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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nbc.com 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  
Two
 New sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I was bold; so were you.--Father Goose 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 2008? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Replied to Jon on his discussion page.DirectRevelation 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my talk page for belated response Lycurgus (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "W" in West

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: TV Guide News Link

message: Because we should be payed too. 129.137.172.254 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Because we should be paid too."  Ten cents, please. :-P --Father Goose 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Section about Conflicts between Acting-Writing-Producing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tar and feather the producers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: According to an NYTimes article on the strike , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Clarification of reality show "writers"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  teamsters were in picket.  did the teamsters officially strike? wouldn't a teamster strike bring hollywood to a standstill? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  References 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: Associated Press article...doesn't have everything, but it definitely helps. Nate 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New source for remaining episodes besides LA Times TV Grid

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Heads of talent agencies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Animation and reality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm guessing the Fischer blog wasn't blacklisted until after the link was added.--Father Goose 03:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blacklist is for any myspace.com link. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Blacklink

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restrict Editing 

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

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

message: 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  to call attention to it.—Twigboy 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  My point with adding  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Strategies and Tactics: WGA 

message: 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)
replies: text: My entourage is not affected, nor is my enthusiasm curbed.—Twigboy 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *snort*--Father Goose 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entourage?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Uh, oh then my Goose is cooked after that pro wrestlin' thing. DirectRevelation (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with this sentence? 

message: I cannot open the lists of actors picketing and actors expressing support for picketers.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where is the "show" button? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title: Rationale for the strike

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  script wiki - in response to strike 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  CBS Writers Strike 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Effect on other crew for productions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is subsidy being considered or not?  

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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: .—Twigboy (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: Here's an article related to films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you could find more headlines here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television "bias" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talk Page For Discussion of Article Only 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WWE Monday Night RAW reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Do we need the Letterman waiver rumor?