for the TV series have been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusing phrasing at beginning of article
"The series 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 (played by Martin Sheen)."

I still find this phraseology confusing and I think many other readers might, also. How about this instead?

"The series is set in the West Wing of the White House (the location of the Oval Office as well as offices of the presidential senior staff), during the fictional etc. etc."

The parentheses might help to make it more clear.

Also, "Presidential Senior Staff" should probably be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "The series is set in the West Wing of the White House—where the Oval Office and offices of presidential senior staff are located—during the...[etc.]" Also, I don't think "presidential senior staff" is capitalized. It's not a proper noun. Generally speaking, we capitalize "President" when using it as a noun (but not always, e.g., "Barack Obama was elected president" is correct, I believe). But, we almost never capitalize it when using it as an adjective (e.g., "presidential motorcade", "he spoke in a manner that was very presidential", etc.); hence, we wouldn't capitalize "presidential senior staff". --Hnsampat (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The term is capitalized when used as a title as in "President Bartlett" PrBeacon (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct. --Hnsampat (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Middle names
Is there any particular reason the infobox has president Bartlet's middle name, but no one else's? Most of them are known (Ways and Means, 3x03, and somewhere in S6/S7 for the two new candidates). On the other hand, I'm not certain where we get Edward as Bartlet's middle name - in Ways and Means, he's just named as Josiah Bartlet, and it strikes me as odd that the subpoenas would call everyone else by full name, but not the president. So, I propose we either add all the other known middle names, or remove Josiah Bartlet's. If the former, perhaps we should also consider Donnatella, Tobias, William, Katherine, Joshua, Charles, Claudia Jean, Amanda, Samuel and Matthew instead of their shortened forms. Leo is always Leo, except one time CJ called him Leopold (though this may have been an affectionate affectation). You see where I'm going with this? It's a tough line to draw. LethalCorpse (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind removing the one stand-out middle name, but as far as first names go it's pretty common practice to go with a "known" form. Like in the Cheers article I wrote, Norm Peterson is listed as NORM not NORMAN. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Presidential elections?
The more I read it, the less I like the wording of the intro to this section:

"In general, The West Wing attempts to create an alternative reality, in which there is a subtly different set of historical truths in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. In particular, the show tries to suggest that the last 'real' president in its timeline is Richard Nixon, and to chart the careers of its principal players in the light of that decision. Nevertheless, there are occasions in which more contemporary presidents are implied."

"Attempts to create"? "Historical truths"? "'Real' president"? It doesn't "attempt" to create something; it does create it. It's a fictional show, not a documentary and, while it may be realistic, it's certainly not reality.

"In light of that decision"? What decision? This last sentence doesn't make sense to me; perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Or perhaps "decision" is a confusing word.

Y'all help give me a reality check here. What do you think? UncleBubba (Talk) 02:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea the paragraph you quote above was weird but it's been replaced. I don't know if it was merely a creative attempt to describe the fictionalizing, or a push at POV. I assume the 'decision' you mention was a reference to how the show's writers developed the timeline, but yes it is just sort of dangling there. PrBeacon (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Left Wing"
The statement that the show "has been called 'The Left Wing' by at least one columnist" was supported by three citations. I checked in to verify that two citations were columnists calling the show 'The Left Wing.' Imagine my surprise when: two were actually just journalists reporting that "Republican detractors" and "Republican wags" called the show that. And the one cite where the columnist actually referred to the show in that way did not make any reference to "alleged demonization of conservatives" or the like. I have therefore changed the statement to reflect what the cites support: "Jewish Journal columnist Naomi Pfefferman once referred to the show as "The Left Wing..." The cites could also support, "Republican detractors have referred to the show as "The Left Wing..." since the Washington Post article says as much, although it doesn't provide anything less vague than that. --joeOnSunset (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And on the next cite, despite what the article says, Chris Lehmann doesn't mention Whitewater or Lewinsky once. (It's on Google Books if you search.) --joeOnSunset (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Shows falsely alleged popularity among high income earners needs to be removed
This is clearly right wing propaganda, most high income earners in this country are conservative, not liberal. The citation used to make the ridiculous claim of popularity among high income earners does not exist, and was likely propaganda all along.McGlockin (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The show was popular among liberals and conservatives alike and the wealthy in this country are also made up of liberals and conservatives alike (both Hollywood "limousine liberals" and Texas big-oil conservatives). Although the link citing the popularity of the show among the high-income demographic has expired, I don't doubt the truth of that statement. This was a show whose audience was primarily the highly educated, who also tend to be high-income. All of that being said, though, the fact that the link has expired means that the statement is now unsourced. I agree that we must either find a reliable source for that statement or remove it. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding on to Hnsampat's comments, you'd need to produce a source that it's not true. The statement was sourced when added, and refuting it would also require a source.  The point was not propaganda, but that despite a perceived (by some) liberal bias, the show's popularity crossed political lines.  Drmargi (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectful point of order, Drmargi, if I may. The burden of proof for inclusion of a statement in any article on Wikipedia is on the one who adds the statement or (as would be the case here) on those who advocate for keeping it in the article. By default, anything unsourced is fit to be removed. Granted, there was a source for the statement when the statement was added, but now that the source is gone, I think the burden of proof is on us to find a source about The West Wing's popularity among high-income viewers...which, incidentally, I just found and placed in the article. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And under normal circumstances, I'd agree with you. My concern here is POV-pushing.  The editor above is claiming the statement is false based on the assertion that high income earners are conservative, not liberal, and thereby the claim (which you've re-sourced) is false.  Moreover, he's done so in highly politicized language that raises the issue of WP:POV.  That now places the burden on McGlockin, to my mind, and demands a source. Were that statement removed based on the editor's statements above, I'd more than likely revert as POV. Drmargi (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fair and I concur with your logic. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I find no cites for the entire "Crew" section... why hasn't any/all of that been removed? Why does the mobile site double sign posts in the Talk section, by the way? Darr247 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Darr247 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Full Contract Players
Should the article mention that Stockard Channing was only credited for the episodes she appeared in, same with Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda during the sixth season.

In the seventh season the only full contract players were Allison Janney, Alan Alda, Kristen Chenoweth, Mary McCormack, John Spencer, Jimmy Smits, Bradley Whitford and Martin Sheen. (Jane Rizzoli (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)).

Cast table
An IP editor came in over the last day or so and removed this article's long-standing cast table, replacing it with a cookie-cutter table a couple of editors like to build in TV articles. In so doing he/she removed a tremendous amount of information about the characters without any discussion. I have reverted the change, and requested the editor discuss the need for the change here. I can't see where the new, more abbreviated table is nearly as useful or informative as the previous one was. --Drmargi (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Another question: why is the cast table organized around the actors, as opposed to the function ? There's a certain presumption here of how readers will look for info. Frank Lynch (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reaction Section could use this help
This article can be very helpful to add on to critical reaction and westwing as a pedagogical tool. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/why-the-west-wing-is-a-terrible-guide-to-american-democracy/263084/ Any takers?Koteshwor (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Cast Table
I whipped this together, and I was wondering how everyone felt about adding it to the article:

The current cast table is okay, but it doesn't really tell you when cast members appear or in what capacity. There's no way of knowing Stockard is recurring in the first two seasons, for example. This combines the best of the character information, and also the cast information that allows a viewer to gain a quick overview of the actor status without visiting the season pages individually. Of course, I'm open to suggestions.

--Unframboise (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is long-standing consensus that the existing table is fine as it. It is organized within the show's White House structure, for ease of access, is compliant with ADA and P.L. 93-112, Section 508 (which governs accessibility of websites based in the U.S., which this one is) in that all the information imparted is accessible to screen readers (tables which use color only to convey information are not), and it is more concise.  Moreover, it does cover the tenure of each character, again more concisely.  These highly-colored tables are for the sake of decoration, not information, and add nothing.  This show has been off the air for the best part of ten years, and the change, not to mention the screen real estate it consumes, is unnecessary.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My issue is that the long-standing table is not only unattractive but also misleading. The heading is cast, whilst the existing table focuses only on the characters -- their occupations and status, not the cast members. I realise a consensus exists which is why I am raising the issue - the last time it was brought up was in 2009. The colours, if needed, can be replaced with Main, Recurring, etc. if you're willing to concede to that. My other issue with the long standing table is that the cast is a bit mish-mash, with little or no logic in the ordering. I think it makes sense to either have (a) the original cast listed in credit order, and subsequent actors in the order they joined, (b) the final cast listed first, and other cast members in the order they first appeared, (c) alphabetically, as was done on the show, with Smits and Sheen last. Finally, with due respect, just because the show has been off air for ten years, it doesn't mean the page doesn't deserve some TLC from time to time. King regards, your friend --Unframboise (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Aesthetics is no reason to change the table. The existing table is well organized, and easily read.  Really, your problem is the title, if anything.  If it needs changing, it can be changed.  But the table is more than adequate, concise, neat, accessible, and easily read.  No change needed.  --Drmargi (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The West Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/2000/03/the_real_white.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015225616/http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/2002/2002-05-28-year-end-chart.htm to http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/2002/2002-05-28-year-end-chart.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The West Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819230138/http://www.medialifemagazine.com:8080/news2001//may01/may14/1_mon/news2monday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com:8080/news2001/may01/may14/1_mon/news2monday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110193415/http://www.tvguide.com/special/best-of-decade/photogallery/Best-Decade-Emmy-1011359 to http://www.tvguide.com/special/best-of-decade/photogallery/Best-Decade-Emmy-1011359

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The West Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014649/http://www.dvdverdict.com/printer/westwingseason4.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/printer/westwingseason4.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The West Wing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110190330/http://www.eonline.com/news/41940/detente-on-west-wing-set to http://www.eonline.com/news/41940/detente-on-west-wing-set
 * Added tag to http://airamerica.com/ondemand/play/90125.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Other Media
The "Other Media" section could use some additional some additional content and minor reorganizing. I propose the following 7 subsections, in the order:

Books Fan-created Episode Guides Twitter (pre-existing) Facebook Groups & Pages Podcasts (adds Wingin It podcast to the existing West Wing Weekly) Fan Conventions Parodies (to include the new content that was adding at the top of the section yesterday.

I have just now made those edits, for your consideration. I'm not that practiced at adding references, but I will continue to work on this to do so. Please help by 1) considering the appropriateness of this content and restructuring, and 2) providing guidance or assistance in helping me properly reference this content. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rghm (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

[I have just watched the tutorial on refTool, and have now begun to add references to this new content. Thank you.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rghm (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Most of this content falls under WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOT. Content has to be notable for inclusion, as in supported by reliable third-party sources that mention the content that is being added. As an example, the fan convention that is mentioned appears to be notable, as The Boston Globe has written an article about it, but the stuff about the various Facebook groups or fan episode guides is hardly notable. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Change in the election results for the final season of West Wing
Is there any information that would support the presidential election in the final season of West Wing was changed during the season? The opening episode shows the new president existing a limo with his shoes very well polished. I believe this was supposed to be Alan Alda. But with the death of John Spencer the outcome was changed. I have wonder this for a long time and I am currently watching the entire seven seasons again. I would appreciate anyone's comments or input to this question.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9301:6B1A:4CE1:A6D8:AA0:2950 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check out the last paragraph under The West Wing and the accompanying references. Beyond that, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. There are plenty of fansites and other discussion forums out there if you have questions about the show itself. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(International) broadcast history
I think it would be good to reinstate some info about the international broadcast history of the show - I was trying to jog my memory today of when I first started watching in Europe. This old page that no longer exists could serve as a basis for some of the information. newsjunkie (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Mrs. Landingham
I think Mrs. Landingham (played by Kathryn Joosten; young Mrs. Landingham played by Kirsten Nelson in flashback in "Two Cathedrals") should be listed as a "Main Character." Although she dies in a car accident at the end of the second season, her role in the arc of the series is crucial, appearing in flashbacks in seasons 3 and 4. Mrs. Landingham is certainly as or more significant than several other characters listed as main characters: Mandy Hampton; Arnold Vinick; or Annabeth Schott. Any objections to adding "Mrs. Landingham" as a "Main Character"? 71.171.20.226 (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The list is not about who we as viewers think has a crucial role in the series, but who was credited as main cast. So no, she should not be added. Melcous (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, but shouldn't the heading be "Main Cast" instead of "Main Characters"? 71.171.19.17 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's titled correctly - the section is discussing the in-universe characters, not the actors or portrayals. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hdgleit.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)