Talk:The War Room

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dr. Strangelove[edit]

This article is all wrong. "The War Room" is a room in the movie "Dr. Strangelove" where the president and top military personnel gather in the event of a war, more specifically, world war three, against the Soviet Union. The room features a very large, oval-shaped table where everyone sits around, and a "Big Board" with a map of the USSR and US bombers flying over it. The room is not real (or so the government says) but it was an important part of the movie. Furthermore, the idea of a war room has been used in many other movies, television shows and books. I have herd that one president believed there was a real war room because of the movie.

The War Room article needs to be about the war room in the movie and other fictional works also using the concept, including the Clinton movie. But this article SHOULD NOT be about the Clinton movie, rather if anything it should get its own page, such as The_War_Room(movie).

If you feel that strongly about it then I'd suggest making a page for 'The War Room (fictional)' and applying for a disambiguation page, but to be honest the situation appears to be that people have seen a need for a page on this documentary (which is rather important and influential, as documentaries go) and not for a fictional room in Dr Strangelove. If you want one, make one but to claim 'this article /should not/ be about the Clinton movie' is nonsense; wikipedia doesn't work that way. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The West Wing[edit]

The page previously said:

The documentary acted as a major inspiration for the television show The West Wing.

What evidence is there for this?

None, I suspect. It's no secret that Sorkin drew heavily on the Clinton years for inspiration for storylines, but so far as I'm aware from interviews most of this information came from books. It's certainly possible that the 'look and feel' of the Barlet campaign during the flashback scenes (e.g. in In the Shadow of Two Gunmen) might have been taken from what's seen of the Clinton campaign in this film, but you'd definitely need some kind of citation (an interview or directors commentary or something) rather than outright asserting it. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

'Background'[edit]

At the time of writing the background section makes no sense, to the point of being incoherent. "The Clinton camp embraced the new news phenomenon while the rest of the country was being flooded with character, competence, and image press rather than platform and political information" clearly implies that the Clinton campaign was not based on 'character' and 'image', when in the next sentence the writer asserts "The 1992 campaign exemplified the shift of United States political coverage from platform information and traditional press to what it is today: a character and celebrity focused popularity contest." If the 'new' phenomenon that the Clinton campaign embraced was character driven politics (which is nonsense incidentally; character politics was a major issue in the Kennedy-Nixon campaign) then the earlier remark contrasting 'the new news phenomenon' with what the 'rest of the country' (rest, as compared to where; New Hampshire?) being 'flooded' - 'character [...] press' - there is a clear contradiction in what the writer is asserting about the nature of the Clinton campaign. Needs a major re-write. May do it myself time permitting. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)