Talk:Timeline of the Writers Guild of America strike (2007–2008)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Impact on Television - Cable Television?

The article describes what will happen with Network shows and cable talk shows. Does anyone know if/which other cable shows will be affected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.99.136 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comedy Central, HBO and Showtime all rely on one of these guilds and their shows will be impacted at some point. The news network writers are represented by AFTRA which is not striking right now. Most other cable channels I've seen air re-runs, reality shows (not yet covered by contract although WGAw is trying), and documentaries and won't be impacted. Maybe we can add the HBO and Showtime shows to the list. DirectRevelation

What about shows shot in Canada like The Dead Zone or Smallville? Ace of Sevens (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dead Zone has been cancelled. Snowfire51 (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nbc.com

Nbc seems to have taken away their video section on their site, this would be notable i think right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesHPurdy (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New title?

The present title was chosen due to lack of any better ideas. Any suggestions?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:50, 09/21/2007

For simplicity's sake, maybe "2008 Hollywood strike"? We usually reserve parentheticals for disambiguation purposes, and there's no other "Hollywood strike" articles on Wikipedia.--Father Goose 03:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I saw a couple of other strike articles, like a recent NHL strike, have the year at the beginning of the title as well. Only I'm not sure about having the word "Hollywood" as the sole descriptor. Hollywood is the name of a place, not an industry, even though it's used that way. I think the word "film" or "entertainment" should still be in there.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:27, 09/21/2007

Hollywood is more broadly known as "the American film industry" than as a city in California. Nobody's going to mistake what a "Hollywood strike" is. And the referenced articles describe it with those two words.--Father Goose 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The referenced articles aren't from an encyclopedia. "Variety" is allowed to refer to the industry as Hollywood -- but would you ever see an encyclopedia article titled "Hollywood strike"? Wouldn't it more likely be called "Film industry strike"?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:59, 09/21/2007

My recommendation, seeing the other labor dispute article titles, would be 2008 Hollywood film industry strike or 2008 American film industry strike, for the sake of clarity, considering that Americans may be more familiar with Hollywood = film industry than non-Americans. If the strike receives a popularly used name, then the article can subsequently moved to that new name. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would've expected the media to create a title for this event already. It's a shame they haven't, as it would make this easier. In the meantime one of those should be fine. I think we can call it Hollywood as long as we're also saying "film" or "film industry", because I'm pretty sure all the unions and studios are headquartered there (so it's not like we're using it in the vernacular, but actually referring to a place), and anyone reading the English Wikipedia will probably know that Hollywood is a place in America where films are made. I myself think the word "industry" is implied and extraneous, but that's just me.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:25, 09/21/2007

PS Erik, what search terms are you using for your Google alerts on the subject?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:27, 09/21/2007

Just the keywords wga strike, since I originally thought it was going to be a writers' strike. It may not have all the headlines, though, as I've noticed some citations in the article do not mention WGA. I imagine that hollywood strike would pick up more headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

2008 American film industry strike is good.--Father Goose 23:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The current title is actually growing on me now :) but if everyone still feels it needs to be changed, I won't fight about it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:54, 09/22/2007

2008 Hollywood strike then. If it actually goes down, it'll probably just be called "the Hollywood strike" by the press.--Father Goose 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest "2007 Writers Guilds of America strike" with "Guilds" being plural. See my separate section below on how the WGA is 2 different unions.

FWIW, I don't care that the title's been changed to "2007 Writers Guild of America strike" today (11/5/07) and that references to the other two organizations whose contracts are up in 2008 and might also strike (DGA, SAG) have been removed. The current WGA strike should have been a separate article, linked from this one. There are larger issues which affect all three organizations in their negotiations, and removing the other two to (presumably) focus attention on the current news highlight is wrong. If there's an older version of this article which includes references to the larger labor issues that should be restored. I'll note that I was directed to this article twice by other wiki links stating that this was an article on the potential 2008 Hollywood film strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.213.90 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Then fix those links. This article is about one action, not one action plus two potential actions. Tempshill 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• 4.240.213.90, if a larger strike occurs, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it's fair to note the possibility in this article but this should be about what is actually occuring. DirectRevelation 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

• How about 2008 American Entertainment Industry Strike? Mr Senseless (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

PGA/MPPA

An anonymous editor posted info that the strike would be against the MPPA and not the PGA, since the PGA is a labor union and the MPPA is a trade organization. But according to the sources, the PGA website and the Wikipedia article, Producers Guild of America is the trade organization, and as far as I've seen no sources make mention of the MPPA.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:15, 09/27/2007

As I understand it, the strikes are against "the studios", since that's who holds the contracts (not the PGA). The studios do their negotiation through the AMPTP.--Father Goose 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Amend that to "studios and networks", and more generically, "producers". Incidentally, here's an article that could be used to add new info: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/movies/01labo.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin .--Father Goose 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The "studios" pretty much are the producers. A producer is any individual or company that is responsible at the highest level for assembling a film production, including financially. The producer pays everyone involved; the director, writers, and actors are all employees of the producer. So if all those people strike, they are striking against their bosses, the producers. Similarly, any collective bargaining agreement the unions enter into needs to be with the producers as a collective entity -- which is what the PGA is; they're a trade organization, formed for striking those kinds of deals. Individual studios do hold individual contracts per each film production, but the collective bargaining agreements are held between the larger entities -- the unions and trade organizations -- and those larger agreements dictate the requirements for the contracts that occur for individual film productions (at least, this is my understand of the situation).

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:18, 09/27/2007

Now I'm thinking I may be wrong about which entity the strike would be against. I thought I saw in one of the sources that it would be against the PGA but now I can't seem to find the article that said that. The articles don't say who the strike would be against exactly, but they do say the negotiations are being conducted with the AMPTP, so I'll replace PGA with AMPTP in the article. The AMPTP still would represent the studios in that case though -- of that I'm fairly certain. I just got the specific organization wrong.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:01, 09/27/2007

PS thanks for that Times article, FG, that's a good source. I've added it to the article.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:10, 09/27/2007

Looks good now. Yes, the AMPTP definitely represents the studios in negotiations. I removed this article from See also section of Producers Guild of America.--Father Goose 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Two New sources

• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/business/media/17strike.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/arts/television/18show.html
• http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674063,00.html

I keep coming across articles about this thing, even though I'm not even that interested in it, personally. Must be notable or something, lol.--Father Goose 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WGA Strike authorized

90.3%... Perhaps a move may be in order, or a separate article for the WGA Strike? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Probably best to hold off until the strike actually begins before we move it.--Father Goose 18:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, I don't get it though. They were originally gonna wait til the other two unions could strike along with them. The plan seems to have changed but no ones talking about that for some reason.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:47, 10/21/2007

The vote to approve a strike is probably a message to the AMPTP as well as a "go ahead" for their own negotiators. The vote approved a strike, but doesn't specify when the strike has to occur. Perhaps things will become clearer after Oct 31, when their contract expires.--Father Goose 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There was never a plan to strike in unison with the other two unions. That's just the worst-case scenario. Frankly, I'm not sure why an article about it is even here. The WGA contract ends earlier, and so negotiations have broken down earlier. Frankly, I'm surprised there's no article about the WGA strike. It's the first one in nearly 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.246.137 (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Variety lists a series of articles related to the writers' strike. Could be of use. Perhaps we should focus on only the WGA in this case? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I created redirects to this page at 2007 Writer's Guild of America Strike and 2007 WGA Strike so if we need to split off WGA details there is a tentative title in place. Nate 00:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Should they be redirects? The current writers strike and the hypothetical future strike that this article covers are not the same thing. At least not yet, anyway. Crystal ball and what-not.--58.110.246.137 14:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

After the strike starts for real (Monday?), I intend to rename the whole thing to one of the above redirects and put the "crystal ball" parts of it (anticipated SAG & DGA strikes) in their own section.--Father Goose 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If/When you do it, use the name 2007 Writers Guild of America Strike since there is no apostrophe in the official name. (As far as I know.) Ariel. 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, none of the officials names use apostrophes: Writers Guild of America East (WGAE) or Writers Guild of America, west (WGAw). The organizations only drop the compass direction (East or west) for the "Writers Guild of America Awards" but the press often reports on the WGA without specifying which one.65.216.251.162 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Why 2008?

The strike is slated to begin on November 5, 2007; I feel pretty clueless, because no one else has brought this up (and it seems glaringly obvious to me). Why is the article title "2008" ? Dylan 04:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The earliest press on it speculated that all three unions might be striking during 2008, but for now, clearly, it's starting with just a writers' strike in 2007. I'd like to hold off on renaming it until it's clear what the press chooses to call it over the next few days once it starts.--Father Goose 06:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fair, but we should rename it soon given that the strike is going into effect in a few hours. Shaznfaru 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We currently have two pages: 2007 Writers Guild of America Strike‎ and 2008 Hollywood strike, and I think those names are good. Currently the 2007 Writers Guild of America Strike redirects to 2008 Hollywood strike because the strike hasn't actually happened yet - a last minute deal is possible, and if so, one page should be enough for both issues. But if the strike actually happens then stop the redirect and create a page. Ariel. 02:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the rewriting that is under way (and the current reality of the situation), I've decided to move it to 2007 WGA strike. I'll restructure the material in the article to put the 2008 stuff at the end ("Industry-wide strike").--Father Goose 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I say we move the article to 2007 Writers Guild of America strike. Acronyms are discouraged in titles and strike doesn't need to be capitalized. --William Graham ^talk 04:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"strike" is uncapitalized in the present article name. I understand what you're saying about acronyms being discouraged, but "WGA strike" gets about 10x as many Google and Google News hits as "Writers Guild of America strike", so I'm inclined to stick with it.--Father Goose 05:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Google is not how I would decide this: editors of newspapers like short titles, but that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also the policy on this matter agrees: spell it out. So I was bold and did so. Ariel. 05:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was bold; so were you.--Father Goose 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The "W" in West

The lower case "w" in the "Writers Guild of America, west" name and in the acronym WGAw is stupid but intentional. They should know better because they're writers but that's how they punctuate it. The iPod also drives me crazy with its capitalization though. DirectRevelation 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Um, thanks for taking this information so quickly and running with it, but the WGAE spells it's name correctly as Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE). So if you're refering to both you can say "WGAE and WGAw". I know that seems very wrong but you can use "the Guilds" if it makes you feel better.DirectRevelation 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Sorry I changed it thinking it was a typo instead of just purposefully asserted stupidity. I wish software writers had a union. Lycurgus 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

At one of my previous consulting gigs, the regular programmers there wished there wasn't a union handling their salary (a federal govt independent agency that just about everybody does business with). Basiclly the union with jursidiction over them also handled clerks; the clerks outnumbered the programmers and no new union could be split off without consent of the old one. In addition the union would not consent to the programmers getting a higher rate than them. So the regular programmers ended up being paid at the same (lower) rate as the clerks. Jon 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied to Jon on his discussion page.DirectRevelation 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

See my talk page for belated response Lycurgus (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Two Different Unions Involved

There is no such organization as the "Writers Guild of America". There is the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) which represents mostly TV but some movie writers around New York City. And then there is the much larger Writers Guild of America, west which represents most of the writers in the movie industry in Hollywood. The confusion comes about because their prize is called the "Writers Guild of America Award" show.

The are NOT two different locals of one larger union but two completely different groups that generally bargain together. There are differences, for instance the WGAE is in the AFL-CIO but the WGAw isn't.

Both unions are on strike. The jurisdictional and royalty issues of the larger WGAw are at the forefront though. (Or at least their issues are being better reported in the media.)

I would suggest "2007 Writers Guilds of America strike" with the Guilds being plural. But whatever the conceensus comes out to be, is fine with me. DirectRevelation 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

I'd stick with "Writers Guild of America" and "WGA" for most of the article, with a note at the top that that refers to both unions jointly. The sources we are using use that convention. We can use the individual names in reference to any action that only one of the guilds takes.--Father Goose 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose, You are correct that lumping the two unions together is the norm in the media. (I saw one article that quoted two different people as the current "WGA President".) And I can see how stylistically, it's much neater to just go with "WGA". In fact, in my POV, all 4 screenwriter unions should merge and form locals in New York, LA, Toronto and Montreal.

I would politely suggest that referring to 2 unions as 1 union is un-encyclopedic though and that the media is being sloppy because of the similar names. For comparison, when there's a strike at a US phone company, both the CWA and the IBEW are involved but the media doesn't invent a fictitious "Telephone Union" to report about.

What do other people think? DirectRevelation 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Well let me say I fully agree that renaming the article and cleaning all references to WGA is in order. When I read the article I was fully under the impression that the WGA was an actual organization and that WGAE and WGAw were both a part of the larger organization. It is un-encyclopaedic; and it gives the strong impression that the WGA itself is an organization.

I would also like to add that if you'll care to read the other comments in the talk page, you will clearly see many other people have been/are under this impression; here is just one quote to illustrate what I mean: "The WGA isn't a union, it is a trade guild" --61.69.3.95 (talk) 11:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Daniel

We could always eliminate the name of the union and just call it a writers' strike. Tempshill 23:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tempshill, In the industry, writers are called "scribes". Maybe we should become like Variety Magazine and use jargon that no one else can understand! DirectRevelation 05:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

TV Guide News Link

I work for TV Guide, and we've recently put up a Strike Watch blog. Somebody please review and if you feel it's noteworthy, please add it to the News Link section. (I didn't want to contribute to the article with a conflict of interest, of course :) )

http://community.tvguide.com/blog/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Strike-Watch-Season/800059822

Shaznfaru 16:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally felt this to be a very informative website on initial review, but I don't do to much editing here so I'm not really sure about Wikipedia's rules on things like this. If someone with more experience wanted to check it out I think it would be a good addition to the article. Penman 1323 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guidelines on blogs are a mixed bag. On the one hand, references to blogs are generally discouraged; on the other hand, some types of "official" and "semi-official" blogs tend to fall into a gray area, as do some celebrity blogs (e.g. Wil Wheaton's WWdN in Exile blog). Check verifiability and reliable sources pages for more info.Lawikitejana 23:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been citing the LA Times Showwatch as reliable since its more of an extension to the newspaper than anything, along with Deadline Hollywood for LA Weekly. If it's say WGAGossip.org or AMPTPRulz.com (aka unreliable blogs from others outside the story) those are probably not good sources, but the mainstream's been pretty accurate so far (like the mention of Cashmere Mafia being pushed back for instance). I will go ahead and add your blog in the meantime, it's well-detailed. Nate 00:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Writer's Strike

Because we should be payed too. 129.137.172.254 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Because we should be paid too." Ten cents, please. :-P --Father Goose 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With quality writing like that, I think we should settle quickly for whatever we can get. (-: DirectRevelation 15:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Section about Conflicts between Acting-Writing-Producing

Does anyone think it's worth having a section about show which have conflicts where an Actor is also a writer and/or producer, e.g B.J. Novak, Mindy Kaling, Paul Lieberstein for The Office; Tina Fey for 30 Rock. Also, something could be mentioned about Jon Stewart paying The Daily Show and The Colbert Report staff for 2 weeks after the strike has started.

Also, another good source for shows affected. LA Times - The TV Grid

Jamie jca 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's something that's notable and should be covered. Letterman can write for himself as he did during the last writers' strike, etc. Tempshill 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Jon Stewart payment thing was a rumor denied by his reps. Of course, we only have to wait a few hours to find out... --Hemlock Martinis 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jamie jca, There's been a lot of discussion about the multiple hat issue you mentioned in the blogs and informal sites. I think it's an important issue but it may be difficult getting reliable citations since people don't want to talk about it on the record. DirectRevelation 05:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

If you write your own stuff you can perform it, you just can't write for others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.163.71 (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tar and feather the producers

Am I just being overly neutral here, or does the article seem to be a tad less than neutral here? We are hearing the point of view - in depth - fromthe writers, but not that from the producers. I am not suggesting that their arguments aren't valid, but this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. perhaps a stab at neutrality might be something we should be working a bit harder at. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that is somewhat unrealistic if the strike draws on. 12,000 disgruntled writers have just effectively become unemployed. Unless movie executives suddenly find a lot of spare time, it's sort of unavoidable. Especially if you remember that the writers are, well, writers. Wait until the strike is long over, and the people lose interest. Then the real work can begin.--58.110.242.134 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

heh. Maybe it's because the neutral view is that the producers are wrong. Once the strike is "long over", as the above user says, we'll be able to see that all the more clearer. --86.135.87.21 03:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said. It is a simple truth that producers (the AMPTP) have taken an untenable position. Unless they are ready to make reasonable concessions we will rightfully be on strike. Any neutral observer will of course write an article very critical of the producers, afterall that is the reality of the situation! Please note that I'm not a writer, simply an average American who realizes the truth of this whole situation. I will also check this article every day to insure that it maintains this neutral position (if anything it already has a slant against the WGA). Afterall, how could a group of people (the AMPTP) unwilling to make any concessions be in the right? 130.71.241.182 05:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You say "...we will be on strike" yet you claim not to be a writer? Johntex\^talk 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A "simple truth" would be something like "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west." We have no idea what is going on in the negotiations. No one knows the whole story on both sides; all we know is what each side is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.85.62 (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that it is too pro-writer, then find some information taht is pro-producer and add it in. If more information is out about the writers, it is not the job of Wikipedia to silence the writers statements until the producers hire new writers to write their statements. KV(Talk) 13:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of reality show "writers"

The article states that reality shows will continue production because they are "unscripted." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the writers of reality shows are not represented by the union?Tony Clothes 04:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is actually one of the jurisdictional issues in the strike for the WGAw so your quetion might not have an answer without a POV. I've added the Reality United campaign with an organizing committee link on the Writers Guild of America, west article. Any suggestions are always appreciate.DirectRevelation 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

According to an NYTimes article on the strike [1], American Idol "does not employ union writers" and therefore would not be affected. Obviously, somebody writes all the narration and such, but whoever does that is apparently not on strike. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I was taking issue with the term "unscripted." Sorry if it seems like a minor semantic issue, but as it does seem to be an issue in the strike, then I thought it should be clarified in the article. If anything, I think there is a POV issue with "unscripted," since the term in this context supports the studios' position, but seems counterfactual. Curious what you all thought, though.Tony Clothes 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the real question is what percentage of unscripted lines (vs scripted ones) is needed for a given show to be labeled "unscripted". Which is probably one of the points in dispute. Jon 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

teamsters were in picket. did the teamsters officially strike? wouldn't a teamster strike bring hollywood to a standstill?

from what I hear, if the teamsters join the strike, you can't even get a package delivered to a studio since everyone who backs up a truck is part of the teamsters, etc, etc.

so if some teamsters members were in the picket line, did the teamsters officially strike? Tkjazzer 06:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Teamsters are honoring the line because their contract does not include a no strike clause. What I think is interesting is that the Teamsters organized the Casting Directors Guild (maybe not the exact title) since the last strike. That means that, even if a production has a script, if it doesn't have the actors lined up they could still be in trouble. "No strike" clause or not, I have trouble seeing AFTRA and SAG crossing lines for casting calls since they just worked so hard to get the Casting Directors organized. (They're- in the Teamsters because the different actors unions acknowledged it would be a conflict of interest to be with them.) I don't have time to really do a good addition today so feel free to use this info and here are two links for sources: DirectRevelation 14:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117974949.html?categoryid=2821&cs=1 http://www.hollywoodteamsters.org/

I don't see why they couldn't get a security guard to help a truck driver back up the truck if the normal person won't do it, it's not rocket science to do that. Jon 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Contractual obligations. If you allow a non-teamster to do the work of a teamster, you'll find yourself on the business-end of a teamsters strike. This has (somewhat satirically) been extended to so much as allowing a non-union member to so much as pick a piece of paper up off the ground and place it in the trash. RvLeshrac (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Scabs

Anyone care to explain why the studios, networks, etc. can't just hire scabs (Writers not in the guild)? I'm sure most writers are in one of the guilds, but there's got to be people out there who can write and aren't. Do the WGAs have a monopoly on entertainment writing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.98.102 (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe in the SAG case in 2000? people were warned that if they became strike breakers they would be barred from union membership in the future amongst other things. I would expect things would be similar in this case so many that aren't part of the union may still be unwilling. Furthermore, those who remained are unlikely to be nearly enough and the quality of their writing may not be particularly good... Nil Einne 12:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly right. Writing for a struck company during a strike will bar you from future WGA membership, which will pretty much kill your career when the strike ends. Also, writing for film and TV is actually a pretty specialized skill; people who read slushpiles for a living say that the vast majority of stuff they get sent is unproducable for one reason or another. (Yeah, I know--a lot of films and TV shows seem to have crappy scripts. Go read Terry Rossio's essay How We Built The Bomb next time you're tempted to blame a writer for a bad film.) --Jacobw 10:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The TV/Movie industry is heavily unionized along craft union lines just like construction or casinos. While the different unions usually bargain separately, the other unions will get involved if there is an attempt to break one of the other unions, regardless of any contract provisions to the contrary.
• As a true Guild, the writers have control of some key industry assets. They have binding legal control over the credits, are responsible for legally registering scripts to protect copyrights, and have control of setting royalties for international imports and exports of films and TV shows. DirectRevelation 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

References

The references tags in the article need to be combined. I went through and used named references to cut down on repetition, but User:Danigro89 edit conflicted after me and didn't reconcile his changes. --William Graham ^talk 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you fix it yourself? You seem to be in the best position to know what needs restoring. The edits are coming in fast and furious today. There's all sorts of loose ends forming.--Father Goose 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs and it appears he didn't edit comflict, just continued to copy/paste references. I'll make another pass at combining them. --William Graham ^talk 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've combined the most frequent ones, but a lot of the other cite templates invocations use nothing more than the url parameter when it would be easy to add a publisher. Something to work on.--William Graham ^talk 23:25, 7 November 2007http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_hr.png

Horizontal line (use sparingly) (UTC)

---

Why is there not date for the first reference 1. ^ WGAW President Patric Verrone says writers want fair play. Youtube. though there is on given in the wiki-source code? -- JanCK (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

• FACTBOX-Screenwriters strike by the numbers
• Despite Hollywood strike, prime-time TV marches on
• Hollywood writers strike forces Leno, Letterman shows into reruns...
• Hollywood writers strike will be felt in Canada
• Hollywood writers call Monday strike
• Will The Writers' Strike Affect You? Scribes Of 'Lost,' 'Shazam!,' More Explain
• Hollywood Strike Set
• Hollywood writers in strike threat
• Reality shows on tap if writers strike
• Hollywood strike may cripple US TV
• UTA to defer salaries if strike occurs
• Big turnout gives WGA strike authorization
• WGA strike talks log digital divide
• Writers Guild to seek authorization to call strike
• A writers' strike nobody wants
• Hollywood readies for possible strike
• Web tangles TV writers
• Hollywood writers in strike talks

These start at the top on November 5, 2007 and end at the bottom on September 20, 2007. Might be relevant to trace the events that led up to the actual strike. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

New source for remaining episodes besides LA Times TV Grid

Associated Press article...doesn't have everything, but it definitely helps. Nate 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Might want to get another link from other websites that have used this article... AP articles don't stay up forever at ap.google.com. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Heads of talent agencies

Whot 'bout a section 'bout responses from heads of talent agencies? Ari Emanuel, head honcho of Endeavor said some neutral stuff in his blog. don' know about other heads of talent agencies, but would be good to know and kinda, well hugely, important. Hehe TheGubernatorial 09:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hugely? I hope that's humor. "Quick, let's hear what the agents have to say about this!" Unless they have something to say that is more than "neutral commentary", I don't see the need.--Father Goose 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Casting Guild joined the Teamsters since the last writers strike in 1988. If the talent agencies walk with the rest of the Teamsters, that could have a real impact because you couldn't get new actors even if you had a script. I'm not sure whether or not that's occuring though. DirectRevelation 05:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Animation and reality

The article mentions that one of the issues behind the strike is union jurisdiction over animation and reality programming. While it definitley seems to be a lesser issue than DVD and New media, is there any chance someone with an understanding of this area could add a bit of info to the article explaining the matter? MarkSutton 12:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I had write access I could do it. Or should I write it here and have someone xfer it for me? --76.171.172.73 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Write access for non-registered users has been restored for the article, so go ahead. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to register an account so as to get around that problem in the future.--Father Goose 03:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think these are distinct issues. Reality TV is about whether these shows have writers at all. Animation definitely has writers but there is a jurisdictional pissing match with IATSE. I added a Reality United section to Writers Guild of America, west. Feel free to reuse that info/sources as needed.DirectRevelation 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

They are both jurisdictional issues. In both cases the wga is trying to expand its coverage of what it sees as writers. In the case of animation, there is a competing union, but as there have been practical changes in the development of animated features (and TV for that matter), it raises the same question as in reality-- just what is considered "writing"?

Also, there is an important financial component to the animation guild (IATSE) vs. WGA contract. The WGA contract assures the writer will receive residuals. IATSE's does not offer any kind of residual. This is the same issue in reality. An uncontracted writer (or "writer" if you prefer) in reality doesn't have any assurance of residuals, whereas a writer hired under the WGA's MBA does. --76.171.172.73 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki, but I wanted to add that the East Coast animation writers do not have the option of joining IATSE. Currently, the IATSE local that covers some animation "story artists" only has company signatories in Southern California. So animation writers in NY are in a tough position: we are not covered by the WGAE and no one at IATSE is trying to organize us either. We have no union at all.--Caledonia12 11:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting and relevant. I'd add it to the article --76.171.172.73 (talk)

Actors' response

This table could get quite unwieldy. It should be noted this list includes writer-actors who are picketing, not because they are an "actor supporting the writers' cause" but because they are writers.

I would be bold, but let me propose the following here first:

Actors picketing

• Richard Belzer^[ref]
• Patrick Dempsey^[ref]
• Sally Field^[ref]
• Tina Fey^[ref][w]
• Valerie Harper^[ref]
• Felicity Huffman^[ref]
• Julia Louis-Dreyfus^[ref]
• William H. Macy^[ref]
• Garry Marshall^[ref][w]
• Seth Meyers^[ref][w]
• Sandra Oh^[ref]
• Amy Poehler^[ref]
• Wanda Sykes^[ref]
• Sam Waterston^[ref]

^w w Denotes actor with writing credits. who is on strike as a writer.

Actors showing support

• Alec Baldwin^[sup]
• Steve Carell^[ref]
• Jay Leno^[ref]
• Eva Longoria^[ref]

Actors crossing picket lines

• Ellen Degeneres^[ref]

In a nutshell, I don't care people are handing out pizza or doughnuts or writing a blog entry on the Huffington Post — the point is X actor is showing support, Y actor joined the picket line, and Z is a writer, so he's already on the picket line. The Ellen Degeneres section may seem a little harsh summarized as it is (because there are other factors involved), but presentation-wise, this seems to be the most enhanced for readability's sake. Thoughts?—Twigboy 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd group actor-writers under their own heading instead of using an asterisk to denote them.--Father Goose 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the list of picket crossers could be expanded, at least with other daytime show people. Are you only starring union writers? According to IMDB DeGeneres has a number of writing credits. Fathomharvill 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I brought this here first. Obviously, someone who isn't actively writing wouldn't likely be actively striking. So, in Degeneres's case, I would assume that she writes for the show, but it is probably in an "ex-officio" sense. I assume that to be the case for any talk show: the main talent contributes to the writing pool (and credited as such), but contributes at his/her whim. In Seth Meyer's case, he is the head writer for SNL, so he is actively involved as a writer. There are also several actors who have (past tense) written, but are not presently writing. How that distinction is drawn to show a "striking" actor vs. a "supportive" actor needs to be hashed out here. I don't have a clear-cut answer, but I made a suggested change to the footnote above.—Twigboy 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a tricky thing to sort it out, but I'd group actor-writers (and other hyphenates) according to whether they were striking as active writers or in sympathy. It might be hard to figure out exactly what the case is (such as Garry Marshall, a writer-actor-director-producer), but I think we can wing it. Twigboy's suggestion looks good, but I'd group them under the heading "Actors on strike as writers".

The "crossing the picket line" section might be a can of gasoline. Ellen's position on the matter is notable, but we have to make sure we don't violate WP:NPOV. Shouldn't the default assumption be that members of other unions will cross the picket line if production is continuing?--Father Goose 19:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose, in general I would agree with your assumption but I think the talk shows would be the exception. With Letterman and Leno off the air, I think the exception is staying on the air. So Ellen would be listed but someone working on a movie or sitcom set would not be.DirectRevelation 05:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

I think your breakdown makes more sense than the existing one but there are a few things to keep in mind. The Guilds can fine members for crossing picket lines and deduct that from their residuals. (They can also fine you for working at a non-union shop but rarely do so because they use these members in union organizing drives.) So some actors with lengthy writing credits may be looking at their pocket books more than their hearts. Also, with Ellen DeGeneris, her current union is AFTRA which represents on-air talent and news writers. AFTRA is asking members to "work to rules" meaning they don't do any WGAE or WGAw work. If Ellen's show skipped the monologue and skits and just had straight interviews, she would be physically crossing picket lines but she wouldn't be performing any Guild work. (I haven't seen the show since the strike, so I'm not sure what they're doing.) If anything, my information probably just muddies the waters further.DirectRevelation 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Blacklink

I keep trying to edit this page, and it keeps saying there's a blacklinked external link. Can anyone scout that out and remove it, so people can edit the page again? нмŵוτнτ 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a couple of references to Jenna Fischer myspace blog. In the interests of letting people save I've removed them for the moment. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the offending edit. Not sure how they did it though. Why didn't the spam filter catch it then? Evil Monkey - Hello 02:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Fischer blog wasn't blacklisted until after the link was added.--Father Goose 03:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The blacklist is for any myspace.com link. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've whitelisted the two myspace links so they are now back in the article. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Darn, well, I completely copy edited the page, but my hard work is lost by now, since I couldn't save it, and I didn't use an external editing tool. Oh, well. нмŵוτнτ 03:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that we blacklist myspace links but allow livejournal and blogspot? Is there something more inherently untrustworthy about a myspace link, or is it more personal blog biases?--58.110.8.116 06:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The template {{MySpace}} can be used in place of a direct link to the site. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we should block links to any site that allows individual users to edit the content. That just seems wront somehow.DirectRevelation 04:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Restrict Editing

Some asshole's been vandalizing this page writing over and over again "YOU HOLLYWOOD FUCKERS GET PAID ENOUGH." Can someone please find out who's been doing it, restrict his computer, and restrict editing to acertain amount of people! That would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.140.158 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Was just about to fix the aforementioned vandalism myself. Thanks to the person above and add a +1 from me to try to block (temporarily if need be) the person(s) responsible. KatCassidy 19:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Strike photos

There are more photos of strikers under a free license at [2], should anyone wish to get them. I think they're all of pretty good quality. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actors (And Truck Drivers?) list

I removed the list, but was reverted by Adam the Alien: "this is exactly the sort of info I came here looking for. I agree that it's messy, but we should find a better fix than scrapping it." I'm not going to insist on the list's removal, but why do we need a list of every actor (it's gonna be hundreds at this rate) who have expressed solidarity? The fact that actors are supporting the writers is significant, but a list of every supporter is pretty much white noise.

Can we move it to the talk page? I don't mind keeping it available as an appendix if somebody really does want the info, but such an exhaustive list adds almost nothing to the article itself.--Father Goose 07:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm wrangling with the idea of removing it. (The TV shows list is getting very bulky as well.) But, I think it should stay until after the strike is over to reassess when the article stabilizes. Not opposed to moving to a List of actors supporting the 2007 Writers Guild of America strike now, though.—Twigboy 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we also list Bob the Truck Driver and Sally the Animal Wrangler who are actually striking with the Teamsters? (I'm not making fun of those anonymous workers, I just don't know their real names.) If an actor is really going out of their ways at rallies and is in the public lime light (like Robin Williams) that's notable and I think the noise around Ellen is encyclopedic so I'm fine with both. What's the standard for which professions and which people get to be mentioned though? I'm open to different answers.DirectRevelation 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

First, actors are named specifically due to their notability. Ironically, most writers don't pass the notability test. The other professions are generally grouped under the "other unions" heading. Bob the Truck Driver is not notable, but his union is, so he is included under that umbrella. Also, consider that each actor sourced (most of them reliably, but can be improved as the article stabilizes).—Twigboy 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If Bob and Sally are quoted on the front page of the New York Times versus some supporting starlet on a CW series with low ratings quoted on Entertainment Tonight, I think we have a challenge meeting the notability standard in either case, no? Picking one over the other is just a cloaked form of POV. My larger issue though is what constitutes SUPPORT by an actor? Is being out there for a couple hours in a red t-shirt good enough or do they have to be real movers and shakers in the industry? I'm not going to delete the section but it needs to be defined and formatted better, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirectRevelation (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If no one else does, I intend to spin out the TV shows list, as it would work fine as a standalone list -- there are probably people who want to read about TV cancellations that don't care about the strike and vice-versa. But the actors list will get deleted if it is spun out -- AfD is like Galactus, eating any undefended articles it can find to sustain its life.

A list of hundreds of celebrities gets to be a din ultimately telling you nothing about the strike. From what I can tell, most of the recent additions were slated to strike for three hours on one day. That's not really the same as "striking with the writers", though the show of support is nice to see (from a pro-union POV). And did those on that list actually show up?

If we list names of actors at all, I think it should only be those who are confirmed to be out there day after day -- or maybe those who are truly influential, i.e., those who have "greenlight" power, like Robin Williams, or Larry David, or Garry Marshall. Letterman paying his staff is significant; Steward being rumored to pay his staff but that proved to be untrue is not so significant; Ellen continuing to work without writers -- is she the only one doing that? If so, we should state that; if not, we should list all the talk shows still airing so as not to single out Ellen, which is non-neutral.

I don't have anything against the list, but I think we can convey exactly the same information about the strike by saying "over 100 prominent actors have picketed with the writers" instead of listing every single actor. It would be ideal if we could move it into some sort of "appendix" that wasn't going to be targeted for deletion, but there's no middle ground on Wikipedia right now: either you bloat an article with tangential info, or spin it out and watch it get deleted.--Father Goose 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise. To avoid the shark-infested deletionist waters by spinning off the list, perhaps we can keep them here and slug with {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}}. This will collapse the entire list, which the reader can reveal if desired. I think it is very reader-optimized which is Pillar #1. I think that its long-term fate of the list still should come when the article has stabilized. No offense intended, of course, to our truck-driving friends :) —Twigboy 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is as an example. And thanks, Father Goose, for a good laugh over "eating any undefended articles it can find to sustain its life." High-frickin'-larious —Twigboy 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actors picketing

• Jamie Alexander
• Lisa Arch
• Tom Arnold
• Richard Belzer
• David Berman
• David Boreanaz
• Rosanne Barr
• Thom Barry
• Zach Braff
• Brigid Brannagh
• Creed Bratton
• Amy Brenneman
• Beau Bridges
• Sterling K. Brown
• Dylan Bruno
• Keith Carradine
• Sarah Chalke
• Justin Chambers
• Kevin Chapman
• Kaley Cuoco
• Jon Cryer
• Wendy Davis
• Thomas Dekker
• Dana Delany
• Kim Delaney
• Patrick Dempsey
• Minnie Driver
• David Duchovny
• Ethan Embry
• Diane Farr
• America Ferrera
• Tina Fey
• Sally Field
• John Finn
• Frances Fisher
• Fionnula Flanagan

• Kat Foster
• Drew Fuller
• John Glover
• Brad Garrett
• Summer Glau
• Clark Gregg
• Pooch Hall
• Valerie Harper
• Laura Harris
• Lena Headey
• Simon Helberg
• Patricia Heaton
• Katherine Heigl
• Marg Helgenberger
• Oliver Hudson
• Felicity Huffman
• Holly Hunter
• Ian Hart
• David Hyde-Pierce
• Ken Jenkins
• January Jones
• Bianca Kajlich
• Mindy Kaling
• Jamie Kaler
• Archie Kao
• Alex Kapp Horner
• Vincent Kartheiser
• T. R. Knight
• Angela Kinsey
• Lisa Kudrow
• Wallace Langham
• C. S. Lee
• John Leguizamo
• Paul Lieberstein
• Hamish Linklater

• George Lopez
• Lori Loughlin
• Julia Louis-Dreyfus
• William H. Macy
• Camryn Manheim
• Vanessa Marcil
• Constance Marie
• Garry Marshall
• April Matson
• Edie McClurg
• Brian McNamara
• Seth Meyers
• Poppy Montgomery
• Julianne Moore
• Tia Mowry
• Enrique Murciano
• Kunal Nayyar
• Paula Newsome
• B.J. Novak
• Oscar Nunez
• Bob Odenkirk
• Tricia O'Kelley
• Sandra Oh
• Chris Olivero
• Anna Paquin
• Jim Parsons
• Bill Paxton
• Matthew Perry
• William Petersen
• Madison Pettis
• Danny Pino
• Amy Poehler
• Ellen Pompeo
• Sally Pressman
• Megyn Price
• Jeremy Ratchford

• Sara Ramirez
• James Remar
• Ron Rifkin
• Tim Robbins
• Valente Rodriguez
• Ray Romano
• Susan Savage
• Doug Savant
• Ashley Scott
• Nicollette Sheridan
• Rondell Sheridan
• Sarah Silverman
• Rich Sommer
• John Stamos
• Bob Stephenson
• Josh Stewart
• KaDee Strickland
• Ben Stiller
• Wanda Sykes
• Bruce Thomas
• Tracie Thoms
• Maura Tierney
• Sam Trammell
• Jeanne Tripplehorn
• Kate Walsh
• Patrick Warburton
• Sam Waterston
• Tuc Watkins
• Marc Vann
• Liz Vassey
• Maiara Walsh
• Jon Wellner
• Melinda Clarke
• Olivia Wilde
• Robin Williams
• Rainn Wilson

I'm in favor of the above. The info is there, it's not spun off, but it isn't overwhelming. Maybe put that intro paragraph about 100 prominent actors and let the list remain hidden but available. Can you hide the TV show list in the same way? --76.171.172.73 23:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You've brought up a good point, Father Goose - thank you. I admit I'd gotten a little carried with sourcing and adding citations. I do like the idea of putting the list in a hide/show box, although if that gets too long as well, I'd be favor of creating a seperate article (but maybe after the strike is over when notability can be firmly established). Either way would be a good way to shorten the article, but I like Father Goose's idea of having a sentence stating "Over 100 prominent actors have picketed with the writers", and then listing some significant examples related to that topic. —Mirlen 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the Expand/Contract box or whatever that gizmo is. It has my vote.DirectRevelation 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

You can add Kristen Bell to the list. http://spoilertv-heroes.blogspot.com/2007/12/kristen-bell-and-heroes-join-wga-strike.html TheKillerAngel (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unaffected TV Shows

In the table of TV shows, several have been listed that are unaffected by the strike action - often because their production actually takes place in another country. With the table already very long and somewhat difficult to read through, would it not be best to remove any shows that are unaffected? Million_Moments 13:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I too think the list is hard to read but I'm not sure the unimpacted shows are the problem, at least not yet. (If I see the Chicago 6 O'Clock news there, I'll reconsider.) I think the main problem is that it's alphabetized by network (so all ABC comes up first) which isn't obvious when you first start to look at it. I think we should either break up the listing so there's a space between each network or realphabetize it by show so it's easier to follow. Anyone for or against either change? DirectRevelation 15:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

I think the by-network sorting works okay, but adding a space is a good idea.--Father Goose 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I ended up adding dark lines between each network instead because it looked better. I can't seem to get one between Lifetime and NBC though, I'll take another look later. DirectRevelation 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

There's a bug with that approach. If you click the "twirly" to sort by show title, you get a bunch of blank lines at the top. Only "unbreakable" solution is to give each row a background color based on the network. It would be rainbowish when sorted by show title, but not undesirable. Or, the sort option can be taken off the table entirely.—Twigboy 21:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the format of the table, and finally moved the whole section out into its own article.--Father Goose 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Strategies and Tactics: WGA

About 1½ paragraphs in this section are fully supportable assertions without being compromised by WP:CITE, WP:WEASEL or WP:SYN. Because this section is more than 50% compromised, I tagged it with {{NPOV}} to call attention to it.—Twigboy 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs more citations and the Weasel word are a problem. Instead of getting into yet another pointless and circular POV discussion, let's just fix it ourselves! I added a source to the studio section, corrected the photo caption, and took out the weasel words. Can you find a couple sources for the union section? I think it will be fine after that.DirectRevelation 20:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

My point with adding {{weasel-inline}} was that it read, paraphrased, "The guild is resorting to the Internet and here are ^{[1] [2]} examples." The two links made the point, creating a primary source in Wikipedia, rather than a source stating something like, "Unlike in 1988, the guild has turned to the Internet for leverage." So, it still doesn't fix the problem with that sentence. As for the whole section, it states what the union's intent is, rather than the union saying, "our intention is ...". I am looking for sources, yes, rather than the mindless tagging that goes on by other editors; I just wanted to get some more eyeballs in this weak spot in the article.—Twigboy 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean now. I missed your WP:SYN tag. While synthesis is usually used to advance a point of view, I don't think it does in this case so your NPOV tag in the article threw me off track. Yes the synthesis is a problem, but a citation by someone else commenting on the use of internet would still solve it. I'll see what I can find. DirectRevelation 02:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Entourage??

Will the strike at all affect entourage or curb your enthusiasm????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kblaushild (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My entourage is not affected, nor is my enthusiasm curbed.—Twigboy 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

*snort*--Father Goose 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

95k

This article is now getting much too big for Wikipedia, as it's now reached 93kbytes in size. Some splits may be recommended. Comment? -- azumanga 22:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Currently, we're discussing how to shorten the list in the discussion above "Actors (And Truck Drivers?) list." Perhaps we could do the same things with the TV shows affected. —Mirlen 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We're getting big again (95K) I think there are quite a few areas that could be trimmed down, cut, or summarized, and I'm gonna start by making some recommendations here, which I intend to implement if I don't hear some alternative suggestions. First off, I think we can cut out the "WGA Criticism" section for reasons of nuetrality discussed elsewhere on this page and because I don't think it's really of such outstanding encyclopediac importance that it belongs. Secondly, I think we can dramatically summarize the whole Worldwide Pants/Colbert/Stewart block of six paragraphs by distilling into a single paragraph. I question whether former "media executives" really need their own "response" section any more than former WGA guild members would need such a section. We can pretty much guess what a former AMPTP member will say about the strike. I also think maybe the list of actors can be moved to their own page, or only keep especially notable actors. Finally, I think the CBS News writers strike, while related, should be spun off onto its own page. There are probably many more places to cut, but those stuck out for me. I'm going to give it a day or so for people to post their thoughts and ideas, then I'll just be bold and proceed. Happy holidays, y'all. --Replysixty (talk)

UPDATE: Okay, I did it. I was bold and made a lot of changes. Cut it down to 87k. Summarized/moved/compressed/cut a few sections, mostly as described above. I didn't touch the actors list. Easiest thing to do is just make it its own section. Doing so I think would cut down the size of this article by a lot, I think. Also I noticed that much of the content is simply citing references. I wish that didn't count against the article size, but I guess it does... --Replysixty (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE TO MY UPDATE: It's a new year, so figured I'd split the actors list (finally) into its own new section. The article is now 67K!!!! Replysixty (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I'll try and look at it later and see where else we can drop some baggage, but it's way too big. Mirlen has added about 10K of new stuff just today, and while I appaud him working hard to stay up-to-date, the page is still too big and unwieldy. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just added news and info I thought was notable and should be mentioned. However, feel free to cut out, condense, and/or reword as you see fit, particularly in the Politicians and Effect on TV sections. Speaking of which, we should also think about archiving at least the inactive discussions of the first half of the talk page. (I'm a she, btw). —Mirlen 04:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I've made some cuts in some of the sections; see what you think. Of course, the article could still use more trimming of its fat. If anyone could rephrase and condense the info towards the end of the Negotiations and strike activity section for the better, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.—Mirlen 05:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Politician section/Adding Pro Wrestling/Eating Churros

The politician section has no POV and is well sourced. It is also completely trivial and adds nothing to the article. Yeah, yeah Democratic politicians say nice things about unions but have no impact on the actual strike. (And I say this as a union Democrat.)

I propose the following: Move the part about the Governor Arnold serving as a mediator to the negotiation section; deleting everything else.

If you disagree, you're voting to keep great text like this:

• "In addition to meeting some of California's legislators, they met with Rep. John Dingell and Rep. Edward Markey, who serve as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, respectively." DirectRevelation 01:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Admittedly not a Peabody-worthy sentence, but was that critique really necessary?—Twigboy 02:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it did help me notice that those specific details are pretty much pointless. I clipped them and merged all the policitican sentence-paragraphs into one paragraph. The politician stuff seems to me as meaningful (or not) as every other part of the "Response" section.--Father Goose 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning it up a bit. I'm having trouble with the meaningfulness of the the whole Response section. I think we should only include responses that actually impact the strike, not just commenary from the sidelines. No consensus exists for deleting the politician section so I'll leave if for now. DirectRevelation (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

• Rumor has it that tomorrow John Edwards and others will be walking with the picketers in Burbank. Dunno if that's notable, but just sayin' --76.171.172.73 02:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pro Wrestler commentary: OK, I'm working hard to improve the Effect of the 2007 Writers Guild of America strike on television spinoff article and it has what clearly belongs in the Response section of this article so I moved it here. There are(more educated) pundits on cable news talking about the strike. Should they be included here?

I'm really having concerns about this whole Response section. I only think responses should be include if they may have a tangible impact (like the Teamsters) or if they provide industry insight (like Eisner). We tried to have this discussion before with actors and got bogged down, but maybe we should revisit the issue with the understanding that actors will stay in their shrinky-dink green line.

In the mean time, we have Jesse Jackson and Triple H in the same article, which is flat-out wrong!DirectRevelation (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

The section on politicians may have use. There was some discussion on Deadline Hollywood Daily about the Obama campaign getting pressure from studio-executive donors. That's significant if that pans out. Schwarzenegger belongs, just as Gov. George Pataki belongs in the 2005 New York City transit strike article. Jesse Jackson is not a politician and does not belong there. It is also notable that the WGA and SAG are going to congressmen on influential committees and to the FCC, lest either tries to do something to undermine the unions' efforts. Pro wrestling commentary is completely irrelevant, and General Public is very close to getting spiked, IMHO.—Twigboy (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I didn't write the pro-wrestler section, just moved it from an article it clearly doesn't belong to one where it arguably belongs. The consensus so far in this "Response" section seems to be that you can't remove items of low worth because much of the Response section is low value. I'm arguing for a consistent approach to which responses we include based on some standard of actually influencing the strike outcome. Let's look at the whole section:

* Most of Section: Absolutely relevant info on Producers, Media Executives, Other Unions and General Public.

* Actors: Problematic, but let sleeping dogs lie.

* Writer-producers: Absolutely significant BUT is this really response? Since they are striking members of the writing guilds, wouldn’t this fit better in the strike logistics or tactics section?

* Agents: Like wrestlers, agents are in the entertainment industry and making comments that are sourced in the media as noteworthy. The agents have no significant involvement, self-serving press releases to the contrary. We have here a reference to providing strikers “Churros”. I’m not sure what kind of food a churro is, but I don’t think the inclusion of this info is encyclopedic. Would I change my mind if I tasted one?

* Pro wrestlers: Like agents, wrestlers are in the entertainment industry and making comments that are sourced in the media as noteworthy. I too would question the significance of this section as part of an overall quality review of Responses.

* Politicians: Your info about Obama isn’t in the article but, if you think you can add value to this section, please do so. Here’s a RARE example of where I think this section is better than you: JJ ran for president a couple times so I’m OK with him here, if this section stays. Yes, yes both sides are contacting their state and federal lawmakers but to what end? Federal intervention in historic strikes has been significant consisting of sending in the military to crack heads, deporting LEGAL immigrants, passing new pro-labor laws, and threatening to draft employees and employers making them both federal employees. (All REAL examples, btw.) Do you see our current federal gov’t getting involved at all here? Also, is the state going to extend unemployment to strikers or send in the National Guard? Aren’t we just talking about speeches and campaign stops here?

** Governor: Absolutely significant but Schwarzenegger is actually involved as mediator between the two sides. Like with the Writer-producers, I think this is more than a response and his involvement should be more prominent up near the beginning of the article.

.

So basically I want to delete Pro Wrestlers and Agents, move the sections on Writers-producers and the Governor out of this section. And I’ll give you a week to add significance to the Politicians section (without Arnold).

Do we have consensus? DirectRevelation (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

I think so, but IF the politicians section is kept, it absolutely must be added that the other Democratic Presidential Candidates are supporting the strike as well--we can't exclude them on wikipedia just because the sound bite cable channels do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougOfDoom (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Status of Response Section

Let me add a few thoughts here-- Professional Wrestlers are not affected by the strike in any way, nor do they have the capacity to affect the strike's outcome. However, this is not the case for agents who are both affected directly by the strike and, as reported in the media, have taken an active role in determining its potential outcome. The "churros" (a sugary deep-fried bread-stick kinda thing) story is relevant insofar as it highlights the support agencies have been providing for striking writers. (see bizarre picture here). In fact, there is new reporting that the agents (particularly CAA agents) are the ones who have restarted negotiations. IMO, reactions from those who could likely affect the outcome of this strike as well as those most affected by it (fans, agents) is relevant for an encyclopedic account of the strike-- pressure by fans in the general public, for example, are applying pressure to the studios and have been cited directly by Patric Verrone as one of the reasons talks are now resuming. Also, given his career as a DC shadow-senator, a presidential candidate, and civil rights leader, I don't get how Jesse Jackson would not be considered a politician?! I do think the writer-producer section c/should be moved up to strategies & tactics. Finally, Arnold has contributed virtually zero to the negotiations or lack thereof. If you're going to mention him, you might as well mention Rudy G's laughable offer to mediate too. --76.171.172.73 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that WONDERFUL picture of the Churros. I laughed out loud. Is it PD, cuz I want to post it in the article? Based on the new events, I retract my suggestion that agents are irrelevant. Also, pro wrestlers have been banished from two article now so I'll let the issue rest. (I'm not sure which article Father Goose cut and pasted that info into, but that's not the third article for that insight from Triple H.

Now there are other irrelevant commentators like talk radio and the LA County conference of churches that have gone on the record about the strike. But their opinions will also not matter nor are they directly involved in the industry so I'm not adding them.

So fare NO ONE has told me how politicians will impact the strike (and clearly they are not in the industry (except for Fred Thompson). Only suggested why our entry on the Governor is misleading. Again, why is the politician section here? DirectRevelation (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

What's wrong with this sentence?

Under the strategy and tactics section, I wrote the following opening sentence: "The strike itself is a tactic used to deprive the media companies of writing services." It has been twice removed as having a POV. Why? It's a straightforward sentence that points out the strike itself is a tactic- a means to an end. It would be as appropriate to make a similar statement in any labor action. If anything, it's somewhat obvious, but I don't see how it's non-nuetral. What's the big deal? --76.171.172.73 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Official Answer: Check the History tab of the article to see who is editing the page and then discuss it with them on their Talk page. (TwigBoy has some concerns about the section, as noted above, but I'm not sure if he is the one deleting this line.) Although I don't see any POV issue with your sentence, it might be just defining the word "strike" in the title of the article. Maybe if you also noted that the studios are withholding wages but can't withhold residuals, your statement might be more noteworthy: unlike most striking workers they are still getting some payments from their employers. DirectRevelation (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

The Unofficial Answer: Contributors who just use IP addresses instead of logins are more likely to have their text removed regardless of the merits. Register already! But note, some depraved Wikipedians fancy themselves as mentors to new registrants. The first 2 or 3 things you add to articles will be automatically removed and/or belittled in your Talk page by your unhelpful and unwanted bully, err mentor. But after that hazing, you'll be accepted into the herd and can post much stranger sentences without fear of being edited.DirectRevelation (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Depriving the media companies of writing services is the tactic, not the goal of the tactic. By phrasing it as "a tactic to deprive...", it misrepresents what appears to be the intent of the strikers. But since we're describing the intent of a party, we have to have a source that says "this is the intended purpose of the strike" from the horse's mouth instead of making an assumption about their motives. Without that source, we could still phrase it neutrally by saying "The strike has deprived media companies..." and avoid speculating about motives.--Father Goose (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see the distinction. So replacing the sentence with "The strike itself is a tactic that deprives the media companies of writing services." would be more clear? I still don't see this as a POV issue, more a clarity issue, but if everyone agrees this is better, I'll put it in. --Replysixty (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, consider if essentially the opposite thing were written: "Letting the strike happen is a tactic that deprives writers of income..." Thus I'll modify what I said earlier -- I'm don't think it's even right to describe the strike as a "tactic", any more than quitting a job that you feel doesn't pay fairly is some kind of tactic. It's an impasse, with both sides losing as a result.--Father Goose (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ReplySixty, See how everybody works with you once you're no long anonymous? Had any newby hazing on your talk page yet? DirectRevelation (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Speak for yourself! I treat registered users worse -- they give me a chance to build up a grudge.--Father Goose (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, oh then my Goose is cooked after that pro wrestlin' thing. DirectRevelation (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Where is the "show" button?

I cannot open the lists of actors picketing and actors expressing support for picketers. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm able to open it a new laptop running IE and an old Windows 98 running Netscape. What browser are you using? DirectRevelation (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

Internet Explorer 6 with Windows XP Professional. I also cannot see it on pages such as this. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Why is there no clear criticism section of the strike? And there is a lot of criticism out there. Just who is running this article? Surely we didn't all turn POV on this subject? JayKeaton (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Some criticism is already listed, but it is scattered. And yes, I'm sure there is more. But no one is running the article.—Twigboy (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So no one really has a plan or anything for this article, it's just add stuff randomly. What a shame :( JayKeaton (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the nature of Wikipedia. You must take it upon yourself to implement any changes you might seek. Unless you're willing to pay someone else to do it.--Father Goose (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll just hire some other people to do it. I'll get five times the amount of work done and I will have five "different" users to support each other with their decisions. JayKeaton (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to pick up some writers on the cheap. DirectRevelation (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

LOL, love all the writers jokes ^_^ Anyway I usually stay away from controversial articles, and this time is no exception. I just thought it was really odd that this article seemed to not show the entire picture, mostly because it makes the most sense to me to bundle all the criticism in one section. Otherwise it doesn't look like anyone has really been critical of the strike, makes the strike seem more like a rock concert. JayKeaton (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually a number of people feel a criticism section is usually poor practice. Check out Wikipedia:Criticism for example. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

and even more people find a lack of neutrality and very obvious Pro-WGA stance poor practice. If you don't want a criticism section per se, at least have a "studio's perspective" section of sorts to show the other side of the argument.203.164.55.21 (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility, please. It's all in the perspective. It sure seems like something ghostwritten about a writers' strike would probably have a lot of striking writers working on it, don't you think? I noticed you placed a call for differing opinions at the top of this page, rather than continuing this discussion, so I moved your call for counterpoint to the correct place on the page. Feel free to add to the page, I'm sure there's a place for properly referenced points from the studios' side as well. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

for someone calling on civility you are being extremely passive-aggressive, snowfire51. I only called for the article to remain unbiased as per Wikipedia's rules. If you want to create the article "The WGA 2007 Strike from the Writer's Perspective", then go ahead. 211.29.245.248 (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do articles from different perspectives, it is an encyclopedia. With my comments, I was trying to tell you that if you feel the article is biased one way or another, any editor can add properly referenced counterpoint. Go right ahead, there's no conspiracy to make this article pro- or con- either side. By the way, I've moved your comments back to the bottom of this page where they belong, new comments and discussions belong at the bottom of a page because that's where editors will look for current topics. Snowfire51 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

not all of us have time to refresh this page every second of the day. Stop being passive-aggressive! I am just saying the article needs to be balanced out. I am not attacking your point of view, but you are writing from a pro-WGA stance, and the article does read as if it is written from a pro-WGA viewpoint. I am trying to tell you that the article has a clear perspective, and it needs to be neutral. Stop replying to me like a child and deal with the fact that you are inherently biased.203.164.54.203 (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of passive-aggressiveness here. Nor are you being treated like a child. However, if you want something done on Wikipedia, you generally have to do it yourself. That's just how it is.--Father Goose (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, since I'm just responding to IP addresses, I don't know how many people I'm actually talking to here. Normally, I'd respond to your talk page, but since it's all IP addresses, I'll respond here.

I am not writing from any standpoint. I'm just trying to let you guys know that you're all free to edit the article. I have no stake in this, I've barely written anything at all on this article and I just came here in reference to another article I was working on.

None of the complaints have come from any editors with any editing history. I was trying to help by telling them that instead of calling for other editors to change the viewpoint of this article, it is perfectly acceptable for any other editor to make changes.

In other words, don't complain that the article isn't written correctly. Write a correct, more balanced version of the article, and it'll stand. There's no conspiracies here, that's why we're talking it over on this talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Good luck. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have an edit history and also have complaints. With controversial articles like this I do not really have the energy to fight with people like yourselves over any edits I have made. I do not have time to argue on the talk page for hours on end just to make sure that the article is unbiased. We meed a wiki group to step in. No single person can take on the bias of another, their edits will be reverted straight away and they simply do not have the time to argue their case to keep them in. JayKeaton (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, just make the edits you feel need to be made. That's every Wikipedia editor's right, and it's what I've been encouraging since this whole discussion began. Is there a history of questionable reverts or changes on this article? I've tried to be helpful here, and it seems like I'm suddenly the poster boy for the writer's stance. That's not the case, I assure you. Snowfire51 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

References

If anyone has time, please update the references according to WP:CITE. If this article becomes stable enough, then it can pass GA. Miranda 01:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I started to, but I didn't get far. It's swimming against the tide until this article stabilizes a bit. I started writing a section on sources as a subpage to this talk page, which can be found here. Didn't get too far on that before real life intervened. Some of the points I intended to expound upon were: (1) blogs run by published media (and therefore have editorial oversight) vs. other fan-type blogs; and (2) Yahoo news links expire after two weeks or so. Feel free to expand on what's on that page, because I'm going to be on a bit of a break for the next few days.—Twigboy (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, very nice Twigboy. That section would be a nice guide to standardize our sources more uniformly...and then we could get started on updating the references. As for the Yahoo! News links, couldn't we link to a cached version like this or this? —Mirlen 13:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Writers

The article reads as being extremely pro-WGA, in terms of the quotes that are highlighted and the tone of the demands and the article generally. Surely if this article is written by Pro-WGA writers, who cannot control their tone and make it neutral, we can add a "criticisms" section so it doesn't seem so biased. 203.164.55.92 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't know much about the strike. Came here to find out what it was about. Leaving with the feeling that the WGA strikers have time to edit wiki-articles now.76.106.33.90 (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't like the quote boxes. They strike me as more of a newspaper style (sound bites) than an encyclopedic style. As for "we can add more criticism", several people have suggested this but no one has actually done it yet.--Father Goose (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of those people, like me, are too scared to touch a controversial article like this. It can be a huge investment of your own time to make sure your edits aren't instantly turfed out by someone with a bias and then a lengthy battle with them on the talk pages to keep your own good faith edits in. JayKeaton (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that by specifically highlighting criticism against the WGA wikipedia 1st- seems to take a stance against them by not showing both side's criticisms of each other and 2nd- overly compensates for the very vague issues raised by the starter of this issue. On the 2nd point, perhaps the quotes and such appear to favor the WGA BECAUSE the WGA has widespread popular support? If the wiki represents the truth, and the strike's validity is largely a facet of its public support, wouldn't denying said support be disregarding truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus'sNewBag (talk • contribs) 01:33, December 1, 2007

Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is only about things that can be sources and about being not in a point of view. Truth is secondary. If we start to decide what the "truth" is then we are just inventing articles ourselves. We just report, we do not do original writing or essays JayKeaton 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It has to be though. By selecting only criticism of the writer's, wikipedia indicates the truth is that the writer's are not popular. This is not the truth (or if it is, it has not been shown in this discussion), and thus it is a failure of both reporting and accuracy. Simply adding criticism of both sides would help to eliminate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus'sNewBag (talk • contribs) 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

uh, the entire article is a criticism of the AMPTP so I don't see how highlighting one small section as criticism for the WGA is a problem. Why are you people so touchy about this? There are criticism sections in articles pertaining to movies; it doesn't mean people don't like the movies, but it does highlight that not everyone does.59.167.238.150 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

first off, how is the entire article a criticism of the AMPTP? The more I think about it, the less I like this "criticism of WGA" section as a standalone section. If nothing, else it creates the appearance of bias because there is no parallel section for the AMPTP --76.171.172.73 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. This article is about the WGA strike. Which means only having one side's opinion in the criticism section seems very baised. Even if the rest of the article leans one way or another. This is wikipedia friends. If the article seems baised, fix the article. Don't try to counter-weight it with MORE bais. We're better then that dudes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus'sNewBag (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for the strike

I find it assinine that the majority of the WGA believe that the mistake made in 1988, is the overwhelming rationale for their current strike. The reason for renegotiating contracts every so often is to assess the value of the service provided. At the moment the two sides do not meet.

The passages should be rewritten to show the details of the previous contract, and should remain neutral to the article. Facts, not 3rd person rationales. If someone has made a comment that they got screwed in 1988, then that person should be cited, with his quote. But to insist that the 1988 contract is the prevailing reason of the strike, which is how this article reads, without supporting it an empirical statement that proves 1) that this is a prevailing issue, 2) that the person speaking is in a position of authority, and 3) that he has the right to speak for the group, is simply making an unsound argument. It is assumed that the author is stating opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.93.104 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

script wiki - in response to strike

Guys, We are obsessed with wikipedia.

Why dont we start a scriptwiki. I know this would be a pretty simple setup.

just have a place where we can write and edit, and adjust scripts to popular tv shows... for example, The office. if the network likes it, they use it. otherwise they just dont.

anyhow its the same thing as getting paid on wikipedia... no money but recognition. could be cool.... anyone out there bright enough to implement the thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.228.8 (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really do that sort of thing, though Wikimedia the for profit organization that is ran pretty much by exactly the same people as Wikipedia might be interested. Probably not though as there is not a lot of money to be made out of it. Anyone can start a wiki though, you could do it yourself if you really wanted. JayKeaton (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

CBS Writers Strike

The aricle describes a CBS news writers strike that could have happened on November 15, did this happen or is this not real? If not, then it should be removed or moved to it's own article, I'm not sure it belongs with this main article. Milonica (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They did vote to authorize a strike, however the writers for that situation have not walked off the job yet. I'm keeping a close eye on it, but no new information has come out since the mentions of Democratic presidential candidates skipping a CBS News debate in Los Angeles in mid-December if a walkout does occur. Nate · (chatter) 04:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Effect on other crew for productions

I believe the article could be strengthened by some information about the grips, makeup artists, light guys, etc. who are also affected by shutdowns. The blogs for the late night shows mention them as well as many of the articles. As there is a lot of focus on the upper echelons -- actors, producers -- and how they are affected by the strike, I fell the article would be more balanced with at least a mention of the others who are effected. Wiley (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The strike is impacting a lot of little people in the industry. Just be careful, because the most of the people you mention are represented by IATSE, I rival union that DESPISES the WGAw. DirectRevelation (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

There should be a fair quantity of reportage that broaches the topic - I can't imagine it would be hard to find references. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

This article needs to be edited to:

a.) Offer the studios' side of the story. (It makes NO mention of the opinion of the "pro-studio" side, which does in fact exist.)

OR

b.) Have its pro-WGA tone and language rewritten to provide a neutral point of view on the subject.

The neutrality tag nor this discussion should be removed before this dispute is resolved, as per Wiki guidelines. Please see WP:NPOV_Dispute for more information on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylarwatchco (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article appears to have more of the WGA side of the story than the studios. However, I have to disagree with a "pro-WGA tone." Neither side is being advocated, and overall the article presents the available facts objectively. I say available because the studios' response has been relatively mute throughout. Former studio executives and pre-strike statements from the AMPTP make up the bulk of the employers' side of the story. That's not meant as an excuse, but it is admittedly lacking by circumstance. Also keep in mind that most of the action in any strike would be the strikers for the most part. The issues are substantially covered, the actions are well covered, the response to the strike is adequately balanced. I don't think the {{npov}} tag is necessary, as there are some small cleanup issues which are inline-tagged, but overall this is as stable and neutral as can be for this type of article—Twigboy (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Make an attempt to fix it, then. I'll back you up if someone tries to push a pro-writer POV. As yet there has been no such POV-pushing. Several have complained that it's very pro-writer in its tone, but nobody has bothered doing anything about it. If you do intend to fix it, I applaud you. If not, the tag's a WP:DRIVEBY.--Father Goose (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article needs to be improved, go in and improve it. If pro-studio quotes are being deleted or your changes are squelched, I'll back you up 100%. But I haven't seen that happening. In fact, the problem with this article is that it is TOO inclusive of mediocre but NPOV sections which waters down the quality of the article. The NPOV dispute is invalid and the tag should be removed. DirectRevelation (talk)DirectRevelation

Added note in Sylarwatchco's Talk page encouraging him to follow up here.DirectRevelation (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

I agree with the above. There's been a lot of talk lately about how this article is biased but since I've been watching, I haven't seen a single attempt to reference the other side of the debate, much less a bias that keeps those articles off of the page. Have at it, and Wikipedia editors will back you up. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The critic above should either put up or shut up. Where there is bias, fix it. I say remove the POV tag until someone can articulate what is missing, incorrect, tonally biased, or otherwise non-nuetral POV. It appears we have a consensus that the article has a NPOV, but I'll let the discussion play out a bit more. --Replysixty (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The critic will put up or shut up. I have been preparing to edit the article since I posted the NPOV tag, I wanted to see some peoples' feedback on the issue before I started making edits. Also I have been in bed/at work for the most part since I posted the neutrality flag. I will begin making edits now where I feel neccessary. My main concern is wil the fact that some of the statements on this page are directly disputed by official statements from the AMPTP website. While I am not saying their version of the story is the correct one, I am saying their version is just as important for unbiased discussion as the WGA's version. Thanks so much for everyones' feedback. Sylar (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than be defensive, I took a fresh look at the article. There are some critiques of this strike I'll be adding along the lines that "The Writers should have waited until the Actors' union contract ran out and struck with them because they have more clout." But that criticism is really around the edges of tactics, not the unions' core goals. Also, I think IATSE's critiques could be flushed out a little. They are the only union that not only tells their members to cross the pickets to honor their own contract, but doesn't rule out members doing work normally performed by strikers. Some of the IATSE/WGAw rivalry is pretty personal and nasty though. If there is a producer writing a blog about how he comes to work every day and those no good writers are still on strike, I have yet to find it. The studios really are not putting out much of a public PR campaign which limits how much we can present of their side in this article. While the article can always be improved, I still say the NPOV tag is unwarranted. DirectRevelation (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation.

I have edited the page in a manner that seems to make it acceptable to me. I feel it is unfair to document all of the WGA's claims (which it does) without documenting any of the AMPTP's claims (which it did not). I have added a "Criticism of WGA" section (which I feel is appropriate as it is the "counter-argument" to the WGA's arguments behind striking). Feel free to modify it if you want to add anything to it or feel it inappropriately phrased.

Remember: an NPOV flag does not mean that the article is biased, it means someone feels it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylarwatchco (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine. *Applauds*--Father Goose (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a standalone "criticism of WGA" section has a NPOV unless there is a "criticism of AMPTP" to balance it (And mind you, I am not advocating this)-- because right now the entire "criticism" is taken directly from one of the parties in the dispute! Perhaps calling it "AMPTP's position" might be fairer. Second, I think the arguments currently referenced from Nick Counter's op-ed are pretty misleading strawmen and easily knocked down, and in the interest of impartiality might be kept but could also be evaluated for factual accuracy. Counter charges that a writer's agreement is usually with production companies not studios/networks... BUT... contract language is usually negotiated by the studio/networks "business affairs" department on behalf of the production companies, which are typically funded by and work on for the studio/networks, AND the writers are usually paid by the studio/networks, not the production companies... AND if I'm not mistaken, the studio/networks are themselves signatory to the WGA. This is all my understanding, so it's a meaningless distinction even if it's true, IMO. Second, if millions in residuals HAVE been paid by the AMPTP as Counter claims, who did they go to? In many videos on Youtube and elsewhere, writers claim that their written programs and other content is streamed or sold without any compensation at all.. (Incidentally, I do think that if Disney's "digital" income of 1.5 billion is largely from sales unrelated to writing, it is a fair criticism if the WGA implies otherwise.)

FWIW- Another misleading statement in the op-ed is Counter's claim that "the WGA's 4,434 working members make an average of $200,000 per year". Well, okay- say you take take 10 unemployed people with $0/year income and add in Bill Gates. You could say the group has an "average" income of millions per year. But it's misleading because a mathematical average (or mean) does not imply "typical". And the fact that Counter includes only working writers in his average when ~48% of writers do not work at all makes it even more unrepresentative of a typical WGA writer's income. Again, using the above example, the average of "working people" in the eleven-person group would be exactly Bill Gates salary. If you want to determine the typical WGA writer income, you would use the median income of all ~12,000 WGA writers, not the average (or mathematical mean) of ~4500 working writers, which given a few superstar show-runners, will heavily skew the number into the stratosphere.

I found the following on Fans4writers.com:

Of those writers who do make some money, one quarter earn less than $37,700 a year. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual salary of working scriptwriters is $44,350 -- a more important and revealing figure than the media's frequent statement that the average Hollywood writer makes $200,000. (The median yearly income of all WGA writers, including those unemployed, is closer to $5,000 a year.)

Just some thoughts. I'll leave it up to y'all to decide if any of the above is interesting or relevant enough to put in the main article. Cheers. --Replysixty (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to include statistics of the median annual salary of writers, it'd be best to get our data directly from the source. However, the data isn't strictly limited to writers; it also includes authors. —Mirlen 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

At the very least I believe that the quote/mini rant of WGAW president Patric Verrone could possibly be removed.Oni Kimon (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is subsidy being considered or not?

Free subsidy is something writers should favor. Do they? A strike causes an industry to raise its prices and ultimately defeats the purpose of the strike because of the inflation it causes. A subsidy from the Federal Reserve, however, would help writers without hurting customers if done by printing money. While deficit spending causes inflation, printing grant money does not because grants are not loans. Writers should be merciful to their less-talented customers by favoring free subsidy. Good income should be an entitlement rather than a matter of optimism or faith. Therefore, is subsidy (as a source of their income) being considered or not? Chuck Marean 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

HUH? I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, see the very first note at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 Writers Guild of America strike article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.147.152 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

I'd like to propose a timeline of events section as the introduction is getting clogged up with dates of negotiations and breakdowns thereof. Rather than saying "on such-a-such date" in the intro, it would be added to the timeline, whilst the intro would read "As of 9 Dec, 2007, the strike is still in effect" (example). I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how. KatCassidy (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I'll give it a shot. Roenigk (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This would trigger inflation, robbing people of some of the value of their money. I doubt it would be popular among voters. 216.86.101.15 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the previous message is talking about, but I'm a little skeptical of the timeline.. I mean, that's what nikki finke's blog is for, right? In any event, a timeline might work as its own entry, but I don't know how to manage it in an encyclopedic entry. --76.171.172.73 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline as a seperate article (linked from main) would definetly be better than integrating it into the main article. KatCassidy (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If written properly (and we are doing this on the fly, so it would become more organized after the strike is over), the article would be the timeline, without the need for a separate section/article listing every time someone sneezed. Other than the start and end date of the strike, do any other dates really enhance the reader's understanding of the topic (as opposed to something like Timeline of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, which has scientific significance to broaden the reader's understanding). If we are resolved to keeping the timeline, then I would suggest using the graphical version of <timeline> which is at m:EasyTimeline, as well as a new template which I have not worked with yet: {{include timeline}}.—Twigboy (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a prosier version of a timeline that gives comprehensive background to an event that took years to become visible: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline. Similarly, the strike took decades to reach this point. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Television "bias"

Just to throw out a suggestion: most of the article is weighted on television writing and the effects on television, while movies are largely ignored. Yes, there is some information on the movie industry in the article, and it is symptomatic of the immediate impact to TV and the delayed impact (due to much later release dates) to film. There are some spotty reports out there about film productions being affected, and probably deliberately suppressed to avoid harming any film's marketability. The existing section should be renamed Effect on Media, with a movie and television subhead once we can substantiate the effect on movies. I'm looking now, but I wanted to get a few more eyes out there.—Twigboy (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article related to films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you could find more headlines here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page For Discussion of Article Only

Just as a reminder, the talk page is for discussion of the article only. We're getting some chit-chat down here, and although I can certainly understand some of the issues raised, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Monday Night RAW reference

I'd like to point out since I was at the event that it was on the first day of the strike in the city where this is all happening which is Los Angeles (IfYouKnowMe (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Do we need the Letterman waiver rumor?

I'm inclined to remove the whole newly-added section on whether or not Letterman will be given a waiver for his show. My reasoning is that a lot of words have been devoted to what is essentially a rumor, and until the WGA makes a decision one way or the other I don't see how it is particularly encyclopediac to include the various rumors swirling around the strike. --76.171.172.73 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be notable, since Letterman's production company, Worldwide Pants, is requesting to have an interim agreement with the WGA. It's rumored whether or not they would get a waiver, particularly since CBS, and not Worldwide Pants, holds the rights to new-media distribution, a core issue in the strike. Let's stick to what we do know: that a specific waiver was requested, and leave any speculation out.—Twigboy (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2