Talk:Wag the Dog

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Quotes
Is the "quotes" section really necessary? Also, what novel is Wag the Dog supposed to be based on? 200.55.95.232 19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Author of "..wag the dog." quote?
Who is the original author of this riddle/quote or is it one of those things that came out of the general public and has no specific author to credit? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.55 (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no irony in the "Irony" section.
Hate to be a stickler, but I'm going to have to insist that we use words only in accordance wit htheir meanings: IRONY NOUN: pl. i·ro·nies

1. a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

2. a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain). b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

The usage note mentioned in the definition points out that using "Irony" or any of its forms to describe theings which are merely humorous, coincidental, or even humorously coincidental is a misuse of the word.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/irony

Nothing on WIki's entry for irony seems to cover this use, not even descriptivist appologies for its misuse.--Smallwhitelight 13:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

George Bush's 'Coincidence'?
I do not see warrant for the following sentence in the 'Coincidence' section: "Similar criticisms were later leveled against President George W. Bush, whose invasion of Iraq and saber-rattling discourse with Iran were also viewed by some, including New York Times columnist Frank Rich, as being a foreign distraction to avert domestic unpopularity."

I don't know if this is simply trying to be NPOV by making sure a Republican is mentioned, but it really is irrelevant. The 'Coincidence' section doesn't detail presidents fighting wars to stave off unpopularity, but rather the coincidence of Clinton running military operations right as his sex scandal was hitting the nation -- only months after this movie was released. I could see it if George Bush had been hit with a sex scandal around 2003-2004, OR if he had been president and conducted (or threatened to use) military operations right after the movie came out, but this sentence as it stands doesn't add to one's understanding of the 'coincidence' between the movie and real life events. I'm removing it. 208.178.18.185 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was President in 1997, not Bush. --63.3.2.1 (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplicative information
I have removed a paragraph from the "Coincidence" section that duplicated information about Operation Infinite Reach from the first paragraph. I also removed an irrelevant (to this article) paragraph regarding President Clinton's alleged justification for that operation. — 67.36.234.70, 14:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Wag The Dog Poster.jpg
Image:Wag The Dog Poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A few things to add to the
Perhaps some mention should be made of the U.S. operations during 1997 rebellion in Albania, and whether this inspired the film's choice of Albania or was a coincidence. There has also been much speculation among various commentators that Clinton would have invaded Iraq if not for fear that the public might have thought it was life imitating art; if anyone knows of which commentators said this, it might be worthwhile to include. Calbaer (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Franklin child abuse allegations
The main article states: "The book, however, differs greatly from the picture. In the book the president is specifically George Herbert Walker Bush (in the movie he is unnamed)" Did the author get any inspiration from John DeCamp book The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska. 2nd ed. Lincoln: 2006. ISBN 9780963215802? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.234.133 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comedy ?
I didn't think so. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ending
Article reads "When Motss refuses to back down, Brean has him killed and makes it look as if he had a heart-attack while tanning next to his pool."

I understood the ending to be purposely ambiguous to whether Motss is really dead, or wether Brean stages his death so that he can't tell anyone what happened. The report at the end suggests in this scenario he is still working with Brean.

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability not relevant for critics
MOS:FILM doesn't say anything about requiring notability for critics. Notability is a criteria for article inclusion. Why is content being deleted on this basis? --Nixin06 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the opinion of an unknown reviewer writing for an unknown publication (if it is really a publication) unnecessarily unbalance the article, per WP:WEIGHT, which you cited but don't seem to understand properly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WEIGHT doesn't say what you're claiming. It's a guide on how to balance viewpoints.  If you are saying that the WSWS does not adequately represent Marxist art criticism, we can argue that.  If you are (surprisingly) saying that Marxist art criticism is not considered a significant minority view in RS, I can give you sources.  --Nixin06 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It says that  significant  viewpoints should be presented. The views of unknown writers from an unknown publication are not in any respect "significant", and your forcing them into multiple articles doesn't make them so. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand your case, you reject Walsh as a representative of Marxist art criticism because you've never heard of him. But WEIGHT specifically notes that "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."  I think you're unwittingly heading towards censorship, and urge you to reconsider your actions.  (It's particularly disturbing that you deleted a review from Variety and claimed that it was an "unknown source".) --Nixin06 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I knew you'd play the "censorship" card eventually, and I can say is "Bullshit". Your nobody reviewer from a nothing publication is not going to be quoted in this or any other article until you can show that he or it are in some way notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing a card, I'm trying to have a civil discussion. The RS are on my talk page.  --Nixin06 (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're trying to shoehorn this totally unnotable reviewer and website into Wikipedia articles by bootstrapping one with the other. In any event, I'm tired of going around in circles with you. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ken. I see no indication of notability for this critic or the publication. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  02:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ref section
User:Beyond My Ken There's more than ten refs, having them in columns seems common. Also the "notes" is superfluous? Widefox ; talk 17:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Blanket reversion
@Beyond My Ken: In view of your confident understanding of how to improve this article, please help me further by justifying some of your countermanding edits. Since I am a non-American, I will refrain from pursuing suggested language variations in what is clearly a US-owned article.
 * Please supply your verification for reinstalling Robert De Niro as a co-producer (which is not supported in the body of the article).
 * Please explain (and justify) your preference for a bare URL over the ref description which I carefully provided for (ref 1) Box Office Mojo.
 * I inserted a by whom? tag in an attempt to clarify the unverified statement "Hoffmann's character is said to have been based directly upon famed producer Robert Evans (etc)" Why did you presume to revert that edit without providing the sought verification? Would you prefer that I simply delete all such unverified opinions in line with the foremost WP principle that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.?
 * Do you have a rationale for rejecting consistency in the capitalization of President (when referring to a particular president), and for the non-capitalization of 'administration'? Bjenks (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, let's do it another way, shall we? You do each of these things independent;y, one by one, instead of shoving them all into one edit, and I'll evaluate them one by one as to whether they improve the article or not. Thanks for your attention to this matter. BMK (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly I have already put the necessary time and effort in. It's more reasonable for you to do likewise—review and justify your edits which I now revert in turn. I can then re-examinine your edits one at a time.Bjenks (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertless, break them up, please. BMK (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. If you will not accept responsibility for your destructive edits, I will not. This article can stay as you left it until you or a more sensible editor fixes it up. Goodbye. Bjenks (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)