Talk:2023 Writers Guild of America strike/Archive 1

Archive 1

Start time

Is it 12:01 Pacific time or 12:01 whatever local time? Minor but important distinction that is relevant in a nationally distributed industry. Abeg92contribs 04:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

12:01 Pacific Time Zone, since the Writers Guild of America West (WGAW) is headquartered in Los Angeles. ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC) PDT

https://abc7news.com/strike-writers-guild-of-america-screenwriters-hollywood/13203852/ 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.wgacontract2023.org/announcements/wga-on-strike 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the contract expires at Midnight wouldn't it be Midnight that the strike starts not 12:01am, per the link that 0mtwb9gd5wx provided to the WGA Strike page. YborCityJohn (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike

2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike has link rot, use an Archive site ! .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list

CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list:

• WEPRIN, ALEX. HUSTON,CAITLIN. CHAN, J. CLARA (April 28, 2023). "Newfronts: The Big Questions Ahead of Amazon, Snap and Roku Pitches to Ad Buyers". The Hollywood Reporter. Penske Media Corporation. Archived from the original on April 30, 2023. Retrieved May 2, 2023.

• Robb, David, Tapp, Tom (May 1, 2023). "WGA Strike Picket Line Locations List And Times Set For Los Angeles & New York – Update". Deadline Hollywood. Penske Media Corporation. Archived from the original on May 2, 2023. Retrieved May 2, 2023.

CS1 maint: url-status:

• Humphrey, Julia (May 2, 2023). "'Abbott Elementary' Season 3 on Hold With Writers Strike". Collider. Retrieved May 3, 2023.

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Related work stoppages

• 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike§Related work stoppages

....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Minor disruptions due to strike

Per my edit here removing Daredevil: Born Again from the affected list given this report that picketing only disrupted one day of filming not the entire production, I have added phrasing under the level 3 heading with this edit. As I stated in my Born Again removal, I don't believe productions that are fully shut down should be mentioned (at least at the time amongst all the others listed that were completely shut down). If others believe so, then I propose some alternative section or listing to clearly differentiate the strike's impact on a production, be it a completely shutdown/postponement, or "minor" disruptions like what occurred with Born Again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we can still list it, but we should clarify the extent of the strike's impact in an efn note. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Born Again specifically was added again since my first removal so I've done so again while discussing. My feeling is that there needs to be some clear distinction (maybe not an efn note, but perhaps a † or something like that) to clearly represent what hasn't fully shut down. Or more subheadings are needed, but they can't all exist as one with out some indication as that feels deceptive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the cross is the best option. Spinixster (chat!) 02:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

A dagger works for me. Or, perhaps we could make a table similar to the ones at Effect of the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike on television. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think that works better, so +1 for that option. If the table gets too big, we can separate it like that article. Spinixster (chat!) 04:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I really like this idea! Thanks for sharing InfiniteNexus. 108.52.238.12 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Should also take into account if a leader of the production stopping all his work on production is considered a complete shutdown. Re: Andor

Agree that there should be a new category. It should not be called a "minor" disruption as that belittles actions by the unions, and shows anti-union bias. 108.52.238.12 (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Article has been split, see List of productions impacted by the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike. Open to suggestions for a better title. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Images from New York City May 2023

• Commons:Special:ListFiles/Fabebk

This user recently uploaded some pics from a 10 May picket line for a Disney production. I replaced one of the California pics with one of these in the current article. Maybe replacement was not necessary though - maybe room for this, that, and more pics? Bluerasberry (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This is for Daredevil: Born Again filming ("Out of the Kitchen" is its working title). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Peter Morris

Why is nobody reporting on the fact that the strike was prompted by the revelations that Adam Reed, Bill Maher, and Michael Che—along with the writing staffs of FX’s “Archer” and HBO’s “Real Time” and NBC’s “Saturday Night Live”—were induced by the Department of Homeland Security to participate in the torture of WGA member Peter Morris? 76.88.232.5 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That's because there is no source. Please supply a source. Spinixster (chat!) 09:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

revert of story

@RobotGoggles why did you revert this addition? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=2023_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike&oldid=1159363745 Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The actions of a line producer on set is not an official response by a film studio. That entire section belonged in the Negotiations and strike activity section. Placing it in the original section gives the wrong impression that a line producer is the same thing as an executive producer or studio executive. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"Productions unaffected" subsection in the "Productions impacted" section?!

Why is there a "Productions unaffected" subsection in the "Productions impacted" section? If the production is unaffected it isn't impacted, is it? Or would you put an alcoholic beverages subsection in the non-alcoholic drinks section? 87.158.188.160 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It was originally intended to list just productions that were affected. Someone started adding productions that were not affected, and I tried to remove that, but I was reverted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It is important to list productions unaffected, as a matter of historical accuracy. RobotGoggles (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The smaller of the two should be noted, right? Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Over 40?

Basler, Barbara (January 2005). "Hollywood to Writers: You're Fired!". AARP Bulletin. AARP. Archived from the original on 24 September 2005. Retrieved 23 June 2023.

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close due to the subsequent creation of the 2023 Hollywood labor disputes article. With that page surviving an AFD discussion, moving this WGA strike page to the proposed 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes title would now duplicate an existing topic. Any further discussion should be in regards to proposing page merges. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Writers Guild of America strike → 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes – As of midnight, the Screen Actors Guild has officially gone on strike. I propose we keep both strikes in the same article, this one. My rationale is this:

• First, SAG-AFTRA's strike and the WGA's strikes target the same corporations and they will picket the same locations. A big motivator for the actors to strike was the groundwork laid down by the writers since May.
• Secondly, both strikes are more relevant together than separately. The major sources which reported on the WGA strike reported on the SAG negotiations simultaneously, so even the trades consider the strikes to be part of the same movement.
• SAG-AFTRA members have been on the picket line in solidarity with the writer from the very beginning. As many of the photos in Wikimedia Commons show, actors have shown up and picketed along with the writers even when they were not yet on strike. This aligns their movement with the WGA even from the beginning.
• If we make a 2023 Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists strike article, it would use the same sources as this article, for reasons I've already mentioned, so jumping from article to article would be unnecessarily complicated for future editors. RobotGoggles (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

EDIT - SAG did not automatically trigger a strike at midnight as the WGA did in May. They will hold a meeting this morning and the board will vote on whether or not to strike, which they are expected to vote in favor of, unanimously. https://www.thewrap.com/sag-aftra-wga-hollywood-double-strike-2/ RobotGoggles (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Approve. In addition, a redirect (2023 SAG strike) should be created to this article. 24.191.232.15 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Support It makes sense to put both strikes in the same article, even if it results in this article being expanded.Historyday01 (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Support per above. I don't think there should be another article on the SAG strike since it is heavily related to this one. Spinixster (chat!) 13:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Oppose per WikiCleanerMan.Spinixster (chat!) 16:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Support. Although the move should wait until a strike order has been officially called. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The two strikes have similarities, but have distinct demands that make them separate and individual. These are two unions that work together and are supportive of each other but are different in what they do entirely. Actors showing up at the WGA picket lines was in support of WGA not because they were striking with them or based on SAG demands. A very false claim by the nominator who has not provided any sources to back up any of the claims, and are not backed by any sources if one did a simple check. And there is already a draft on this and this should not be merged. This will be falsely incorporating two different strikes into one that are not the same. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I believe you mean Draft:2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, right? But, I will hold off on supporting or opposing the proposed name change until the OP has provided sources to support their rationale.Historyday01 (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  This really isn’t accurate. Both of the strikes largely center around the use of AI and streaming residuals. https://www.eonline.com/news/1380068/breaking-down-the-2023-actor-and-writer-strikes-and-how-it-impacts-you 2600:4040:4754:3F00:44DF:8316:982F:2453 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose:WikiCleanerMan makes a good point.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose. Full disclosure—I've created and written most of the aforementioned Draft:2023 SAG-AFTRA strike. These two strikes have nothing to do with each other. They're called by different unions whose membership consist of mostly different people. The fact that they occurred at the same time is partly coincidental. As for the claim that it would use the same sources as this article, that is just straight-up false. See the references section in the draft. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the journalistic references in the draft, they all report on the SAG-AFTRA strike in relation to the writer's strike. This proves my point. The two strikes are constantly reported on together, so they should be included, together, on the same article. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@RobotGoggles: Not true. Most of these articles simply mention the WGA strike, especially in the form of a paragraph near the end. That is only to be expected, and proves nothing about the individual notability of either strike. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And why is it a paragraph near the end? Because it is essential information that is necessary to understand the article the reader has just read. When writing an article, you include new information at the top and body, and context at the bottom. This is why the WGA strike is written about at the bottom. It is essential context to the SAG-AFTRA strike. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@RobotGoggles: Under your radical new way of defining individual notability, we might as well collapse all of Wikipedia's articles into the Big Bang article, because everything will do a "context cascade" back to it. It's simply not true (nor anywhere in the guidelines) that anything that owes some amount of context to something else is not individually notable. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Once the SAG-AFTRA strike performs strike action notable in itself and not notable in relation to the WGA strike, then maybe we can discuss writing a seperate article for them. But until then, they should be one article. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

But it is individually notable! That's the whole point! 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand that is your opinion, and now that we have listed both our arguments, it is up to other users to make their decision. There is no reason to devolve this conversation into "nuh uhs" and "yuh huhs". RobotGoggles (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll WP:DROPTHESTICK. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• NOTE: I neglected to cite my sources in my proposal, this was an error on my part I will fix here. As you go through the references on this article, it is clear that the media considered, from the very beginning of the strike, that the notability of this WGA strike was so strong because of the potential for SAG and the DGA to strike. You can see that in this article, this article, and this article. The demands are different, but they overlap more than they don't. As cited in this Wikipedia article itself, and in the articles I cited here, the WGA's largest demands include streaming residuals and the restriction of AI in development. These are also demands that SAG-AFTRA include in their demand letter. The differing demands are much simpler and can be discussed in the body of this article. The Writers Guild is seeking minimum room sizes. The Screen Actors Guild is seeking payment for self-tape auditions. These are unique, but they shouldn't be enough to require two separate articles. They can be and should be addressed as headers and subheaders in this article. Further, and this is not an argument I made initially, if we combine the two strikes into one article it allows us to cover the deal made by the Directors Guild of America which averted a triple strike. As it stands, that has notability, but only in relation to these two strikes, as three unions on strike simultaneously has not happened before in Hollywood history. As I said in my original requested move, the notability of these strikes has always been intertwined. On Wikipedia, we care about notability when writing articles, and this is precisely why I believe these articles should be the same. Seperately, these strikes are far less notable. As for SAG-AFTRA stike news, all of their articles also tie the two strikes together. While the AMPTP has to negotiate with the two unions seperately, they will be doing so because of the pressure levied against them by both unions on strike at once. It is very important to also point out that during the writers' strike, actors, teamsters, and IATSE members regularly refused to cross the picket lines, as written about here on the Teamsters Local 399 website. Here is an article about the actors who also refused to cross the picket line. No matter how you look at it, these two strikes, and the labor action in Hollywood this year in general, are notable together, not apart.RobotGoggles (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @RobotGoggles: All you've proven here is that there's some similarity and interaction between both, which is not in dispute. However, there's no getting around the fact that each strike would be independently notable even if the other hadn't occurred. Unlike what you imply, most sources which discuss the SAG-AFTRA strike do not confine themselves to comparisons with the WGA strike. If anything, the SAG-AFTRA strike is more individually notable than the WGA strike since the membership of the former is at least 10x the latter, and yet the WGA strike has had an article of its own for 2 months now with no problems. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

As you can see on the reply I wrote to your vote, all of the sources do, in fact, compare the SAG-AFTRA strike to the WGA strike without fail. Go back and check your references like I did and CTRL+F the words "WGA" or "writers" and you'll see that they will use the Writer's strike to frame the Actor's strike in context, making them linked in the same way that two skirmishes are part of the same battle in a war. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Not true. This is OR. Tying things together when they are completely unrelated. First SAG, DGA, and other unions stopped working because of their agreement with WGA since these unions work on WGA projects. All major TV and film productions in Hollywood or the mainstream entertainment industry is union related. Unions work together in partnership because they are signatories. Meaning they can only work on union-backed projects. This even includes the biggest production companies, studios, and distributors. All these others that refused to cross the picket lines because their respective unions are not tied to the writer's strike. They are in partnership with one another. Thus, not the same union. They all have or have had different demands for their respective strikes. I suggest you do the basic research before making such claims of how these unions work together and why they have stopped working because of WGA's strike. And not refusing to cross the picket lines from other unions somehow means that they are all striking together. They are not. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not saying that they were striking together. Nowhere did I say that. What I am arguing is that this historical event is notable with the two strike actions tied together, not seperately. Until the SAG-AFTRA strike proves notability outside of its relation to the WGA strike, it should be included in this article. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, this proves quite literally nothing. Ctrlfing an article to see how many hits you get is not how notability works on Wikipedia. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but when writing a piece of journalism, you always place the context of the piece at the bottom to tie the current piece to the ones you've previously written. This is what those journalists did. Therefore, we should do the same. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

With this comment, I am changing my vote to Support. It makes sense to put these two strikes in the same article together, as they are related enough to be together. Not sure what's up with the strong opposition among some to having the two together in one article. However, I get the views of those who think differently. Historyday01 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. There is now a SAG-AFTRA article at 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, created by @ElijahPepe: independently from the draft. I'm currently holding my thoughts on whether the articles should be merged. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I propose we change this move request into a merge request, placing a notification on top of both pages. I'm not sure how to do this, but I think it would be the most straightforward and transparent discussion. RobotGoggles (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Festucalex Do you agree? RobotGoggles (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  The draft, which I mentioned in another comment is here: User:Festucalex/2023 SAG-AFTRA strike Historyday01 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• OpposeTwo separate strikes. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose since they are two separate strikes. I understand coverage will gradually merge the two, but they are still distinct, and this overlap would only go so far as both strikes overlap. It's very possible that one union will end its strike while the other goes on to strike for another several weeks or months. If grouped coverage is truly desired, then a separate overarching article should be created (e.g. at 2023 Hollywood labor disputes) which would cover both at a high level, and then following WP:Summary style, the details that are specific to each strike are covered more in depth at their respective, existing articles. In fact, this may be a good use of the work that already went into the draft now in Festucalex user space. -2pou (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @2pou: It's at your disposal. I've dropped this project for now. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  • @2pou: I would support an overarching article.★Trekker (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    Same, seems like a good compromise. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    I support that as well. I withdraw my previous comment on that. Historyday01 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  This seems like an excellent compromise. I support it. RobotGoggles (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  • • @2pou, RobotGoggles, and Historyday01: I have WP:BOLDLY created a small stub we can build on.★Trekker (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Aaaaaaan it's already up for AFD despite having a "Under construction", that's unfortunate.★Trekker (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

        Yeah, its another case of an editor thinking an AfD is the answer without doing any work on the article. Tired of those people. Historyday01 (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you brush up on WP:PA and the related WP:PASSIVE. If your articles—and I presume they are taken to AfD—are taken to AfD, it is not without good reason. A third article is not necessary. Coverage is split exactly as how the articles are. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't a "personal attack" in the slightest, I'm talking generally. I am just tired of editors in general who do this type of thing and your actions appeared to exemplify that. You did this AfD far too early and when the article is under construction. That isn't right. AfD are not always justified. I've been in MANY AfD discussions over the years which are brought for unjustified reasons. In theory, all AfDs are done for "good reason", but the reality is different. Historyday01 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it was appropriate to get the discussion going before articles start linking to it. For the record, I have given articles a fair chance and have expanded them amid contention. The topic of the article was inherently antithetical to what an article should be, I have learned, and action was taken to bring that to light. On its own, there is not enough information to sustain a separate article or to suggest a widespread strike. The title of the article immediately assumes that Writers Guild of America East isn't striking either, or that the only individuals affected by the strike reside in—or work in—Hollywood. The sole decision to move it out of draftspace was premature and assumed that it was ready. This is not the type of article where the ball can be rolled to a full article within the hour. I have made the mistake of creating articles prematurely, and eradicating that culture or even mindset is healthy. As it stands, this separate article does little to enhance the overall coverage of this topic. From researching this topic myself, it is unlikely for that to change. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Just to be crystal clear, I have nothing against you personally, as you created the page for the SAG-AFTRA strike (which is great!). As for this case, that's fine that coverage is split, but that doesn't mean a third article shouldn't be discussed. This discussion should be held on the AfD itself rather than here. I don't want to respond to this any more here, as a more appropriate place would be the AfD discussion. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• @RobotGoggles: Feel free to move it out of userspace. It's in your hands if you want it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• COMMENT While the two are separate strikes, some of it is about related subjects such as residuals, transparency over streaming numbers and AI, so I think an overall article on the reasons for the strikes may be a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Two separate strikes, though both within the entertainment industry. Though they are related, these two strikes are distinct. Natg 19 (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WikiCleanerMan. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a move/merge. But because the two strikes seem intertwined and related (as shown in the articles provided by RobotGoggles), it seems reasonable to have a separate article that ties this and the SAG-AFTRA strike together, applying WP:SS as necessary. Chlod (say hi!) 03:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose merge but support creation of a joint article. These are clearly two separate strikes that are receiving separate coverage. The fact that they're also receiving significant overlap coverage doesn't mean we should merge them, it means we should make a separate article for the joint event that is made up of these two separate strikes.Loki (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Revisit next year The two strikes will likely affect each other's outcomes, but we can't know that yet. Keep the articles separate for now, but if their outcomes end up intertwined, we can revisit this discussion next year. NotBartEhrman (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There may be a possibility of the strikes being too intertwined when we look at this later, as NotBartEhrman suggests, but I will support the idea of a joint article as proposed by Loki pending good execution. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose These are both WP:RECENT events, but still independent of one another. As NotBartEhrman says, we can revisit this in a year, when RS have had time to absorb the impact of these strikes, and potentially merge the articles into a single one at that point. But since we don't have a WP:CRYSTAL ball, it's too soon to say whether these two events need to be smashed together into a single article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Going to cast my vote now for oppose, without prejudice against revisiting the topic later. I think the current situation of having an umbrella article as noted above with these strikes as separate sub-articles handles the situation well. We can revisit in six months, a year, whatever and assess whether all three articles should be merged. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if there wasn't the umbrella article, I would still vote to keep the two strikes separate as they are distinct events with different causes, members, organizations, and (presumably) different outcomes. Yeoutie (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: sidebar/footer navbox and independent article

While I am convinced that these two events need separate articles, in lieu of the intention of the merge, I do recognize that the events are still interconnected. I would propose a standalone summary article as well as a navbox, either at the footer or in a sidebar, linking to various related figures, topics, and other necessary related articles on the topic. See Template:Ron DeSantis series for the sidebar model, or Template:Meta Platforms for a footer navbox example (except this will likely be much smaller given the low amount of articles as of present). If necessary, postpone this proposal until a later time after the dust has settled. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of actors

I guess there's two concerns:

1. The lists also include people who are members of the WGA and are thus on strike. Barinholtz, Bateman, Brunson (who is on both lists, actually). The reference on Mulaney indicates that his cancellation of the Baby J FYC is because he is on strike, and the reference for Colbert quotes him as saying he is in the guild (thus, he is also on strike). It is really odd to list persons who are in the guild and are on strike as being "actors who support the picketers or are picketing" simply because they may be better known that way.
2. Is this list actually encyclopedic? Yes, the 2007-2008 article has such a list, but I'm not sure exactly what the encyclopedic value of it is. It feels to skew toward WP:INDISCRIMINATE to include every single person who expressed support without any context as to what this individual's support means or whether their specific support is significant. This feels like information that should be added to the articles on each individual at most.

Between these two concerns, I wonder if it's worth while to keep the list. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the list could be summarized into a paragraph and include some of the actors, but not all of them, while other information could be added to the articles of each individual, as you point out. Historyday01 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would be the way to go. Summarize in a paragraph, specifically naming anyone who was called out by sources to be particularly significant and notable support. Like, anyone sourced en masse via the Vulture or similar sources dedicated to listing names or through personal social media doesn't strike me as worth individual inclusion (though those articles are great for helping summarize the size of support among actors), but Barrymore (who stepped down as host of the MTV Movie & TV Awards) is a good example I think of what I think warrants non-indiscriminate mention? Even Meyers ending the latest episode of Late Night with Seth Meyers: Corrections with a message about the WGA since The Wrap has an article only about that.

It's hard to gauge from here, but maybe the bar should be "third-party publication dedicated an entire article to this expression of support", since most actors do not currently meet that part. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Just look at the list of actors picketing at the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike; it's pretty long, so it's best just to have a summary of some notable people who are on strike. Spinixster (chat!) 03:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting take,

it seems a standard here at wiki, the encyclopedia that on going news such as the "Writer Guild of America strike" in that "Talk:2023 Writers Guild of America strike" are a long standing form of dynamics of on-going events. The idea of "maybe the bar should be "third-party publication dedicated an entire article to this expression of support" is good,

however doesn't this concern freedom of speech, that truly in truth being true, the freedom of expression, only by just peace-keeping dialogue in this discussion? Thereby, fundamental rights impartial from the Creator, to the individual writer in the Writers Guild of America are at stake,

one reference of the Creator Granted impartial rights is as follows,

"Charters of Freedom", ( ref, link source at Wikipedia is, Charters of Freedom ),

thereby, the list of actors provided they keep each of their involvement public, each as these rights, right? Yes, simplistic truth, however in the goodness sake, of each right from the Creator, good today of days, and just peace is a right from the Creator. Joschtony (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joschtony The WGA has 11000+ members, many of them also actors. If we were to list all of them in this article, the page would be very long, and it would be unnecessary to have a list of all the actors striking just to prove that actors are striking with the WGA. Again, the reasons for the list’s removal were already stated above. Plus, there are already news articles listing the actors striking, so I don’t see why this is a freedom of speech or peace keeping problem. Spinixster (chat!) 03:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"The idea of 'maybe the bar should be "third-party publication dedicated an entire article to this expression of support,' [*note by, User:TenTonParasol ] is good,

however doesn't this concern freedom of speech," of this talk thread. In that comment of mine I qualified the reason I thought it is a freedom of speech concern, and that had the person's whose names are publicly associated with the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike by freedom of speech have their names public, in that that has direct connection to this concern here, the list of participants how ever inclusive in up to the exhaustive list. Some could have personal concerns not to publicly list their name, that does have freedom of speech concern, as does the lawful peaceful assembly to redress grievances in general.

Joschtony (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Joschtony Wikipedia is not censored, so how does this concern freedom of speech? If they are publicly associated with the strike, their names should be public on many news articles. This article is not a list of all people striking, remember, there are over 11 thousand people striking, and it is not encyclopedic to list all of them, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a dictionary or a catalog. We can't include information that is not listed in reliable sources.

Otherwise, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Can you explain in clearer terms? Spinixster (chat!) 01:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

In gratitude as part of beyond the human condition,

by my personal impartial rights from the Creator whom I consider to be God Eternal, of the Scriptural texts of The Holy Bible, part of my not alienated by suppression of any type of oppression, the term "freedom of speech" in the course of human events, ref The Declaration of Independence part of the three charters of freedom, of the promised of freedom beyond the human condition of impartial from the Creator rights, this has been in this thread and is substantive to the conversation thread, of "and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a dictionary or a catalog. We can't include information that is not listed in reliable sources. " because this thread is part of having been under the impartial Creator Granted rights from the Creator, and obviously the integrity of wiki systems of pursuit of honesty is not being held in question. The thread involves freedom of speech, being freedom of expression of "2023 Writers Guild of America strike " and as for as I can tell, in caring thankfully to share in this thread that is quite clear. Thank you for your time, and just peace beyond the human condition by impartial Creator Granted rights, that are a blessing from the Creator's standpoint perspective, and I, lol, obviously am not the Creator. Only glad to thankfully participate in freedom of speech an inalienable right from the Creator concerning the subject at hand. Good today of days. Joschtony (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with the list. I do however think we should mark which actors on the list are also members of WGA with a note. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems clear to me that the list has no value whatsoever. Just not relevant or useful to the topic. I won't, but probably best if an editor just removes it. EagleFan (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to show responses to the strike, so I would go with the option that TenTonParasol mentioned: a "third-party publication dedicated an entire article to this expression of support" is needed to mention the response. Spinixster (chat!) 01:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly to get back to this, bc I keep forgetting to follow-up, given that the majority of the responses here are to remove it, suggesting a consensus toward removing it. Without any further major opposition, I'm of a mind to remove it per the reasons above and to distill it down toward major instances as described. I intend to retain the sources that are essentially "here's a list of actors who have expressed support" so that readers can still find it that way, but I don't think it's encyclopedic to maintain our own list. It just ends up becoming a meaningless wall of bulleted list. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your choice. The “here's a list of actors who have expressed support“ sources can also be used to showcase that many actors are picketing and/or expressing support as well. Spinixster (chat!) 15:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey @TenTonParasol, in case you forgot again. Since the Screen Actors Guild has gone on strike too and there's a possibility the article will be renamed to include the SAG, I think we should remove the list ASAP. Spinixster (chat!) 13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I was coming back today because that makes a week since my previous reply, but yeah, developments. I'll get to it later today. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

So, I've done a rough job cutting the list. I've done as said above. I also removed some entries because the article is an interview about a broad variety of topics:Natalie Portman, Jeremy Strong, Scarlett Johansson. I also removed Chris Pratt bc this is more of an article about the production being affected and Conan O'Brien for being a primary source. I also removed Jessica Biel and James Cromwell despite them having dedicated articles because the articles don't contextualize this within some larger event, and I didn't know how to work them in, and it is moot given the looming SAG-AFTRA strike. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Timeline Of Strike

Are there any plans to include a timeline of events surrounding the Writers Strike? I am worried that doing so may turn the article into a current events page which I believe is not allowed on Wikipedia, but there are other articles that do have dedicated timeline companion pieces. Would the SAG-AFTRA strike article need the same, or could the timeline actually be put into the 2023 Hollywood Labor disputes page instead to cover both WGA and SAG-AFRTA? ElMeroEse (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Of thus WGA writers strike, The concern on human rights of "increase funding and job security for writers." standard."

In the information box of the "2023 Writers Guild of America strike" article is the following,

"Caused by ● Lack of agreement on a new contract between the WGA and AMPTP

• Poor compensation for writers via residuals with the advent of streaming."

"Goals ● Increase funding and job security for writers"

Please, in gratitude of human need to communicate,

in this regard, the need of informative help to relate to others,

has a direct correlation to this labor strike of deep concerns of unearned suffering in regard to equal opportunity in basic rights from the Creator, as the following quote from Harvard Law School shows.

"Among others, a few of the human rights evaluated in the report are the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to education, and the right to an adequate living standard. Levin Kim, an author on the report, also spearheaded the creation of a visualization that illustrates the connections between the rights and use cases studied." - online source link as follows, ( Evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence on human rights - Harvard Law School | Harvard Law School )

This relates to how story tellers in a societal need are being treated, so direct relation to points of concern of the article, "2023 Writers Guild of America Strike." The following is to some ubiquitous knowledge, however commonplace in the knowledge base of recent history of directly relates to the Writers Guild Strike, thank you for your consideration.

• In the humanity of relating needs, in gratitude;- The rights are impartial for equal opportunity, the need of dignified honorable work ethic. How can the institution of story telling, be used against the dignity of the story tellers, in such deep unearned suffering? In truth I do not think some understand the ramifications of the AI not sentient no consciousness immense proportions in consequences. Artificial, as each of us knows has a synonym, fake is the word. Faked so called "intelligence" is an information retrieval systems computer science technique using relational databases. Tools like Grammarly are cool to use, but there is no pretense of a fake intelligence for the purpose of pretense of use of fake intelligence to generate stories, nor have avatar actors in pictures and sound of voice in video. Everything like this has a starting point, then gradually, growing proportionally into nudged by use of semantics until the technique of replacing real human being of dignity and rights;- by some crafted justification into immersed in unjustified, yet veiled standard operating procedure. Thus has truly surreal context, in that some of this sounds like a science fiction story. My hopes of a successful cause in this needed strike, in need of precedents, as part of the dignity of humanity needs. Each of us has higher reasoning sentient consciousness, in that the Creator provided true sentience, in this true life, personally God did this for each of us to be in the image and likeness of God. There have even been futuristic films of orchestrators using such fake intelligence techniques, and "Twilight Zone" in that sometimes human story telling has elements of the prophetic. Hopeful wishes in blessings of gumption and chutzpah, - the just peace beyond the human condition by rights impartial from the Creator the God of nature and Supreme Judge of divine Providence, [*note, borrowed from the Declaration of Independence.]

Joschtony (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I absolutely cannot parse what change you want made to the article. Your comments read like nonsense strung together... are you composing these replies with ChatGPT? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on the user's contributions, I feel like they might be misusing Wikipedia as a forum even though they know it's not. Spinixster (chat!) 13:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

August 11, 2023

Did the strike actually end on this day? Nothing else on this page says anything. If you want to say it ended today, please add citations. WiinterU (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it has NOT ended. An update on the official strike website ONLY says they received "a counterproposal from the AMPTP" and will evaluate it, with a response in a week, while adding "In the meantime, please continue to demonstrate your commitment by showing up to the picket lines: for yourselves, your fellow writers, SAG-AFTRA, fellow union members, and all those in our community who are impacted by the strikes." Whoever added that the strike ended is LYING. Historyday01 (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop yelling at me. I wasn't the person doing it WiinterU (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

People who aren't using Wikipedia accounts are changing the writers strike to say it ended today. We need to lock this page so people need an account to edit this page. WiinterU (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@WiinterU You need to go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for that. Spinixster (chat!) 09:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a list of impact of the strike on tv and films?

Title. Ebbedlila (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ebbedlila There already is, see List of productions impacted by the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike. Spinixster (chat!) 09:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Notable strikebreakers

There’s a new section called Notable strikebreakers. While I do think it can be included, I wonder if the strikebreaking should be mentioned in the strike activity section or not. Currently, both incidents are also mentioned in the strike activity section, so I hope to form a consensus. Spinixster (chat!) 00:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be better to mention them in the strike activity section. I only updated the text there, in that section, but can easily be moved to the strike activity section in order to avoid duplication.Historyday01 (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There does seem to be significant attention regarding the strikebreaking, so it might be justified to have a separate section. Additionally, it does seem to be a bit weird to mention shows in a section focused on the Timeline of negotiations and strike activity. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, I will say that I am a bit confused though about what is okay to mention and what isn't, mostly regarding talk shows. Should Sherri, [1][2][3][4][5][6] Tamron Hall, [3][4][5][7], or Karamo [4][6] count as strikebreaking? Given that they have air over the summer, would either The View and/or Live with Kelly and Mark count? [4][5][7][8] (Would The View count specifically due to having striking WGA members and having been picketed? [4][9]) What about Jeopardy! which is a game show, but the WGA has said is being produced by a struck company and has also been picketed? [10][11][12][13] (Basically, where is the specific line regarding being a strikebreaker and being considered to be notable at that?) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That is another thing to consider, for sure, but I don't think it will be encyclopedic to mention all of them in a list, like it was for the actors supporting (see talk page archive). Spinixster (chat!) 11:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated image in hover preview for this article

The preview for this article, e.g. when you hover your mouse over the link to this article (right now on the current events portal) shows a picture of genitals (DSCN3269_(2).jpg), which picture is not anywhere to be found in the actual article. Th55 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This is from a vandalism edit which has been reverted. Spinixster (chat!) 08:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

the strike ended

Im pretty sure the Wga strike ended Nickiswerid (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The WGA and AMPTP reached a tentative agreement, and the WGA called off picketing for their strike action. The WGA has to ratify the deal with a majority voting for it, before officially declaring the strike action is over. A deal does not automatically mean the strike is over. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

glooks Trailblazer101 appreciate the insight 50.200.50.225 (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: Writers Guild and Studios Reach Deal to End Their Strike - The New York Times (nytimes.com) The strike may be almost over. Cwater1 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Except it's not. There are things that must be done before a strike is officially declared as over. The deal between the writers and the studios has to be put through a vote. Once it is voted on, and once the WGA officially says it's over, then it will be over. So like they always say, "It ain't over till the fat lady sings." - Jasonbres (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Make sense. I want to make sure I didn't put the wrong information on the article. Cwater1 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reports on the terms of the agreement. Is that by design until the deal is ratified? MLcausey (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

By design. They don't want to put out something until the deal is in writing and placed before the union members to vote. Otherwise things can be misunderstood and lead to further disputes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

you should atleast ad a note Nickiswerid (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Now it is over. Cwater1 (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Strike.TV

Strike.TV was organized during 2007-08 strike. Has any similar project occcured in 2023? 24.7.104.223 (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general chat. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 10:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Ended “peak TV”?

The sole reference for that is a forward-looking WSJ article verging on an opinion piece. I mean, sure, it may yet prove to be right but it seems way premature to put it in the article as fact and very dubious to ascribe industry decisions to the strike as a sole factor. The economics of streaming have never made sense and a reset was being predicated well before the strike. 2601:602:8800:7DF0:9541:5B2D:2534:A7F9 (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I just removed it for now, it's definitely too bold of a claim to be making in the lead Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)