Talk:Mrs. Landingham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Henry Landingham

It's mentioned that he might have bene killed in Korea? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Mrs. L mentioned that she and Henry both tried to talk Andrew and Simon into going to Vietnam? Plus, in 18th and Potomac she got her first car since Henry died. Which means he couldn't have died too long ago. She certainly didn't have the same car since the early 50's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.187.7 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that, in the first-season episode In Excelsis Deo, Mrs. Landingham says that she and her husband tried to talk the boys out of going to Vietnam. So, Henry didn't die in Korea. How soon before 18th and Potomac he died is uncertain, though. --Hnsampat 00:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

It appears as if one person has taken control of this page, as well as several like it, and is continually rewriting it in "Literary Present Tense" (though the character is dead and the show no longer running) and completely ignoring the in-Universe warning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction). This page is not about an actual living being, past or present, and should not be written as if the "Character" ever existed in a real life setting. This page is no longer Neutral in that one biased individual appears to be in control. Kjnelan (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because one user contributes more frequently than others does not make the page biased. I have removed the POV tag for now. Do you have any specific issues with the material being presented in a non-neutral way or are you more just concerned about one user contributing too much? Also, please note that by actively pursuing literary present tense, I am not writing the article with an "in-universe" perspective. On the contrary, the article MUST be written in literary present tense to AVOID being "in-universe". If we don't use literary present tense, then we treat the subject and events as if they actually happened, which they did not. Please see the discussion below for details. Also, please realize that just because I made corrections to your earlier edits (which, by the way, did a great job in helping the article) does not make me "biased". Please assume good faith, remember to be civil, and realize that, by contributing to Wikipedia, your work may get mercilessly edited by other users. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's incredibly vain to think I'm upset because you changed something I wrote. I don't know you and don't really care that you changed what I wrote, what I do care about is that someone is indiscriminately deleting things they don't want the public to see. I'm also merely pointing out a certain individual has taken control of a page even deleting neutrality comments on the main page when the issue has yet to be settled. Perhaps you should refer to your own reference regarding your work being edited. Are you taking the page too seriously? I still call in to question the neutrality of this page. And it is still written as if the person actually exists/existed outside the scope of the series. There are no verifiable references or citations and a Unreferenced tag should also be added, but I'll hold off for now. It is written as if by personal experience. there are no references or citations to the creators of the series. Neutrality has not been established as per Wiki:Npov since it is written as a first hand account rather than referencing the creators of the series nor does it reference any verifiable scripts.Kjnelan (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I just don't understand what you mean by the page being written from "personal experience" or "as if the person actually exits outside the scope of the series." Several times, sentences are written like, "In the episode X, blah blah blah," which I think is more than sufficient to distinguish fact from fiction. I do agree with you that there is a problem that the page is unreferenced or only cites episodes. I think one of the main reasons for that is that the article currently only does plot summary, without providing the other "out-of-universe" information that I discuss here and that I think we need to add to the article. However, this is an issue of referencing, not of neutrality. WP:NPOV becomes an issue when the article becomes filled with opinions as opposed to facts. There are no opinions in the article as it stands right now. Could you please spell out what exactly the NPOV issues you feel exist in the article? Also, once again, I do request that you remember to assume good faith. We're all trying to improve the article here. I apologize if I came across as condescending earlier; looking back on my words, I realize that they come across as if I assumed bad faith on your part, which is certainly not the case. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

For instance: "She is the only White House staffer whom the president nearly always addresses formally; he typically calls her "Mrs. Landingham," although he addresses other, more senior members of his staff, and Mrs. Landingham's eventual replacement, by their first names." is still in-universe since it does not denote the character. I understand that you are trying to maintain a certain... status for these characters, however they are just that, characters. A better sentence was given by someone else a while back that you deleted: "The Landingham character is the only White House staffer whom the..." That simple change takes the entire section out of in-Universe AND maintains "Literary Present Tense". You may not agree with the need to change it to that style, but referring to a character as if they actually existed (or in this case still in existence) blurs the line between reality and fiction. Likewise the section referring to her marriage should be changed to reflect this is a character and not a real life person. A one line title to a section does not necessarily imply we are talking about fictional characters and no one should assume that the reader has read the very first line of this article. Perhaps somehow moving the very first line to a spot just after the index box would solve the entire problem and render this discussion mute.

The NPOV article, (*and everyone should take the time to read it) also refers to an individual writing the article. And I quote: "Bias Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias) Mrs. Landingham (and all other characters on the show) are characters and not real life individuals and should be treated as such if they are to be placed in an Encyclopedic type article. I honestly don't care what tense you use. All I ask is that YOU keep an open mind when someone is editing "Your" article. Kjnelan (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we might both have misinterpreted each other's motivations. I don't feel any sense of "ownership" towards this article and I apologize if I came across that way. I also am not trying to maintain any kind of "status" for the characters. On the contrary, I'm just trying to make this character article like any other article about a fictional character. The reason why I edited sentences that, for instance, referred to "the Landingham character" is because I thought it was redundant to keep emphasizing the fact that this is a fictional character. Not only does the lead establish that this is a fictional character, but the majority of the biography is placed under a section called "Character" (which I just changed to "Character biography", FYI). Also, we keep making references to what is revealed about the character in various episodes of the TV show. I don't see how anybody could reasonably mistake this article for one about a real person. In fact, there's another key way in which we make it clear that we're talking about a fictional character and not a real person: we're using the literary present tense! Had we been talking about a real person, we would be using the past tense like we do when talking about real people. And, it will be even more obvious that this article is about a fictional character once we get the "Development" and "Reception" sections written (which I just created stubs for). Really, I don't see what more we need to do to make this any more out-of-universe. Are there specific statements you have problems with? --Hnsampat (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well... Good luck to you then Hnsampat. You obviously have a personal stake in this page so I'll back out and unwatch it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Editorship_disputes Kjnelan (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kjnelan, you are assuming bad faith on my part and have done so from the very beginning. I think I have been more than reasonable in trying to communicate with you, compromise with you, and work with you. I have never claimed or shown any signs of claiming "ownership" of this article or demonstrating any kind of "personal stake". I have, however, disagreed with you on the matters of content in this article. My views on these literary present tense and in-universe/out-of-universe issues have developed from considerable experience in dealing with such issues on Wikipedia. Obviously, you don't agree with me, which is why we are discussing this matter here. You and I have a content dispute, nothing more, nothing less. I think it's grossly unfair and frankly in violation of Wikipedia's spirit of cooperation and consensus-building that you have characterized me as a "biased contributor" from the very beginning (and referred to me snidely as "a certain contributor" or made other third-person references that were obviously referring to me). You don't have to walk away like this. I am still willing to discuss this issue with you. If, however, you decide that you don't want to be civil and want to continue to assume bad faith on my part, then that's unfortunate and you will soon find that such an approach will not get you very far on Wikipedia. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Um??? Okay??? "...snide remarks... wow... you really need to go back and read the edit history of the article. You were not the only person who removed information or made cuts and the few other people who did I couldn't remember their names. Those "snide" remarks as you call them, were intended for those other people whose names I couldn't remember. I don't know why you assumed I was talking about you, but Hey... I apologize for what may have seemed like a slam against you. I do read histories. I do read past edits. Someone else, (in other words, not you) removed the in-universe, but you thought I was talking about you??? But this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about with regards to Bias. Why is it you assumed I was talking about you? I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's mighty vain to assume I was only talking about you. Forgive me please for not remembering his name... wow!

You're right. I don't agree with you, and I personally believe you have refused to see the other side of the coin. If you have seen the other side, you've never stated such. Please re-read that last two sentences. I'm not accusing, I stating a personal belief. I have acknowledged your side and refuted it with example, which you seemingly ignored or rebuffed. It does appear that you come across as biased and higher than everyone else by what can be read in the history and your responses. So if I have read into anything at all, it's because that's how it was presented to me. It is not a violation to bring to someone's attention they may be biased. Again, I'm not accusing, I'm merely pointing out a possibility which obviously offended you. That is the reason http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Editorship_disputes exists. You disagree that you are biased, then fine. I'm not assuming bad faith on your part, but thanks for the accusation. Here are my reasons for thinking this way. I believe you have a bias on this article because you have chosen to remove anyone's edits you deem to be out of literary present tense (and it also appears as if you delete anything inconsistent with what you want in the article), but you have also undone edits regarding headings others (not mine and I really don't care which) have put in or changed. It truly does seem, by looking at the history, that you have taken ownership. If I'm wrong, then so be it. As I said, I'll back out. No problem, no issue. There is no need for name calling or getting bent out of shape. I think I've been more than civil with you and my last act of civility was to concede, which you took as something else and then proceeded to lecture me?

As far as your "remark" (again, not assuming anything, you put it out there) regarding... experience, I've been around a while too and only recently formalized my account, but I've been editing for several years as I'm sure you have. This shouldn't be an issue of who has more... "considerable experience". I thought I was only pointing out a single possibility of potential bias which obviously offended you. So be it. I apologize for the offense, but not the opinion of your bias. I still concede, I still back out. Move on Hnsampat. Or do we take this new issue to arbitration? Get over it man. Kjnelan (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of "vanity" on my part aside, I agree with you. Our discussion has clearly long since stopped being about improving the article and instead has become about each other. So, yes, as we've both been saying, let's move on. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh... and as an aside, I have never assumed you had anything other than the best of intentions for this page Hnsampat. My personal feelings regarding a possible bias does not immediately equate that I assume bad faith. I think you need to rethink that one as well. I've never stated you had bad intentions for this page. Quite the contrary. You obviously have a passion for West Wing. I honor that. It was a great program. I'm sure your intentions are the best. That does not take away from my own observations of the possibility of a bias. I don't know where you assumed I felt you had bad intentions as I never stated such! Perhaps I'm not the only one assuming things? Kjnelan (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. I just felt that when you started calling me "vain" and "biased" that you were judging me unfairly (which is ironic, since obviously you thought *I* was judging *you* unfairly!). But, all's well that ends well, right? Friends? :) --Hnsampat (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggested you might be biased and gave my reasons. I also stated it was my own personal belief. So yes, I suppose it could be considered an accusation. I thought I was pointing out a possibility! Also, I never called YOU vain, I referred to your actions as being vain: those are two different things!!! I don't think you are judging *me* at all and never stated such. I think you expressed your assumptions and told me I wasn't keeping to the standards of the Wiki. But... Okay, we'll go with what you said... Friends??? um... Sure... Why not... O.o Kjnelan (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I just made some edits to reduce the 'in-universe' look of the page. Concentrating on the character as she is seen in the show is the main thing, relegating things that happen offscreen to a later section. I've removed the "in-universe" tag because I think it's better now, but feel free to improve it further. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article, as written, does a good job of staying out-of-universe in terms of describing plot and character biography. However, I have added back the "in-universe" tag for now because the article still lacks any kind of information about character development or other production-related information. Right now, the article solely contains plot summary. (The only out-of-universe information we had, i.e., the information about the real-life measures passed to commemorate the death of the fictional character, was removed due to unreliable sourcing.) For examples of what I mean by out-of-universe information, check out the articles on Josiah Bartlet and Leo McGarry. --Hnsampat (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I'm afraid. The "in universe" tag is intended for places where the style of writing is primarily as though the character was a real person ("Obi-Wan was born in 3179..." etc). Most of the writing here is out-of-universe - "Mrs Landingham first appears..." "In the episode 18th and Potomac...". The article is much shorter than the other articles mentioned, but it is still mostly out-of-universe. Could you be more specific about what things you consider "in-universe"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with what's written, as it is indeed written from an out-of-universe perspective, using literary present tense and everything. I guess my issue is that we don't have enough information outside of plot summary (i.e., information about how the character was developed, how the character was received, and other information from the real world). Perhaps the "in-universe" tag is not what I'm looking for. Maybe we need the "expand" or "more information" tag instead? --Hnsampat (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's getting closer to out of universe. There is still some minor work to be done, but just who is supposed to remove the tag? Anyone willy-nilly, or admins? Kjnelan (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates primarily by WP:CONSENSUS. So, if we get a consensus on this page to remove the tag, we remove the tag. Anybody can add it, anybody can remove it. A consensus doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agrees; just that a majority of the involved editors reach an agreement (although I use the word "majority" hesitantly, because Wikipedia does not operate through "voting"). --Hnsampat (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The tag was removed by ONE individual WITHOUT consensus. Kjnelan (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And when I saw that there wasn't a consensus, I didn't mess with it further. One doesn't have to get consensus everytime one does something on Wikipedia. One should, however, seek consensus when something is clearly controversial, which this was. No need to argue here. We're all on the same side. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that your edits did serve to take the majority of this article out of in-Universe. Again though, perhaps moving the introductory sentences to a spot just after the index box would resolve many of the problems for this article. If that can be done well, then I would lift all my objections save the one regarding citations as those are important in any writing circle. Proper citation is a must. I'll do my part and try to find verifiable sources for the actual scripts. Kjnelan (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First, addressing the two editors speaking above, I want to thank you both. I believe you both have a genuine desire to make truly valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and I hope you can both have high regard for each other. I assumed all of your comments were directed to each other, so I may have made an error in interpreting some of the remarks which one of you might have also made. It's easy to become convinced that one is being subjected to unwarranted criticism, and it is always something to admire when both parties end up putting the irritation behind them and developing mutual respect. I hope that is the case here.

Second, with regard to the subject of this article, I think Mrs. Landingham is particularly worthy of an article here. I think West Wing, especially when it first appeared, was a very high quality contribution to television art. I think Aaron Sorkin is a genius - one of a kind - without peer. I don't watch television myself, and haven't for some time. I am paying for HBO now, however, and I chose to do that just because I saw some clips on YouTube of "The Newsroom". When the transcripts of Richard Nixon's tapes became available, it made quite an impression on me that the people in the White House were more ordinary in many ways than one might think. It would be interesting to seek to find out what influences might have led Mr. Sorkin to devise West Wing characters to have the characteristics which he invested in them. We might debate whether Wikipedia is the proper venue for an encyclopedia of television fare, but, in fact it is that. And I expect that it serves the interests of many people for it to function as such. And if people are drawn to access Wikipedia for information about television shows that they like, they are being brought to Wikipedia, and hopefully, they would then be more likely to use it when they are seeking knowledge of other sorts. There is very little cost to non-TV-viewers for Wikipedia to serve in this way. The cross-pollination of reality and television fictional fare is illuminated somewhat well by the structure of Wikipedia. And the content of television fiction is certainly illustrative of contemporary culture, seldom more pointedly than in the case of West Wing.

Again, my thanks. Of course, I realize that I am commenting on edits which are practically ancient history. NWSE (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Assumptions

(This is quoted from a comment left in the coding of the page itself)

-NOT "was"; she does't stop being a character the moment her character leaves the show-

What the person who left that remark failed to take into account is that the character "died" in the show and should therefore appropriately be referred to in the past tense since they are no longer considered living in the show. This is called "Literary Past Tense" and in this case is very appropriate. The "character" of Mrs. Landingham DIED! "Literary Present Tense" is no longer valid on dead characters unless describing her place of burial and current state of composition. This also furthers the above case for a Neutrality Check. Kjnelan (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

However, the show is not an event; it's a work of fiction. She is alive in the pilot episode and in all of the first and second seasons (except for the finale of the second season). Those are not events that exist in the past. Remember, an ENTIRE work of fiction is in the present tense. What you're referring to as "literary past tense" (I'm not sure if that's the proper term for it, but whatever) is for events that are in the past tense for the ENTIRE work of fiction. So, for instance, it is okay to say, in the article about Owen Lassiter (a former Republican president) that he was a Republican president, because his Republican presidency occurred ENTIRELY outside the timeline of the ENTIRE show. Remember, the ENTIRE work of fiction is in the present tense; it's not like later episodes are in the present tense and earlier episodes are in the past tense. If we do that, then we are indeed adopting an "in-universe" perspective and thus violating WP:WAF. Before we continue this discussion further, I'd like to direct you towards this discussion here: Talk:The West Wing/Archive 2#Regarding literary present tense (was and is). Thanks for your understanding! --Hnsampat (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

and she is dead in subsequent seasons so how to balance the two opposing views? She can't very well be both dead and alive at the same time or we run into only one of the problems of Literary Present Tense which is the paradox effect. Hnsampat, my arguement is not that LPT shouldn't be used. I am only suggesting there are other options which will satisfy both sides of the isle. AND let's be honest here. It is appropriate to use past tense in Literary works other than just in "ENTIRE" works of fiction that take place in the past. For Example, it is perfectly appropriate to say, "The Landingham character died in a car accident at the end of season two..." just as it is perfectly appropriate to say, "Landingham is killed at the end of season two..." Even more appropriate is to say, "The Landingham character is killed in a car accident at the end of season two..." It is correct to mix tenses in literary summations so long as it is done appropriately and not in the same sentence. I honor that you have chosen a point of view to represent, but please represent LPT fairly and allow for the inclusion of the rest of the rules regarding LPT.

You are also forgetting that the series is now technically in the past as it is no longer present day. You are also assuming the series took place in real time. IN fact, there was never a date given in the series so one could even argue the series took place in the past or in the future, in which case LPT is no longer valid and then you would be using Historical Present. While there were references to real life events, no dates or years were actually given that I remember. I could be wrong here though.

This is quickly turning into a matter of perspective. All I'm asking is that you open yourself to the possibility that you are so mired in your view point that you can not see past LPT to the other possibilities.

One last thing, please try not be condescending when discussing literary style. I'm only pointing out that this is to be an encyclopedic article which needs to be looked at from ALL sides equally. If you chose to keep this page in LPT, then so be it. Simply say so with your reason and don't look down your nose at others in the process. I have a thick skin, but I also believe in personal responsibility for actions and words. Simply because you can't see me doesn't mean I'm not human and prone to knee jerk reactions. That goes for every other computer based interaction. These just aren't words on a screen, they are utterances of a real live person.

Kudos though for doing such a ban up job. Kjnelan (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I commend your act of good faith here. I certainly respect your view here and thank you for presenting your argument in as reasonable a manner as you have. Rest assured that I am certainly open-minded to other viewpoints, but please also understand that my disagreement with your viewpoint is not due to stubborness or closed-mindedness but simply because I disagree with your viewpoint. I agree that the best way to say it is, "Landingham is killed in a car accident at the end of season 2." (Like I said earlier, I think saying "the Landingham character" is redundant.) However, please understand that my viewpoint does not assume the series is in real time and that literary present tense applies regardless of when the series actually takes place. For instance, Star Wars takes place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away", but nonetheless we would describe the plot of the film as follows:

Darth Vader is an enforcer for the evil Galactic Empire. He is searching for the plans to the Death Star, which have been given to Princess Leia for safekeeping. Those plans, and the robot they have been programmed into, find their way to young Luke Skywalker on the planet Tattooine. Luke lives with his uncle and aunt, who raised him. He has never known his father. He later meets Obi-Wan Kenobi, who was a Jedi Knight in his younger days but is now a wanderer...[blah blah blah]

See how I used present tense when describing all of the events that occur in the film, and past tense when describing events that occur outside of the film? This is because the entire work of fiction is in the present tense, whereas events occurring outside the fictional work are in the past tense. I hope this makes sense now. And, once again, I assure you that I seek to be a reasonable and cordial as possible. I don't see how my words are coming across to you as condescending or impersonal, but I do apologize if they are. On the contrary, I was beginning to feel that you were being rude to me unnecessarily (by referring to me in the sarcastic third person as "a certain contributor", etc.) and constantly accusing me of being condescending while I felt I was simply being reasonable, albeit persistent in my viewpoint. Perhaps, like I said earlier, we are both misunderstanding each other and each other's motives. But, regardless of that, why don't we try and make a fresh start? :) --Hnsampat (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)