Talk:Dr. Strangelove/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Trailer

Could somebody write up a short paragraph on the trailer? It isn't mentioned at any point in the article, and it's been called the first real modern trailer. There's a special feature on the DVD about it. I would write it, but I've lost my copy of the DVD. Potatoes9000 (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

makes no sense

". Herman Kahn in his 1960 On Thermonuclear War used the concept of a doomsday machine in order to mock mutual assured destruction; in effect, Kahn argued, both sides already had a sort of doomsday machine. Kahn, a leading critic of American strategy during the 1950s, urged Americans to plan for a limited nuclear war, and later became one of the architects of the MAD doctrine in the 1960s." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.229.66 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Aerial footage used in 2001

I removed the assertion that the aerial footage behind the bomber was "tinted and used in _2001: A Space Odyssey_." This is incorrect. The _2001_ footage was shot specifically for that film, in 70mm and in color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.113.197 (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It could very well be true. The film in 2001 at the end is tinted, so it could have been shot in B&W. And changing the size of film is no problem. Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pie scene

"The scene was never released to the general public and not included in the laserdisc and DVD releases of Dr. Strangelove." Then why is the source for the screenshot a DVD release of it? Recury 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They don't show the full scene on the DVD, just clips, which is where the screenshot would've come from142.162.147.130 (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible misquotation

I think the quote in the Plot section that states "ten to twenty million tops... depending on the breaks" is not what it actually says in the movie. I believe the last word should be "breeze" because a) the breeze will affect where the nuclear fallout will go, thus determining the casualty count b) breaks does not make sense in this context.

However, I can not find any way to confirm this. On this website (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html) it says "breaks". Perhaps the quote should be taken out altogether because it doesn't even really fit in to the rest of the paragraph.Lordofhyperspace 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Breaks" is a common American colloquialism meaning fortunes or luck, i.e., "man, that's a bad break you got there." Turgidson is saying that, if the US were lucky, they'd be looking at about 10 million dead; if they were unlucky, it'd be about 20 million dead. Luck, in this case, would be American bombs hitting on target and working as designed or better with few, if any, aircraft being shot down before reaching their targets, and the Soviet response getting minimal weapons past American air defenses, and those being inaccurate or defective; bad luck, of course, would be just the opposite.

I don't see any real need to remove the quotation; it accurately shows both the claim being made by Turgidson, and Turgidson's way of thinking--that suffering ten to twenty million American dead would be acceptable losses in return for destroying the Soviet Union, and he's completely disconnected from the thought that these are real people, not just numbers on a sheet of paper. Rdfox 76 12:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I have never heard breaks used that way before. Thanks for the info. Lordofhyperspace 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"77. the breaks, Informal. the way things happen; fate: Sorry to hear about your bad luck, but I guess those are the breaks."[1] --Jtir (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Which physicist?

Re: "Possibly inspired by Edward Teller ("father" of the H-bomb) and Nicholas Metropolis (a wheelchair-bound physicist prone to outbursts of violent temper)" — I can find reference to Teller's difficult and volatile personality, but not of Metropolis. Can't find references or images to either of them being in a wheelchair. Perhaps this is the chairbound disguise of Clare Quilty, Sellers' Lolita character which prefigures Dr Strangelove in the film. Anyone? If there's no objection I'll clean it up later Julia Rossi 04:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of refs for Teller, and although afaik he didn't use a wheelchair, he did have a well-known walking difficulty (a problem from childhood with one leg). I don't know about Metropolis though. AdamSmithee 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Teller I can buy. Metropolis I cannot. Wikipedia's own article on Metropolis has him skiing regularly at age 70, an unlikely avocation for a wheelchair-bound scientist. Nor is there any indication of wheelchair use, or violent temper, in the links from the Wikipedia article -- including his Los Alamos obituary.128.165.87.144 22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there is confusion between Nicholas Metropolis and Fritz Lang's movie Metropolis. That movie has a mad scientist, Rotwang, who also wears a glove. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the mid-1950s, von Neumann [one of the father's of game theory] left RAND to join the Atomic Energy Commission, a decision-making position which, as an immigrant, he felt extremely honored to hold. He did not serve for very long, as he became ill shortly after assuming the position (although the gravity of his condition was kept secret, and he remained publicly active for about a year). By the end of 1955, however, he was confined to a wheelchair and attended AEC meetings thus. This has been construed as (possible) proof that von Neumann was the model for Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. Author William Poundstone has pondered:

Was the wheelchair-bound von Neumann a model for the title character of Stanley Kubrick's 1963 film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb? Strangelove, 'Director of Weapons Research and Development,' is confined to a wheelchair. He speaks of having commissioned a defense study from the 'Bland Corporation.' As is often the case with satire, a number of models have been suggested (especially Werner von Braun and Edward Teller), and there is no reason to think the character was based on any specific individual. see more at: http://mayet.som.yale.edu/coopetition/vN.html

Von Neumann was not an advocate of the kinds of views that are satirized in Strangelove, so I think he is unlikely to have been the model. Also, I'm not sure how many people were or are aware that he was confined to a wheelchair for a time. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

John Milnor also thinks that Dr. Strangelove could have been inspired by von Neumann --- see http://www.ams.org/notices/199810/milnor.pdf (at the end of the first page). After all, why is the wheelchair that important? --Cokaban (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions a possible connection to Kissinger. It can be verified that Kissinger gave no press conferences during Nixon's first term. I remember reading at the start of Nixon's second term the idea that they had kept Kissinger out of the public eye precisely because his accent would remind people of the Strangelove character. In the first year of Nixon's second term, Kissinger was finally rollled out for the press. F.Baube —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.251.125 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole section is a huge mess. Strangelove, as is well known and super well documented, is almost entirely based on Rotwang from Metropolis. Perhaps someone should read a physical book or two instead of relying entirely on online articles or crappy DVD special features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.102.57 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In the book, Dr. Strangelove is stated to have lost his hand (and received the other injuries that left him in a wheelchair) during the RAF bombing of Peenemunde, where presumably he would have worked alongside such people as Werner von Braun, Walter Dornberger and Walter Thiel. IIRC, because of this incident Strangelove is a distinct anglophobe in the book, although that doesn't feature in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.10 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Trivia" vs. "Miscellaneous facts"

Regardless of the dogmatic insistence otherwise, there is a distinct difference between "trivia" and "miscellaenous facts." "Trivia" is, by defintion, trivial -- unimportant, minor, not significant. A trivial fact is true but uninteresting, uninformative, inapt or unworthy of inclusion, and any list of such facts should be removed -- not simply tagged but gotten rid of.

A "miscellaneous fact" is something else entirely. It is a fact that merits inclusion because it fufills the Wikipedian requirements for such, but which is either not easily connected to the existing body of the article, or for which the necessary connective material would be longer than justifiable. A list of such facts is not "trivia", it's a list of stuff that deserves inclusion, but which just don't fit easily into the article. To slap a tag on such a list, condemning them is unfair.

Not only that, but the purpose of the tag eludes me. If an editor believes that the facts aren't worthy of inclusion, he or she should remove them, not simply label them. If the facts are worthy of inclusion, then they're not "trivia" and the tag is unwarranted.

In this case, the tag is completely unwarranted, and I'm removing it for that reason. Please do not restore it until you have made your case here and a consensus has been reached on this discussion page concerning its applicability to this specific list of facts. If there are facts on the list which are trivial, perhaps we can reach agreement on them and they can be removed. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from. you are right that some of these miscellaneous facts are in fact noteworthy. However a bulletpoint list of them is sloppy, and invites people to add less notable things into the article...and who can blaim them, they have a list of disconjoined statements that they are mearly adding to.

my question is: how do these statements, that don't fit the flow of the article and can't be included inside the article without a major rework of the existing body, justify inclusion into this article? The reason I placed the tag there is because it calls for editors to work the bullet list into the main body. if it doesn't fit into the main body, then how does it fit into the article itself? (note that the body of the article, is in fact the article itself).

Personaly I believe that if it dosn't fit, it dosn't belong. and I consider bullet points in wikipedia sloppy editing.

please note that the tag only calls for people to try and work the list into the article, and I didn't delete this section. I am going to put the tag back, I have done as you asked and posted my reasons and I hope we can make this work and get a better article from it. Coffeepusher (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have re read the list, and I don't thing it actually differs from a trivia section. "'Peace is Our Profession' was the actual motto of the Strategic Air Command....on her 90'th birthday the audiance started laughing...Major Kong's B-52, The Leper Colony, is a direct tribute...The science officer character in the Muppet Show skit known as Pigs in Space...Dame Vera Lynn, in an interview on the BBC that celebrated her 90th birthday..." that and there are only 2 referances for 11 bullets, which makes it uncited information...and in the case of the Raising Arizona bullet dangerously close to origional reserch. outside of cocktail partys, how does this information help me better understand Dr. Strangelove?Coffeepusher (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, please, but you seem to be missing the point here. I've instigated a discussion about this, and requested that you not restore the tag until that discussion has reached a consensus and yet you have once again put the tag on the list! Since a discussion is underway, you should not anticipate the result of that discussion until it is concluded. Please do not restore the tag until we've talked a bit about this.

Now, to your substantive points -- your prejudice against bulleted lists is unfounded, they are not sloppy editing at all. In some situations -- such as this one, with a list inclusion-worthy but unrelated facts -- a bulleted list is, in fact, the best and clearest way to present the material.

I'm not sure how to respond to your question about how a particular fact "Helps you better understand" Dr. Strangelove -- that would be up to you, I would think, but, in any case, helping you better understand the subject isn't the criteria for inclusion. (How does knowing who played the Russian ambassador help you better understand the film? It doesn't.) These facts are notable, relevant, interesting and informative, and therefore merit inclusion.

Tags are, I'm afraid to say, widely overused on Wikipedia, especially so since they are almost entirely ineffective in doing what they purport to do, which is to prompt someone to edit the material. Look around the project and you'll easily find tags that have been in place for a long, long, time without anyone doing a damn thing about the underlying material. A tag is, essentially, goading someone else to do work that you feel should be done, and, as such, they are sloppy editing. Not only that, they disfigure the page and make it more difficult for the user to utilize the article. Of what possible use can it be for a reader of Wikipedia to know that "trivia sections are discouraged" on Wikipedia? It tells them absolutely nothing about the subject they've come to find out about, which is why they're reading the page in the first place.

I look forward to you response here, and hope to engage you in helpful discussion so that we can come to some mutual meeting of the minds, but I remind you, while the discussion is ongoing, please don't restore the tag that we're discussing here. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 08:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me how this imporves the article.

I could easily take a few of the bullets and encorperate them into the article, but the reast seem to be uncited popular culture references. this opens a trap door to a bottemless pit. baced on the noteriaty of the items on this list we could include "In one episode of the animated telivision show "The Tick" a stock mad scientist was modeled after Dr. Strangelove who made giant pants to lure a rampaging monster" "Phantam hand syndrome has the nickname "Dr. Stranglove hand"" "Ride The Bomb is a phrase used to mean follow a task to your mutual distruction" etc. That is why I don't understand your distinction between trivia and this list, it appears to be up to you as to what word you use.

I will go ahead and see if I can encorperate some of the cited references into the body of the article, since that is your end goal...keeping them in the article. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I have already started doing that.

Unlike you, I have no objection to cultural references being enumerated in Wikipedia articles -- it's simply a matter of keeping them under control, which is no different from editing an article for any other reason. I really can't understand why people seem so frightened about this -- I've never seen so many "slippery slope" arguments as when one discusses cultural references. Weird, it's as if people are afraid of our culture somehow slipping into an encyclopedia, a large part of which is devoted to cultural items. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop inserting material until you've seen what I've already done as part of a general clean-up of the article -- you're duplicating effort. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

hehe! I don't usually get called on when I use fallicys in logic, they ususaly slip by. I actually agree that popular culture should be included...within reason. I was thinking about turning the Micilanious section into a "Popular culture references" section. what do you think?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be OK -- we'd just have to find place for the 3 non-cultural reference items. I'll take a look at that now. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've moved all but the three cultural references into footnotes, and changed the title of the section, plus I think I'm finished with the general copyedit and clean-up of the article, pending another look-see later today. (I find I need to lay off for a while and then look again.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 18:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Groeteschele

Groeteschele was Jewish not ex-Nazi in the book Failsafe, which was published in 1962 not 1960, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.77.74 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

suggest splitting off list of references to CRM114 into a separate "list of" article

Personally I dislike these "lists of" because they are incoherent, tend to grow "ad infinitum", and clutter the article with barely relevant info. I suggest following the example of THX 1138, which split off such a list into 1138 (number). --Jtir (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me take a look at that article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good suggestion, I've made the move and just finished fixing the redirects (hope I got them all). Now, we'll see if anyone objects to have the material there. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think to check for an article called CRM114, but there it is. ISTM, that the main CRM114 article should be about the device in the film, and the article on the computer program should be renamed to, say, CRM114 (program). It might be a good idea to add a screenshot, so that the exact punctuation, "CRM114" vs. "CRM-114", is verifiable. BTW, another article, Room 101, is split off from 1984 (novel). (FWIW, CRM113 is an earlier, little known model of the device. :-)) --Jtir (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed renaming CRM114 to CRM114 (program) at Talk:CRM114. --Jtir (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Slim Pickens and whether he really did know he was in a comedy

This is mainly a response to Ed Fitzgerald but I felt it was best to put it here as it relates mainly to the article. I'm sure Ed will see the comment very quickly.

Ed, this article is not your personal property. Wikipedia is built on consensus. The point we are disputing is only a minor part of the article but you will brook no dissent from your opinion. I removed a statement that I think (as I have noticed before) is ridiculous. You put it back. I'm not interested in edit-warring so I left this. I put in a {{Fact}} tag but even that is too much for you - you removed the {{Fact}} tag twice. You may think it is perfectly plausible that Slim Pickens didn't know he was working on a comedy but I do not. You opinion is not the only opinion that has value. If you think Slim Pickens did not know this was a comedy then take up the challenge I laid down and find a reliable source for the claim.

This is exactly the denial of consensus which brings criticism down on Wikipedia from organisations like The Register. Anyway I'm annoyed that you won't even consider an alternative view point on such a minor issue. This sort of thing annoys me and I'm on a Wikibreak effective immediately.

Oh, BTW, my wife is an actress and film producer so you aren't the only person who has hung around actors. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below, written before I read this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert: You bring up several interesting topics, worthy of a more specific response, so let me tackle them one by one.

Ownership I full understand that no one "owns" an article on Wikipedia -- a fact I finally got through my thick skull when my lawyer wouldn't let me add one to my will. But let's talk reality here, if someone works hard on an article, puts in a lot of effort, shapes it, researches it, smooths it, whatever, then certainly there develops a feeling of protectiveness about it. I've compared it to the feeling a parent has for their children, in weaker form, of course. I don't "own" my kids, but I'm protective of them, and want the best for them, and may have to be convinced that someone else wants the best for them too. And that's important, because the reality is that if it weren't for the sense of -- let's call it "stewardship" -- that people feel for the articles they work on, Wikipedia would be in constant danger of devolving into a heaping mass of vandalism, high school hijinks and irrelevancies. It's a somewhat under-acknowldged fact of Wikipedian life that the project is dependent on the feeling of attachment that people get for the pages they contribute to. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus This can be a rather hot-button subject, so I'm hesitant to get too deeply into it, but let me say that on Wikipedia, "consensus" ain't all it's cracked up to be. Consensus in the real world takes a fairly long time to develop, and issue may pass through numerous phases of intense conflict and remission before they finally drift into some sort of consensus position. It takes time for consensus to come about, and almost always on Wikipedia, that sort of time is not provided. Sooner, rather than later, someone wraps up the discussion, and it's a undeniable fact that in this system the opinion of the adminstrator who closes out a discussion is what determines what "consensus" is. Now, obviously, if the discussion is totally lopsided, that's one thing, the admnstrator won't be able to skew the result to that degree, but in many (maybe evenmost) cases, the discussion will be fairly evenly balanced, which gives the administrator the ability to decide which way to go. Add to this the fact that the people participating in the discussion are those that just happen to drop by, and what you get is a rather bizarre system in which "consensus" means something like "a super-majority of the random selection of people discussing the topic, with the administrator as super-user whose opinion counts more than anyone else." To say the least, that's a strange way of running any complex system, but that's pretty much what goes on here.

The other serious problem with consensus is, of course, that reaching a "consensus" about something (however that is decided in the particular situation) is no guarantee of factual accuracy, since many facts are absolute and not relative to one's opinion. Consensual agreement can be helpful in matters of opinion (which this dispute between us is, essentially), but not so much when it comes down to what's real in the real world. So it's a puzzlement to me how anyone can expect an encyclopedia, whose purpose in the world is to be factually accurate, to survive when the engine that drives it is "consensus." Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint This is not a general point, but more specific to this issue. I certainly respect that you were able to cite your wife's occupation as a trump card to my argument from authority (more power to you!), but let me say this: as the husband of an actress, I assume you see things more or less from her point of view. My experience has been as a stage manager in the legit theatre for 30+ years, and my observation of the eccentricities and (cough) deficiencies of actors, dancers, musicians and other performing artists may be somewhat more acute, since I have to deal with the practical repercussions of those character traits on an ongoing basis. In other words, I've seen a lot of stuff in my day, and it leads me to feel that Slim Pickens not realizing the movie was a comedy is not at all an unreasonable thing -- especially if his agent made the arrangements, told him where to go on what day, and Pickens only read the part of the script he was in. (Assuming that the shooting script he was given even had any other section in it, since actors are often deliberately left out of the loop by directors in order that their performances not be skewed by knowledge their character wouldnt' have.) I'm not saying it had to happen that way, I'm just saying that my life experience makes it all quite believable, since I've seen thing some things that were very similar happen.

Now, obviously, I could be wrong, but if you follow the logic of my comment below, about the process of adding a "fact" tag, it really should be incumbent on the person who doubts the fact to make the effort to find pry open the top of the box and shed some light on the issue, and not vice versa. I have no particular problem with the statement as written, but you do, and so it should be you who delves into it to see what's what. If you come up with evidence one way or the other, that's great, I certainly bow to that reality. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll think you'll find that YOU need to cite a reference when adding the information. Call it false until proven true, it's the way wikipedia works. Anyway, have you even watched the film? You claim to have some involvement in show business, yet you can't see that Slim Pickins sitting on a nuclear bomb waving his hat around may have hinted that he knew it was a comedy? In answer to your points: (a) You have clearly demonstrated a sense of ownership of this article, this sense of ownership or the amount of effort you have put in in no way alters your influence of whether something is factual without a source. (b)At worst consensus not being reached means you have to go and find a source for a true piece of information. At best it flags an inaccuracy that cannot be verified. Either way you have nothing to worry about if you can VERIFY that he thought it was a comedy. (c)It's good to know you have +30 years experience. I am James Cameron, oscar award winning director. I have deleted the rubbish until a source can be found. 86.44.199.252 (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir, Mr. Cameron, sir. Whatever you say, Mr. Cameron, sir. Your wish is my command, Mr. Cameron, sir. Thank you for blessing us with your presence Mr. Cameron-Oscar-Winning-Director, most high and holy personage, sir. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey! My edit was not vandalism: I had heard or read somewhere that among many of the inside jokes (including sexual) Southern and company riddled the film and production with was this reference to Pickens' manhood. I'm trying to find it somewhere, but it may take me a few months given my schedule. But after looking at the discussions here about Fact tags I figure that it can sit here until someone finds a ref or can disprove it. So Im putting it back in. I'll keep looking for where I saw it.And since my other edit was based on "published" sources in addition to Internet (JSTOR had nada, too!), I figure I can reinstate it. Thanks for the guidance. 96.247.209.64 (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"fact" tags

There are approximately 3 gazillion facts in Wikipedia, and 2.84 of them are unreferenced. An unreferenced fact is the norm, not a rarity. If someone comes across a fact they disbelieve or are suspicious of, they should research the question. If they find evidence that the fact is untrue, then they should remove the "fact", if, instead, they can't find any particular evidence to support the fact, then they are justified in putting a "fact" tag on it. Slapping a fact tag on something you question without researching it is simply asking that someone else check out your suspicions. It's sloppy editing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct punctuation of CRM-114

I've just check my copy of Strangelove, and, in fact, the device is neither "CRM-114" or "CRM114" but is designated "C.R.M. 114". No hyphen, initials after each letter, space between the letters and the number.

However, I do not suggest you change the name of the article (especially since I just went throught and changed all the links so there wouldn't be any double-redirects). Instead, a series of redirect pages will do it. Also, if you haven't already made a disambiguation page for CRM114/CRM-114, you should probably do that -- I know how much you like to have dab's that conform to spec, so I'm sure you'll enjoy that. (grin) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Size of images

I know there is a school of thought which holds that images should be placed in articles in thumbnail form, without hardcoding the size, which allows registered users to control the image size by setting the thumbnail size in his or her preferences, but I think this is antithetical to providing the encyclopedia's users with a good article layout, and also work against the long-term interests of the project.

My primary concern (as always) is with the user, and specfically not with registered users and those who are familiar with Wikipedia, but with the users who come to Wikipedia as a reference source without knowing, or wanting to know, anything about the project. They're not here to edit or register for yet another website, they're here to find out something about a particular subject. These people are our target audience, because if Wikipedia seems to them to be a good source of reliable information which is well-presented, they'll come back again, and perhaps, at some point, get more involved in the project, and they'll reccommend the site to others.

It's the "well-presented" angle that I'm aiming at here. The naive user will come to Wikipedia with no specific preference settings, and what they'll see if the images are not hardcoded with a specific size are tiny postage-stamp sized pictures which are often hard to see or difficult to make out what's in them, which, in that state, hardly contribute at all to a well-presented article - if anything, they can be said to distract from it.

If an image is included on a page, it should be shown at the minimum size necessary to make it visually comprehensible without overwhelming the text. In short, it should enhance the text, and neither pull focus nor appear to be an afterthought. This requires that editors take some care in the placement and arrangement of the images, as well as in their size, and speaks against leaving them in their raw thumbnail state.

I appreciate that those who want images to remain uncoded for size are doing so in the spirit of individual choice, but I think they're overlooking the fact that if Wikipedia is to be a success and become the first choice for immediate online information, it needs to serve not only the people who hang around and know its ins-and-outs, but also all those who may come by only occasionally just to dip into the well.

For these reasons I have restored the hardcoded image sizes in he article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with manually setting thumbnail sizes is that it tends only to work for a particular monitor/screen resolution combination. What works well on a monster screen at high resolution will look terrible to someone on 800 x 600. Hence the MoS, which you are right to say is not dogma, but, like most consensuses here has a fair bit of weight and experience behind it. --John (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also the problem of how different browsers render the page, a lesson I learned recently when fooling around with the layout of another movie article. Now, I routinely keep my browser (IE) set at a smaller size, to simulate what the page would look like on smaller monitors, then check it at full screen, then do the same with Firefox, just to be sure.

I don't mean to disrespect the Manual of Style as a repository of WikiWisdom, the majority of the time it's worthwhile following it because it makes good sense, but in general, not just in the MoS but throughtout Wikipedia, there's a lack of concern about how the user sees the articles, how we present ourselves to the world. Since Wikipedia's rules are made by editors, it's not surprising that they're biased towards editors (as opposed to users, two separate but overlapping sets), which means reistered and knowledgable users, and don't pay enough attention to user functionality, which I happen to think should be our paramount concern. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well indeed. The MoS is founded on the user's needs in this case and I see no reason not to follow it. --John (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It's geared to registered users, not to the casual user who moght someday become a registered user. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the distinction you are making. At this point it would be best to discuss at the MoS page why you feel the recommendation is wrong. --John (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality section

Is any of that true? The only citation is the part about who is in the picture in Playboy and a lot of it seems like it is just made up. Also, the section states that "Laputa" was the target of opportunity chosen after the plane started losing fuel. This is not the case. Laputa was the original primary target. I don't know what the target of opportunity was so I can't correct the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.227.33 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Laputa was indeed the primary target. The nearest target of opportunity, the one they attack, is an ICBM complex at Kodlosk.[2] MFNickster (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the section is ridiculous and ought be cut down or even removed. No citations and poor phrasing. 81.103.21.179 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible minor error re Mandrake scene

I believe the sentence

“Mandrake accidentally shoots Ripper, and attempts to pass it off as a suicide.”

is incorrect and should be excised.

I recall that Ripper goes into the bathroom and we then hear the report of a .45 as he commits suicide.

I have a Laserdisc of the movie. Unfortunately, I’ve been confined Strangelove-like to a wheelchair for the last four months and can’t rescreen it.

So if I am in error, what more perfect and ironic excuse could I have?

Regarding Sellers’ improvisations, the only scene where an actor breaks character is Peter Bull stifling a laugh as Sellers wrestles with his right arm.

Purenorsk (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching it right now; Ripper goes into the bathroom, and Mandrake is standing outside the door holding Ripper's gun, pointed toward the door. The door closes, and a shot is heard. I was misremembering this as Mandrake firing the gun accidentally - probably because later, as Mandrake is telling Guano that Ripper shot himself, and Guano replies "while he was shaving, huh?" I somehow got the impression that he was shaving and Mandrake accidentally shot him. Sorry for the inconvenience. MFNickster (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Addition to article

Under the popular references section of this article I added that in Superbad when Seth was shown drawing numerous penises as a child a picture of a penis riding a nuclear missile is shown. This may seem crude and vuglar, but it is in fact true. To be honest, I was shocked when this was not included in that section of the article.

bucpride Bucpride (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And you know this is related to Dr. Strangelove because of what? (IOW, we need a source on this). Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You need a source on this? Watch the scene in Superbad where Seth is shown drawing the penises as a child as part of his "problem." And it's related to Dr. Strangelove because of the scene in that movie where the Major is riding a nuclear missile...I mean it's pretty obvious I think, do you need me to paint you a freaking picture? Come on bro, seriously?

It's still original research without a source. It may be obvious to you and me, but to include it you need a quote from a notable author making the comparison - we can't engage in film criticism ourselves here. MFNickster (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth putting it in for the delicious irony of Seth drawing a straightforward penis riding a bomb that was intended in Dr. Strangelove to be a phallic symbol. It's beautiful! Is this a reliable source? If not google "Seth Dr Strangelove superbad bomb", there are references for this all over the place.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0829482/movieconnections 192.198.151.129 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha, this reference is about as concrete as the final verse of Dear Mr. President (4 Non Blondes song). Let's try to keep this section on a historically even keel, eh? — CharlotteWebb 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Excess white space

When viewed in Firefox there is roughly an inch of physical space above the table of contents. How bad is this "formatting problem in IE", and is there some other way to fix it than one article at a time? — CharlotteWebb 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just looked at it with Firefox, and I don't have anything like an inch of space above the table of contents, I have what looks to be, roughly, above a line and a half of space. I wonder where this disparity comes from? Versions? I've got 2.0.0.17. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 11:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

With the spacing kludge, I see about a half inch on Firefox/WindowMaker/X Window/FreeBSD. Mind, IE is much less W3C standards compliant than Firefox and Wikipedia pages themselves aren't W3C compliant, so odd layout glitches will happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I also checked Safari, same thing, maybe 2 lines of blank space, max. Under IE, there's about a line and a quarter. Without the extra spacing, the bottom of the lede slams right into the ToC, making it crowded and unpleasant to look at and a bit difficult to read. The same thing happens at the bottom, between whatever is the last part of the article (usually the external links) and the navboxes, if any. The text of the EL sits right on top of the navbox with no space at all, which, again, is visually unattractive and hard on the eyes. Before I began inserting extra space, I checked how the space looked on Firefox and Safari, and came to the conclusion that because of the different way they render the page, they didn't need the extra space, but they didn't look bad with it. Since IE is, still, the most popular browser, and the one that most untech-savvy people will be using (the very people we need to be attracting to us as our clientele) I thought it was worth it. Of course, an inch is clearly too much space, but I wonder what combination of settings is causing you to have that. Is it the same if you log out and look at the page? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen: Same question - doe syour half inch go away if you log out? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't go away when I log out, it stays the same. Not that W3C validation is so wonderful, it's not, but at least it's a working standard for browser interoperability and IE strays furthest from that standard. This said, I've found that these white spaces can be skirted by tweaking the article img layouts (not adding space kludges and so on). Infoboxes, which can be a scourge, are often linked to this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I spend a fair amount of time doing exactly that, tweaking image layouts to get rid of huge chunks of whitespace, so I'm pretty sensitive to the problem. An inch or a half inch is clearly not acceptable, but I'm confused about why I'm not seeing that myself. Monitor resolution? Dunno. If we can't figure it out, certainly I'll remove the extra spacing, but I'd like to try to solve the puzzle first. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you keep tweaking stuff you may find something that looks ok in IE without adding spaces (which are never the way to go). So far as I can recall, that's what's happened for me. Sorry I can't remember what I've done :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because it's bound to come up, I am aware that tweaking my .css file would solve the problem for me, but I'm operating on a larger premise: what do Joe and Judy Sixpack see when they drive their computer (about which they know nothing except, barely, how to work it) over to Wikipedia to find out something they need to know? That's what concerns me, not what I see, but what they see. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told I think it's got to be something with the long infobox and the long ToC. As for Joe and Jill six-pack, they more than likely don't give a luzz about white space, they care about finding what they want. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec):That's true - reliable information is the core, but it's only half of my mantra: Reliable information, well presented.

I'll play around with the infobox and see if it makes any difference, problem being that since I can't see the problem (i.e. Charlotte's inch or your half-inch_, it's rather difficult for me to know when it's gone away. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The infobox has nothing to do with the gaping blank area as the infobox html is above the lead section, not between the lead section and the TOC. If you know how to fix this with css (I don't), then maybe you could set the default monobook skin to do the same thing if the user-agent resembles IE (rather than adding extra line-breaks to every article that has a TOC). — CharlotteWebb 12:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it with css, I know that I've been told that it can be fixed -- locally, per person -- via css. But, see above, tweaking what I see isn't the point. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 13:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd be glad to send you some screenshots of what I see, if you'd like. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 13:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[3]. — CharlotteWebb 13:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't be able to takle a photo with a quarter for direct comparison until later, but here's a screenshot that shows what I see under Firefox with the spacer in place. The size is a little less than half a quarter. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references

Can we trim this pretty drastically? I suggest removing everything that is unreferenced, but on inspection we have some interesting and possibly verifiable stuff in there. 90% of it is cruft and can go though, I'd say. What do others think? --John (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think a drastic culling is in order, most of the entries are interesting and on-topic, and, as reportings of media items, don't actually require external sourcing, since the media items themselves are the source.

I have trimmed away a few items, and perhaps a few others might be borderline, but I see no need for a decimation of the section. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 08:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you removed the unreferenced tag I added. Are you able to point to any policy or consensus that "trivia items are their own references", or is this just your own opinion? It's going to have to be improved I'm afraid; it needs either references or trimming. See WP:V for details. --John (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi John. May I point out that what I wrote was not "trivia items are their own references," but:

Cultural aritifacts are their own sources.

I'm sure you can see that there are several significant differences in those two statements.

Now, as for a specific policy that supports my statement, it flows naturally from the concept of verifiability, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. There is, for instance, no specific policy that says "Editors should correct typographical errors," but the need to do so flows from the need for Wikipedia to be accurate. No one has to insist that fixing typos be required by a policy, because doing so makes Wikipedia more accurate. Similiarly, the concept of verifiability leads logically to cultural (or media) artifacts - books, movies, CDs and so on - being their own best source.

Think about it, what does the pillar of verifiability require? - That facts or statements which are controversial or challenged be backed up with a reference to a reliable source, so that the statement or fact can be verified from that source, so that anyone who wants to can go to that reference and verify that the fact or statement is there. Now, what source could possibly be better for media artifacts that the artifact itself? Why would we require a third party to say "In such-and-such movie, character so-and-so does this.", when we can look at the movie and see for ourselves that so-and-so did that, and verify the claim? That's why we can have plot sections in film or book articles without citing a source, because the film or book is the source. As WP:MOSFILM#Plot says:

Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film.

I don't know who originated the concept, but as early as 18 May 2006, Raul654 wrote:

[T]he purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary.

There is no difference between this and a "Cultural references" or "in popular culture" item which describes the contents of a media artifact such as a movie, CD, book, TV program, video game, comic book or whatever. The media artifact itself is the de facto source. Anyone who wishes to verify the claim being made can check the source at will. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good, but on that basis every article would be mainly a list of cruft. We must also take account of notability to prevent this, and restricting Trivia/Miscellanea/Mentions in popular culture sections to those which can be shown to be notable enough to have been discussed in several reputable sources would seem like a common sense first step. I would like to see some proper discussion here about what to keep, but it should be obvious that nothing should be mentioned here solely because it appeared, and some editor here thought it was important. This is not a plot summary, and does, I would argue, need citations. I believe that is too low a bar myself; I think we should have a judicious touch to cull this list to the truly significant ones. Maybe some can be integrated into the article also. --John (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's quite clear from my comment above that no citation is needed to verify the mere existence of a popcult item, since the media artifact itself serves as the verifiable source, if a citation is required, as you claim, the only reason would be concerning notability - but an item in a list is not an article, about which our notability policy is concerned - it's simply another piece of information in that article, and, outside of verifiability, Wikipedia normally determines the importance or noteworthiness of information in an article by means of editorial action -- that is, by the normal give and take where an editor adds something and other editors either accept it or remove it, depending on how they judge its importance. Can you point me to any policy or consensus that says that an item in a cultural references list is dealt with any differently, and requires a citation to establish notability?

In the articles on my watchlist, including this one, I (and other editors, I presume) keep an eye on the additions to the list, and delete those which seem to us to be unimportant or trivial. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. Well, I stated on the 19th that some of the cruft needs trimming out. Let's get on with it, shall we? --John (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've trimmed out a bunch of non-notable and unreferenced stuff. I think it looks better now. --John (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The items you removed are relevant and interesting, and, because they are reportngs of the content of media atrifacts, don't need seperate sourcing. I've restored them. Please don't delete them again without discussing them specifically here first, as required by WP:BRD. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you reverted my carefully considered and extensively discussed edit based on.... your opinion? Pending the creation of Wikipedia:Ed Fitzgerald, we should in my opinion rely on already existing guidelines and policies such as WP:N, WP:NOR and WP:V, as I mentioned above. Please take the time to carefully review these and you should be able to see what I mean. --John (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with John; "relevant and interesting" is a rather subjective opinion, and should be substantiated with coverage in third party sources, not the mere whims and preferences of individual editors. In addition, not all of these cultural references appear to be equal. Some appear to be rather throwaway and trivial, whereas others , in particular "Strangelove! The Musical", seem deserving of more than a brief mention at the foot of the article. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

John: Your opinions, however carefully considered, are just as subjective as mine, and absolutely no discussion was had concerning these specific edits as opposed to the subject of editing the list in general. (Quoting policies which are not applicable is not going to do it.) It's possible that we can come to some meeting of the minds about this, but it's going to take specific discussion about the edits in question for me to understand your reasoning. I look forward to that. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I'm not looking forward to more ad hominem personal remarks such as the one in your last comment, so I'd appreciate it if you could bring yourself to keep them under control. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless they specifically state it in the episodes of those shows that they are referencing Dr. Stangelove, you need to find a source that does. Otherwise, it is an editors interpretation that they were referencing this movie and nothing else (i.e. original research). Yes it is a famous scene, but just because it is obvious to someone who has seen the film does not mean it is obvious to someone that has not. It's not like calling the sky blue or the Sun yellow. As far as The Simpsons goes, I'm sure you could find a reliable source verifying that claim.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - we're allowed to use common sense and the evidence of our senses without it being called "original research". I've certainly deleted from any number of articles references which were tenuous in their connection or iffy in what was being referred to, but there are obvious homages which are quite clear about what's being referenced, and these we should acknowledge without requiring them to be sourced, just as we acknowledge common factual matters without insisting on sourcing. Sure, 100 monkeys typing randomly for an infinite time are certainly going to generate the text "$pringfield (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling)" and it wouldn't be a legitimate reference to Dr. Strangelove (unless we had a source that showed that some of the monkeys were Kubrick fans) but when that text shows up in a Simpsons episode, it doesn't require a third-party source to know what the reference is to.

In any case, we have no idea on what grounds John deleted each of the items he removed, because he has yet to say so. I wouldn't want to presume to know his reasoning before he shares it with us. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We know you disagree. I removed the items on grounds of WP:V; if these are significant enough to appear in the article, it should be easy for you to find reliable secondary sources describing them. Failing that, they should be trimmed out again. --John (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But John, we just had a long conversation just above about media artifacts being their own source, and if a plot section -- an entire main section of a film article -- doesn't need a source to verify it, as per MOSFILM and the comment from Raul654, then it's certainly not required for a mere item in a list, right?Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Plot is a special circumstance, an exception to the standard rules of reliable sourcing and verifiability, so it can't be used as a guideline for other film article sections.
Jim Dunning | talk 07:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, where does it say that, Jim, that a Plot section is a specific exception to the rule of verifiability? Because you'll note that this is not what is said at WP:MOSFILM and in the comment from Raul654 quoted above. These do not say that a plot section doesn't need to be verified, they say that the plot section is verified by the media artifact (book, movie, whatever) they are describing, and that is a totally different thing. Verifiability means that you can go and look at the source of the information and verify that what is being said in the article is accurate, and in this case the source is the book or the movie involved. The exact same thing is true of the items in the popcult list: to verify them, you go to the original source, just as in the plot section. So if there is somewhere in policy or guidelines that says a plot section is an exception to verifiability, I'd like to know about it, because perhaps the analogy would break down then. (But perhaps it's also like the Supreme Court of the United States handing the election to George Bush but saying "This doesn't set a precedent!" Like hell it doesn't.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand John's concern that a section filled with pop culture references might begin to overwhelm the article and they need to be limited - especially for an iconic film like Strangelove which has generated thousands of references. However, as it stands now, I think the section is well-proportioned to the size of the article (about one-twelfth of the entire space); And, as Ed has stated, most of the items make obvious, common sense references to the film. (I changed the one Coen bros. item because the reference as previously written seemed obscure to me. I added a citation with the change.) To prevent the list from becoming too bulky, I like the way the final item about "CRM-114" simply mentions it use in movies and television. A similar sentence could be used for any of the subsections and include the few well-chosen examples -- just to hold down too many more additions. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that lack of verifiability is an argument for excluding some of these references, but as we can see, verifiability does not necessarily mean inclusion. I don't think that the Plot section is a special circumstance; the source of the plot is already detailed in the neighboring infobox, whether on VHS, on DVD, or on Blu-Ray. (Of course, if there are differences in the plot across mediums, then citations should be used to clarify where the differences lie.) Going back to these references, a quick Google search shows potential for better context of this film in popular culture. In the meantime, like I've said, some of these examples are pretty inane. For example, for titles, we could try to find an overall reference of how the title has been parodied and perhaps identify just two examples (the Dick novel and the Simpsons episode). We don't need to have such an indiscriminate setup because it is easily viewed as trivia in this context. There was a popular culture article that was deleted; if anyone recalls how these articles looked, it was a lot of indiscriminate details. I don't know if this section is the resurrection of that dead article, but if context can be provided, then the references would be more justified. However, some examples, like the Pandora Tomorrow line, is pretty inane. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik: I have zero objection to deletion on grounds of inanity - others may not be aware that when this conversation first started I culled the list of a few of these myself, so nothing I've said here should be construed as my taking a hard-line inclusionist position (or "stonewalling" for that matter).

I like the suggestion made by both you and CactusWriter to combine items together into a general subject items with examples drawn from the current list. That seems like a good way to both keep the list in check and still get retain the best of what we have. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, regarding the basic issue of whether media artifacts need sourcing or not, this is from WP:Reliable sources:

Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction).

So that, I think, settles that question.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Only if you believe that a list of trivia is the same as a plot summary. Nobody here does believe that, unless you do, in which case you're the only one. --John (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

John, the quote above says that "primary sources are reliable for basic statements of facts as to what is contained" within the source. It then gives plot summaries as an example of such an instance. If I say in a "popular culture" entry that in so-and-so episode of such-and-such program this-and-that occured, I am using the primary source (the program) to describe what's happening in it. This is clearly an instance covered by that policy, without question. The plot summary is merely an example, not a definitive statement of a singular circumstance in which the policy applies. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed, you are casting about in desperation here. You are in a minority of one. We need to trim some of the trivia here at present, because it is unencyclopedic and off-topic. The article is about the Peter Sellers film; "in popular culture" cruft is not about the film but about itself, and therefore does not belong. Well done, I suppose, for at least reading a policy document, even if you took the wrong understanding away from it. It's a start, maybe. --John (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* John, I'm willing, as I've said any number of times now, to discuss the potential deletion of specific items for specific reasons, but you seem reluctant to do so. It seems to me that if, instead of beating this particular dead horse, you had simply posted a list of those items you thought should be deleted, and your reasons for doing so, all the energy we have put into this rather fruitless discussion could have gone into that one instead, and we might have come to some meeting of the minds by now. I'm still willing to do that, if you are. I would prefer the discussion be civil, though, and that you leave the attitude and personal remarks behind, then we might make some forward progress. After all, that's the cycle: you were Bold, I Reverted and now we should be Discussing -- so, come one, let's discuss the items you want to have deleted. Who knows? Maybe your reasoning will strike a chord and you'll change my mind -- we'll never know until you try, right? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If the discussion has seemed fruitless to you it is maybe because you are not taking into account important Wiki-ideas like consensus, policy and so on. If you start to take account of these, actually read what others write and honestly evaluate the consensus that is generated in a discussion like this, you may begin to find the process less frustrating. --John (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

John, please, I understand those things, give me a little credit whydoncha?

How about a little less attacking me, and a little more discussing the edits you'd like to make, alright? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok Ed, good. Here's my suggested edit which is the version I previously implemented.

• In a music video for the band Rush, of the song "Distant Early Warning", the lead singer and bass guitarist Geddy Lee's son is riding on a nuclear missile throughout the video a la Major Kong[32]
• In the movie Armageddon the character "Rockhound", played by Steve Buscemi, is seen riding a nuclear weapon, in imitation of Major Kong
• In several episodes of the animated super hero parody series "The Tick" features a German mad scientist in a wheel chair, a direct homage to Dr Strangelove.
• The science officer character in the Muppet Show skit known as "Pigs in Space" was called Dr. Julius Strangepork.
• Peter Sellers effectively reprised his role as Dr. Strangelove for one sketch in The Muppet Show's second season, in which he played "Dr. Merkwürdigliebe" (Strangelove's German name).
• The Philip K Dick novel, Dr. Bloodmoney, or How We Got Along After the Bomb, was named at the suggestion of Dick's publisher, in order to capitalize on the success of the movie, which was released the year before the book was published.
• 'Strangelove! The Musical', a theatrical musical adaptation of the movie was performed during the 2007 Melbourne International Comedy Festival, directed by Dave Harmon and Mark Sutton.
• The piece of radio equipment on-board the B-52 which is designed not to receive messages lacking a specific code-prefix is designated as the "CRM-114 Discriminator". Stanley Kubrick has used "CRM-114" or similar terms in at least one of his other films, although the reference in Dr. Strangelove is the best known one, and other movies and television shows have used it as well, in apparent homage to Kubrick.

It omits all the really non-notable factoids on the basis that they do not add to the reader's understanding of the subject. It keeps the notable ones. What do you say? I'm not doctrinaire on this but I think there's a consensus here that some of the ones you restored add nothing to the article. --John (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

John, the things you want to keep are all fine. Let's discuss the real issue, the things you want to delete - that's where the disagreement lies. What are the things you want to delete, and what is your reasoning for thinking they shouldn't be included? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 13:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to delete all the non-notable factoids that I have removed in the version above. I want to do this because they do not add to the reader's understanding of the subject. --John (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

John, if you want to delete something, and there is an objection to its deletion, the only way to get around the objection is to discuss the deletion, and I mean specifically, not in broad generalities. I agree with you than non-notable items should not be on the list, the question is, which items are non-notable?, and on that we disagree. So, if you want to have a discussion (and I'm afraid it really seems as if you do not -- it seems as if you just want carte blanche to delete whatever you want), it has to be about the specific items. I'm more than willing to have that discussion with you, but you've gotta tell us what it is about these things that you believe makes them non-notable. You don't have to do it with a separate discussion for each one, just post a list like the one above, only of the items you want deleted, and for each item on the list, give the reasons that you think it's non-notable or otherwise objectionable, and then everyone who's interested can toss it back and forth until perhaps we agree or reach a suitable compromise. OK? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 15:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not ok. This is what I called "stonewalling" earlier. See WP:BURDEN; at this point the onus is on you as the sole editor arguing for the retention of this trash, to explain why it should be kept. If you are unable to do so, it goes. --John (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

John, insisting that you discuss edits that are disputed is not "stonewalling." When you decide that you want to discuss them, I'll be here. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Well, it sure looks like stonewalling from here. Luckily, there is no deadline for what we are trying to accomplish here. Try this for a start. See if you can justify this entry which you restored. Please do so in terms of our policies, and bearing in mind the encyclopedic utility of the information in relation to the subject of the article.

• In Californication the character "Hank Moody" makes references to "precious bodily fluids" in several episodes.

Take all the time you need. --John (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I am available at any time to discuss the edits you proposed. My suggestion would be for you to post a list of the edits you wished to make, along with the reasons you think that they shouldn't be in the article. Then, we can discuss those reasons. Best, Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose to delete that entry, which I already deleted and you restored. I cannot see any encyclopedic purpose which it serves. --John (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear John:

The purpose of an entry in a "popular culture" list is to show the extent to which the memes, tropes, ideas, quotes and images connected with a certain film have penetrated into our culture. In the case you cite, it is the phrase "our precious bodily fluids" which is the subject. The phrase figures significantly in Dr. Strangelove as both an integral part of the plot and a facet of the mental state of a major character in the film, General Ripper. The entry you site is an indication that this particular meme has spread into the culture to the extent that it can be used in a popular television series with the expectation by the creators of the series that enough people will understand its history that its use will bring a richer texture to the dialogue.

As is often the case with popular culture lists, each item is not complete and total in itself, but instead a data point, indicating one particular instance of meme propagation. When multiple data points are presented, the reader gets a much better idea of the cultural influence of the film in question, aside from the immediate influence more easily documented by reference to news articles and magazine pieces. The long term influence, however, is best seen in the number and type of references to the films from within popular cuture.

The item you cite is relevant to the film, appropriate, non-trivial as referring to a significant aspect of the films, and interesting in and of itself. For these reasons, it should be left in the article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I am not sure what you mean by "encyclopedic purpose". Can you please explain what that means? Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems then that we disagree. If you are unable to understand what I mean by "encyclopedic purpose" I doubt if I can explain it to you. I feel I have wasted enough time with you on this. Your view on popular culture trivia in articles is a minority one. Please do not obstruct the process of improving this article any further. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind, I'm going to jump in here because it is clear there certainly is a misunderstanding. First: John, your statements seems to say that a "popular culture" section is simply cruft and trivia and has no encyclopedic merit. This is untrue. The "trivia" here is neither unencyclopedic nor off-topic. A "popular culture" section deals with the lasting impact of a film on society. It is part of film analysis. It can be thought of as an extension of the "reception" and "reaction" sections -- but deals with the long-term -- and when discussing it, examples are used. I certainly don't think that most films should have one. Rather it is reserved only for iconic films -- where some particular dialogue or imagery becomes a part of common culture. Dr. Strangelove certainly fits that definition. However, Ed, the problem here is that the inclusion of any particular item, if not cited in other sources, or referred to by a third party analysis of homages or pop culture, begins to constitute original research analysis. This, of course, is really frustrating. Especially with examples like these that are so obviously related to the movie that a brain-dead muppet (like me) can see the connection. Unfortunately, that is the price we pay for writing WP articles, instead of books or journals about these films. It isn't that these "trivia" items are unimportant -- on the contrary -- but we need to let someone else make the connection and do the anaysis first. It should not be difficult to find sources because, by definition, a movie is iconic because of all those outside sources. The best way to make certain the popular culture section remains 'encyclopedic" is to present it in prose format rather than as a list. This forces the inclusion of references. Anyway, that's my two cenrts. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What's your view on the Californication factoid? --John (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I consider the reference in Californication to be extremely minor. It seems to be one of those taken directly from IMDb. But better examples exist. However, the "precious bodily fluids" and "purity of essence" lines are definitely notable and I think mentioning that they are included in AFI's 100 Years, 100 'Movie Quotes': The Greatest Lines from American Film might be a good place to start when talking about a pop culture reference. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I raised this centrally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Need some other eyes here please, and a couple of people also commented there that we should adopt a stricter standard of inclusion for popular culture stuff here. I think "my" version without the lesser stuff looked a lot better; less is more and the reader can focus on the significant stuff, the Dick book and so on. I don't understand how anyone can be so passionate about defending indiscriminate material which is borderline original research; we can easily link out to IMDB for those who enjoy such, while we concentrate on being an encyclopedia. --John (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. An aside: I think it's perfectly understandable that people become passionate about the little things. Encyclopedia mavens are, at heart, trivia buffs. We like info and we like details -- and that's trivia. And everyone has their favorites because of personal expertise or experience.

Now back to this: I think we are in agreement here. The general problem with lists of pop culture references is that they easily get out of hand -- which I tried to illustrate with the IMDb link above. And when they are culled, it will be a source of continual argument, because it will constantly be in flux as pop fads come and go. I can look at your list and think, "Eh, isn't there something better than a Rush video; why two Muppet refs; and where's a POE example?" But I could do the same with Ed's list and you both could do the same with mine (if I had one). The editor of the list at any point becomes the arbiter of importance (and that becomes WP:OR). This is why I believe that the section should be written in prose style. Is there a disagreement about the sub-categories in that section? If not, then each should have a couple of sentences describing the impact of those images in pop culture. Proper sourcing should be used, for example Stephen O'Leary's books about apocalyptic language in American culture or other writings about pop culture imagery. Plug in Dr. Strangelove to [scholar] and a pile of stuff comes up -- just for starters. The specific problem for WP is that the Film Project doesn't have a MOS for a pop culture section. That needs to be written. Does this sound reasonable? — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia for its own sake?

In general and by policy, we discourage "trivia" for its own sake. "In popular culture" references need to show a pattern, and if there is any doubt what they reference, they need sourcing. Here is an example of one that I think is problematic:

In several episodes of the animated super hero parody series "The Tick" features a German mad scientist in a wheel chair, a direct homage to Dr Strangelove.

Stating "the source is its own source" is valid for most of this, we don't need a third party source for what The Tick actually contained, but it does not work for the "A direct homage to ..." part, which is a conclusion or theory, not a fact. Unless there is a cite from a source (such as someone who worked on The Tick, or a critic) saying this IS an homage, it is original research to draw the conclusion that it is an homage. It might be obvious to a fan of the movie (which I am, and it's the conclusion I would jump to myself) but it's not a "sun rises in the east" level fact that stands without sourcing.

So without an explicit source, this particular item should go, or at least the conclusion part, leaving the bare fact (let the reader draw the conclusion themselves), I picked one example, but there are many more, in my view, that suffer this issue. So I think that John's approach of asking for sourcing and reviewing each item with a critical eye, keeping only those that are justifiable and relevant and notable in their own right (for example if my son wrote a pastiche that was performed at his high school, that's probably not at all justifiable to mention) is a good approach. I think some of the comments made here by Ed in opposition are not helpful ones, as they don't seem to be in the spirit of helping to make this article encyclopedic. (that is a comment on the comments, not on the commentator) ++Lar: t/c 11:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My question about what is "encyclopedic" was not intended to be a rhetorical device to sidetrack a discussion. I often see this used in discussions "this is not encyclopedic" (in fact, I've probably used it myself) with the intention of short-circuiting the debate - it's meant to be the stopper, since who can disagree that an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. The problem I have with it is that I truly don't understand, when it comes right down to it, what it means.

If Wikipedia was a paper encyclopedia, there might possibly be an article on "Dr. Strangelove", as a significant film, but it would most likely be a brief mention, and not an in-depth piece. It surely wouldn't have the "popcult" list we have, but it also wouldn't have the bulk of the rest of the article either. For that matter, a paper encyclopedia wouldn't have the vast majority of films that we include Wikipedia. So, clearly, a traditional paper encyclopedia is not the standard of what "encyclopedic" means, unless we extend it to say that Wikipedia is what a paper encyclopedia would be without the physical restrictions of the encyclopedia, but even that limits us in ways that Wikipedia has clearly decided not to follow.

I suppose that the only real definition of what is and isn't "encyclopedic" is what the Wikipedia community has collectively decided to include and exclude from the project, but this kind of self-referential definition simply brings us around to the question of what is and isn't "consensus" in any particular case, so using the "it's not encyclopedic" card is tantamount to saying "there's no consensus for this".

In the case of popular culture references, I do not believe that there is anything like a consensus for not including them. I certainly agree that items in such a list should not be included for their own sake, that they should be relevant to the subject, appropriate, interesting and informative, and I understand that editors' judgments about these things can differ, which is why we have a system for discussing any proposed changes that are objected to. That's all I've been asking for here - a discussion of the specific items that are under reveiew. I was hoping the discussion could be a collective one, and neither item-by-item nor generalized, but that has yet to happen.

For the record, I have no objection to a prosification of the section - in fact, I agreed above that combining items by subject was a good idea, and if I had more time available (due to real world constraints) and didn't have to spend it on diversions like this, I probably would have done it myself already. As I said, these items are "data points" concerning the influence of "Dr. Strangelove" in popular culture, and there's no reason that they can't be put together: it would, I think, create a more coherent picture. I still may try to get to that, but it someone else wants to give it a go, that's fine with me.

So, I'm not "stonewalling", I'm not trying to be obstructionist, I'm not some mad trivia-living cruftmaster attempting to flood Wikipedia with "unencyclopedic" fan-b.s., I've simply been asking for quite a while that there be a discussion about the stuff that John would like to delete. Do you think we can do that? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave you an example of a specific item (emphasis yours) ... something I would delete. Feel free to discuss it. As for the rest, if you have no idea what encyclopedic is, perhaps you should defer judgment on what is or is not to those who do. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't find your comment terribly helpful, so I'll be passing on continuing this discussion with you. Good luck in your future editing on Wikipedia. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed: You are of course free to not substantively respond to the concerns I raised about that item, but if they are not adequately addressed, the item will be removed. I have tagged it with {{citation needed}}, thus giving an opportunity for you, or others, to provide the required citation. That item was given as an example of the issues that this section has, so expect that other items that suffer the same or similar problems will be removed as well. You may need to rethink your engagement approach here, as a failure to constructively engage in discussion is not an effective way to reach consensus. It gives the appearance of stonewalling even if that is not your intent. I hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see from the history that the example I gave has been changed, by Ed, to address my concern. Thank you for doing so, Ed. I wish you had engaged better but I'm glad to see you agree that my concern was valid, at least for that item. I would again suggest reviewing other items, as outlined earlier in this main thread, to see if any of them have similar issues, or if they are in other ways not suitable. ++Lar: t/c 01:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I completely agree with your move back in October to cull the list and set it into groups. I think your categories are exactly right. Unfortunately, I have limited access to American library books for referencing until those times I'm back in the States. I would put it prose right now, but then it would be definitely smack of OR and require a truckloads of cite needed tags. However, as it stands now, I think the section is fine until it can be converted into an analysis form. A couple of more months won't matter. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that putting it in prose form would move in the wrong direction, making the OR problem even worse. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume you mean putting it in prose form now is the wrong move (meaning without the proper sourcing). Because I meant that it should be in prose form eventually (which does require sourcing). By the way, that Tick reference was a little more obvious than as it was written - the character's name was actually Dr. Strangepants. But that's just an FYI and doesn't address the citation issue. I agree with your point about the "homage" phrasing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's not really amenable to prosification yet, I don't think. I do think it's sorted the right way though... sometimes you see these sorted by media type, but the more meaningful sort is as it is here, by theme. ++Lar: t/c 01:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's have some progress on making this encyclopedic, which it isn't at present. If these things are significant enough to appear in an encyclopedia article, it should be easy to find verifiable third-party commentary on their significance. If this can't be done, they should be removed. Let me be clear that I am not looking for verification that these things exist, I believe that; I am looking for verification that their being based on this film is noteworthy. --John (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

John, why are you starting this up again? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to write an encyclopedia. This section isn't encyclopedic. --John (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the section should be removed until a paragraph or so of sourced prose can be had which will give a pithy overview of the film's sway on pop culture. As of now, the section is a canny mess. Most pop references to widely known and notable films are not in themselves notable at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Shall I delete it or will you? --John (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know the edit procedure here. I wanted to ask why there is explanation about some of the tag character names but not others? Merkin Muffley? is nobody going to point out that the names in this movie are often very lewd jokes? The Russian target LaPuta is another example.

As for popular culture, Adam Ant has a song called POE which quotes the list of survival kit contents. ~~Dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.79.229 (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

John and Ed... knock it off. These edits [4], [5], [6] and [7] are edit warring. Reverting something with a comment like "(Undid revision 252414006 by John (talk) as per discussion, no source required, straightforward description of a media item)" would require that there BE discussion on the talk page. I don't see it, Ed. Reverting something with a comment like "(rvv)" would require that the previous edit be actual vandalism, not just a good faith disagreement, John. You both know better... Bring the disagreement to the talk page and talk it through. Thanks ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, there most certainly was a discussion, here, just above, in which it was pointed out that popcult items do not require a source when they are straightforward descriptions. John's been tagging them with "fact" tags when the items include conclusions or interpretations about the purpose or motivations of those items, and I've been removing the language in question and then removing the tags. This is clearly supported by the discussion above.

However, if your point is that there wasn't a specific discussion about the particular item in question, your point is well taken, and I will do so at the next earliest opportunity, about 5 hours from now. (Although, since it is John who's been fact-tagging it, perhaps he should post what his objection in the item is, and what within it is a matter of fact that can't be sourced by the thing itself.)Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My objection is that in terms of WP:V, these statements need to be verified or else removed. It doesn't need to be verified that these pop culture artifacts exist, but it does need to be verified that they are significant enough for the article. This has been the consensus of the discussion here and at the centralized venue. We can't publish original research; it may be that you, I, or another editor thinks one voice sounds like another, but unless a verifiable third-party source has reported on it, we can't use it. --John (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed: The discussion is 6 days old. Using a 6 day old discussion to justify not just one but two reversions, is not a good approach. Especially so if nothing new has been added and especially so if there is not a consensus about the matter under discussion, or if your change goes against consensus. John: I'm sure Ed's reversion/insertion of a typo was not intentional... a quick note, or perhaps two edits, one to fix the typo and one to fix the tag? Calling it vandalism isn't how one finds common ground. That's the mechanical part. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On the substantive discussion... ANY conclusion, however minor, however obvious, especially if it involves a subjective assessment, is fair game for a fact tag. Ed's approach of removing all unsourced conclusions of whatever sort and the corresponding tags is good, and should stand. The particular thing that you two were edit warring over? It is a subjective assessment to say that voice X sounds like voice Y, or even that Character R done by actor A sounds like Character S done by actor A... So John's adding the fact tag, in this case? Correct. Find a source for the subjective assessment or leave it out. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, the statement that there is "no need to delete it unless you think it's untrue" is not Wikipedia policy. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

It's clear there is much material that is being challenged, so reliable sources must be found. Notice the official policy references "inclusion", so arguing that material can stay in unless someone thinks it is false runs counter to policy and sound encyclopedic practice. In looking through the edit history I note that someone had added an item about Slim Pickens, which was removed because it was thought to be vandalism. Looking at it objectively I can't say it was prima facie any more "true" or "untrue" than the item about Pickens not knowing the film was a comedy, which has been left in and a Fact tag removed. That is why sourcing and verifiability are the cornerstones of inclusion, not whether it sounds true to someone.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So then this matter is resolved? Tagging won't be reverted, but instead sources will be found for everything challenged, or the material will be removed, and there won't be any more edit warring? ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal against consensus

Unfortunately it seems Ed removed the tags I added. As Jim says above (and indeed common sense and policy also suggest), this article should not be a dump for every passing reference ever made in a kids' show or by a band. Only those for which references can be found should be included. I will restore the fact tags once more only and then I will seek dispute resolution. This trash has been lying there too long; let's clear it up. --John (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The history clearly shows that John added one tag. Ed then removed not just that ONE tag, but all of them, in this edit, citing this talk page, but (at least in my view) incorrectly characterising the outcome of this discussion. See my last comment of 22:56, 21 Nov... that statement stood unchallenged, so that's the outcome. Ed, do not do that again, please. If you have an issue with a particular fact tag either explain why that particular tag is not required, or find a cite from criticism that supports the thing tagged. Wholesale removal of tags is not acceptable. Do not do it again, please. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your characterization of the history is incorrect. In this edit, John added 17 fact tags. In the edit immediately following, with the edit summary "missed one", he added one more. These tags were added to items it had been previously agreed did not need them, since they were straight-forward factual prssentations of the existence of references to Dr. Strangelove in other media artifacts, without interpretation or analysis. John had, without discussion, unilaterally changed the criteria for legitimate use of fact tags, which is why I removed all of the 18 tags he had added. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about John adding all those tags, rather than just one, I did not go far enough back in the history. My apologies for that. However, that is a side issue, really. The key point is whether John's addition of the tags (without discussion) is within consensus and within policy, and whether your removal of them (without discussion) rather than correcting the issues, is within consensus and within policy. In my view the bulk of the tags themselves are well within the consensus above and well within policy (review the cited policy that John gave, below). So removing them without discussion was not the correct action. However, even if every {{fact}} is resolved by providing a cite, the question still remains whether the total volume is appropriate. As policy points out, not every single reference should be included. Merely "enough" to demonstrate to the reader the significance of the film. Even, no, especially, for a movie as iconic as this one where there could be hundreds or thousands. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Lar: Thank you for acknowledging your error, and for your apology.

I disagree with your interpretation of policy in regard to John's actions, which were clearly opposed to the working consensus reached here after some deal of acrimony. Nevertheless, I am no fool, and recognize that this is an argument that, with things stacked as they are, I cannot prevail on. Therefore, I resign from editing this article for the time being, and have removed it from my watchlist. Since I am quite a fan of this film, I will almost certainly return to it at some time in the future, at which time I will see what changes have been made, and decide what, if anything, I think needs to be done to improve the article. In the meantime, I am sure that many competent editors have the article on their watchlists, and the function of protecting it from vandalism and poor editing, which I have tried to perform in the past year and 8 months, will be taken up by them, and the article will be well cared for. Happy New Year, good luck and cheers. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And this may be of interest; I note especially "In popular culture" lists should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers. Exhaustive lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject.

Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute original research where the reference itself is ambiguous. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source to which that judgment may be attributed. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources. This seems like sensible guidance; let's try to follow it. --John (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree more. I appreciate Ed Fitzgerald's passion for and skill at improving articles, but find his handling of cites and sourcing confusing. I believe at one point he has taken the position that unless you can prove the unsourced copy wrong, then it stays in; that flies in the face of V. We do ourselves and readers a disservice by providing lists of unsourced trivia with no real-world context and significance grounded in secondary and tertiary sources. It devalues the article. Isn't the article much more improved by summarizing what credible sources say about the impact of the fiction work outside its immediate viewing experience rather than listing unconnected instances of questionably relevant "artifacts"?
Jim Dunning | talk 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious claim re Slim Pickens

The article states:

According to some sources, the British film crew, unaware that that was the way he really behaved, thought Pickens was a method actor, and his mannerisms were his way of "finding" his performance for the character.

Google has about twenty sites with this exact language! ( 11/27/08)-- none seem primary, or respectable secondary. Needs a real source. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if the only Google hits are derivative, then it seems probable that the claim is likely untrue, so why not delete it instead of tagging it? Why subject our readers to a potential untruth? If someone wants to re-add it with a citation, they can always do so. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not give the OP a little time to do some research? The claim came from somewhere...

And why give me flak for complying with your request to post this here? Grumpily, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to give you flak -- I think my general dislike for tagging and a lack of a lot of free time caused me to be more curt than was necessary. My apologies.

In any case, the claim has been in the article for quite some time, and no one has stepped forward with a citation, so it seems best to remove it until someone shows up with one. And, actually, the fact that the claim exists doesn't necessarily imply any factuality connected to it -- people do make up stuff, after all. I admit that I thought it was true when it was first posted, and even defended it at the time, because it seemed to make sense from what I knew -- but enough time has passed to change that. It doesn't harm the article to remove it - at best it's a bit of color. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology -- no problem. The method acting bit does sound plausible, but...

Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here -- this is the War Room."

This was mentioned in the "Making of Dr. Strangelove" special feature on the DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.205.147 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Camera, or trigger?

The article's plot synopsis states that after the American B-52 drops its bomb, "the Soviet Ambassador retreats to a corner of the War Room and starts taking pictures with a spy camera disguised as a pocket watch." I had always thought something different: that perhaps, by design, the Doomsday Machine hadn't yet been automatically triggered, and that a final confirmation signal needed to be sent by a human; in this case, the Soviet Ambassador, through a radio transmitter in his watch.

Is there any evidence one way or the other? – Wdfarmer (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw no evidence of this. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on "The Leper Colony"

I have recently viewed the film again on television, however I would like to know where in the film is the B-52 crew referred to as "The Leper Colony"? I have seen several versions of scripts (many containing elements that were not filmed) that mention it, but at what point in the film is it seen or mentioned? The B-52 doesn't seem to have WWII type nose art with the name ala 12 O'Clock HighFoofbun (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed from the article the footnote to the effect that the crew is called "The Leper Colony" in tribute to 12 O'Clock High, because I can find no indication in the film itself that the crew, or the plane, has that moniker. I might have missed it in viewing the film, but it's enough that anyone who wants to re-add the information should have a citation from a reliable source to support it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The aircraft is called The Leper Colony in the book but it doesn't appear in the film IIRC.

number of people in mineshaft

The number of people in Dr. Strangelove's mineshaft plan was changed from 200,000 to 700,000. If my memory is correct, he says "several hundred thousand". Can someone verify? Bubba73 (talk), 04:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure of Dr. Strangelove article...

Is anyone else struggling with the structure of this article? There seems to be a handful of facts, repackaged two, three, or more times, re-presented over and over again: Turgidson based on LeMay, Sellers's three roles, the literal translation of Strangelove, Pickens's not realizing it's a comedy...

Perhaps it serves a purpose for readers doing research — they don't have to read far to get information — but anyone reading straight through won't benefit. I dunno... seems like it could be a whole lot more straightforward. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Dr. Strangeloves involantary right hand movements

I think we should put a reference on how Dr.Strangelove involantarily/subconsciencly moves his gloved hand, i think it's an actual condition that is commonly referred back to this film. Megatonman (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you'll find it referenced in three different spots in the article. The condition is called Alien hand syndrome formally, Dr. Strangelove Syndrome informally. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove: A Continuity Transcript

Dr. Strangelove: A Continuity Transcript http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

General Ripper's fluoride concerns are not fully recognized in the current article.

General Ripper was also concerned about the communist plans to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk and ice cream.

The current version of the article only mentions water fluoridation while excluding the other concerns.

General Ripper also made more of a point about pure grain alcohol and distilled water than is currently not discussed in the article.

To see a transcript of the Dr. Strangelove movie click the following link. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html

To see the part of the Dr. Strangelove movie where General Ripper talks about fluoride click the following links.

Dr. Strangelove; Part 5 of 10 * This portion of the video may be available on YouTube. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

• link to copyright violation removed

Dr. Strangelove; Part 6 of 10 * This portion of the video may be available on YouTube.(GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

• link to copyright violation removed

The article should be updated to include the information about the communist plans to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk and ice cream. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Why? How do these details help us understand the film any better? Do they come into play in the plot other than as a one-time mention? No, they don't. Yworo (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

General Ripper's motivation to refuse to give the code to recall the Russian Nuclear strike was not just about the communist fluoridation of water. General Ripper's motivation was also highly influenced by the plans the communists had to fluoridate ice cream, salt, fruit juices, sugar, and milk. General Ripper made a special point to repeat to Mandrake the issue of the fluoridated ice cream too. Here is the quote from the movie. "Ripper:

Ah, naah. We're ok here. Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridated water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake. Children's ice cream?"- *[Dr. Strangelove: a Continuity Transcript http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html]

General Ripper told Mandrake about the communist plans to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk and ice cream in the during a gun fight with automatic 50 caliber weapons with both sides exchanging fire and while a B 52 was in route Russia with nuclear bombs. General Ripper felt so strongly about not giving Mandrake or the pursuing army the code to withdraw the Russian Nuclear strike that he shot himself effectively assuring that the code would never be forsaken. To do a article about the movie Dr. Strangelove not include this information is censorship at it's best. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Also, Wikipedia policy prohibits linking to copyright violations of films on youtube or elsewhere, so I've removed your links. Anyone who cares about the film has it on media. Yworo (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo the Copy Right for the 1964 Movie Dr. Strangelove would be expired. Copyrights expire after 28 years if it had one originally. Nonetheless the entire Dr. Strangelove movie is available on YouTube now. And it is possible that the Dr. Strangelove movie never had a copy wright in the first place. It is under fair use to use sections of the movie for this purpose anyway. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

That's not correct. 28 years is a very old version of copyright law which has been changed multiple times since. The film is not in the public domain. It will actually be under copyright until at least 70 years after Kubrick's death. Putting copies on Youtube is not "fair use", it's copyright violation, and Wikpedia policy is quite clear on such links. If you plan on editing Wikipedia, you'd better get used to such policies, as weak uninformed arguments like what you just wrote are ignored. Yworo (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Strangelove is not PD and copies of the film on YouTube are indeed not fair use. However, you can quote small bits of the dialogue at will under fair use, citing only the movie, that in itself isn't original research because the dialogue is wholly verifiable by anyone who is able to view the movie. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of if the Dr.Strangelove movie is copyrighted or not today is not of that much concern. People that want to see the movie can watch it as it is available on many online video sites today. I did a search for copyright info about the 1964 Dr, Strangelove movie and found nothing indicating that it had a copyright in force today. Fair use protects the use of clips of copyrighted material for scholary uses such as this anyway. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

You will find our fair use policies here. Wikipedia actually discourages the use of fair use material in favor of public domain or open-source licensed material, primarily because fair use laws differ from country to country and Wikipedia wants as much content as possible to be redistributable without having to consult a lawyer. Yworo (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Strangelove is not PD, hence you won't be able to find verification that it is PD, which you would need to do. Only as a shortcut through all this, I can tell you, if the film were PD, there would be a copy on the website Internet Archive. As for Ripper's dialog about fluoride, please keep in mind, this article is about the movie, not sodium fluoride. You're welcome, however, to cite reliable sources which discuss the character's dialog about food additives. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Has the movie Dr. Strangelove ever had or have a copyright?

The following discussion 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.

---

I have not been able to locate any information that indicates that the movie Dr. Strangelove has a copyright.

There is some question if the movie Dr. Strangelove has a copyright.

If you know any information about the copyright status of the Dr. Strangelove movie please leave that information here. Thank you. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

You are completely naive about copyright. The film is copyrighted. There is no question whatsoever about it. Yworo (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The copyright notice is right where it is on all films, in the film itself, in the credits, at 1 minute & 46 seconds into the film. The notices are also on the boxes for VHS, DVD, BluRay, etc. edition. Any other stupid questions? Yworo (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2010 (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.

General Ripper Fluoride concern section

The following discussion 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.

---

General Ripper was also concerned about the communist plans to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk and ice cream. General Ripper also made a point to say that he drank only distilled water and grain alcohol that is not in the article.

[redacted tips on how to find copyvios off-wiki] You can also read the continuity transcript for the Dr. Strangelove movie here. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html

The current article does not mention General Rippers concerns about fluoride well at all currently. (GeneralMandrakeRipper (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC))

The details about salt, etc. are not important to the plot. We don't include unnecessary details. This is an encyclopedia article, not a script. Yworo (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and try reading the article. The general concerns about fluoride are mentioned in the first sentence of the plot section. Yworo (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2010 (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.

Allmovie

• Dr. Strangelove at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gross Revenue?

There doesn't seem to be a mention of the gross revenue of the movie. Could this be found somewhere? GruffyBears (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about B-52 scale model

Aviators! I have doubts about the veracity of the statement that the composited B-52 model in the film was, in fact, a Monogram 1/72nd scaler. I was an avid model builder in the late 60's, and I distinctly remember this kit being released, amongst much advertising, in the 1968-69 period, making it much too late for studio use.

Rather, I suspect that the model-makers just did a bang-up job using publicly available documentation. After all, they did a dead-on flightdeck based on a single photo... So - I hold this unreferenced comment as suspect... Mark Sublette (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section needs some work. The Rotten Tomatoes claim isn't true (there are over 100 movies with 100% fresh rating and over 20 reviewers) and appears to be WP:OR. I understand that its position can be easily noted as of some stated date but I think that commenting on how many other movies received this rating isn't needed as it will constantly be changing. Metacritic named it #96, not #6. IMDB has it as #33 of all time. I'll be making these changes and wanted to leave an explanation here instead of in a edit note. OlYeller^Talktome 02:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood the Metacritic rating vs ranking and adjusted it accordingly. I added a reference for TopTenMovies and changed the IMDB rating. I also removed the comment about it being one of some number of movies to receive a 100 on RottenTomatoes as it's just to variable to keep updated. OlYeller^Talktome 02:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. This request was obviously Lugnuts' Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Dr. Strangelove → Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb—This article should be at the full correct name of the film, and not the title most people refer to it as. Dr. Strangelove can redirect back here. --Lugnuts (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." We can write the official title in the article's lead sentence, but the official title is not repeated ad nauseum in references. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I assume this might have been brought about (and forgive me if I'm wrong) because of Borat, which does include the full length title for the article header.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • For that article, the move discussion can be found here. (The discussion took place in March 2007.) Despite the original poster mentioning WP:COMMONNAME, he probably should have quoted it more fully, as there are people saying to keep the long title because it is official. The situation was also slightly complicated by the existence of the character article Borat Sagdiyev. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I was just pointing it out, I thought I remembered a discussion on moving that in the past (and thought it was moved). As for the character, it doesn't help anyone who would argue that case since Borat redirects to the film and not the character. So, someone probably should restart that move discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The case of Borat is different because "Borat" can also refer to Borat Sagdiyev, Sacha Baron Cohen's character, whose creation preceded the film. The Celestial City (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above (which is per WP:COMMONNAME). There are a lot of films with overly long titles which are used for comedic effect, but it just because silly to try and replicate that for the article title. It's one thing to have it in the lead, and another to just list the film's page with that name when a more common, shortened form can be used. I don't believe anyone would argue that if the common name was completely unrelated that we would switch it, but in this case it is more common for people to simply refer to the film as "Dr. Strangelove" than it's full title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I was also looking at WP:NCF which doesn't seem to be clear on this. Maybe this needs updating too? Lugnuts (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that NCF doesn't address it because it isn't a common problem. Though we do have what would seem like "quite a few" of these articles, they aren't typical compared to the rest and I think that is why NCF probably just lets COMMONNAME handle such cases. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a brief blurb about long titled films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME--John (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as with the film Swept Away and others. I thought that we had a conversation about this when this article was moved from the lengthier title several years ago but it isn't in this talkpage archives. Was it on the talk page for the Filmproject? Or somewhere else? MarnetteD | Talk 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Per this discussion, I started a new discussion to request moving Borat to the more concise title per guidelines. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

James Earl Jones

I know James Earl Jones didn't have a very large role, but I think it should be mentioned somewhere that Dr. Strangelove was his first film role. But I have no idea where to put it, any suggestions? Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 19:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it should go right after his name in the Cast list section, like: "James Earl Jones, in his first motion picture role as Lieutenant Lothar Zogg, the B-52's bombardier." Please insert the info with a proper source reference (IMDB is not a reliable source for WP articles). Thanks. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

American or British film?

What determines the nationality of a film? If it's the director then Kubrick was American. If it's where it's filmed then it was filmed in London because Peter Sellers was in the middle of a divorce and could not leave the country, according to the article. If it's the nationality of the leading actors then George C. Scott was American but Peter Sellers was British. If it's the distribution company then Columbia Pictures is American. I am going to remove any references to the nationality of the film until we reach a consensus on this. –CWenger (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget it was American money that bankrolled it.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It was made by a British Company; Hawk Films Ltd, and was adapted from a British book by an English author; Peter George.

BTW, it was British money that bankrolled the P-51 Mustang fighter plane so would you call that a British aeroplane? - no? - I thought not.

.... oh, and another BTW, Stanley Kubrick took up British Citizenship not long before he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.62.148 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the American Film Institute the film is a British production - see here: [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

release date

I am fairly certain I saw the film at RAF Swanton Morley in March 1963. Was this film shown at military bases before general release? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanstew46 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• In March 1963, the movie was still being filmed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cutting the "Pie Fight Ending"...

These sentences appear in the "JFK Assassination" section of the article:

The assassination also serves as another possible reason why the pie-fight scene was cut. In the scene General Turgidson exclaims, "Gentlemen! Our gallant young president has been struck down in his prime!" after Muffley takes a pie in the face. Editor Anthony Harvey states that "[the scene] would have stayed, except that Columbia Pictures were horrified, and thought it would offend the president's family."

Yet in the section above—and in most Strangelove scholarship—Kubrick is cited as the decision-maker to cut the pie fight for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being it didn't work. I understand that Anthony Harvey was the film editor, but aren't we being misleading when we include his dubious claim that it was the studio's intervention on behalf of the Kennedy family that cut the scene, otherwise "it would have stayed"?—HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My question is where's that footage now? I've read Kubrick's wife or daughter is sitting on the several minute segment cut from the end of The Shining (the scene where Ullman talks to Wendy and Danny in the hospital at the end) and she refuses to release to the public. Do they have the pie fight footage, too? --RThompson82 (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the breaks

In the below quote from the movie, are the breaks a reference to firebreaks or a reference to the probabilty of Nuclear weapon Fratricide. I've never got a good answer on the true meaning of the word in that context, any help would be appreciated. Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before; it's an American term referring to random chance. "Uh, depending on how lucky we get" would be similar--since a certain percentage of the Soviet bombers would manage to get through American air defenses, it's just a matter of which targets would successfully get hit, and that's pretty much a matter of luck. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So it was not a reference to firebreaks? I see, confusing, can you point me to where it has been discussed before? Boundarylayer (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion can be seen here Talk:Dr. Strangelove/Archive 3#Possible misquotation. I can also back up the fact that this is a very common term in US life and you will find it used in many different areas including business, sports etc. A related term is "those (sometimes themz) are the breaks." My thanks to rdfox 76 for his detailed explanation from almost 5 years ago and for remembering it now. MarnetteD | Talk 00:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Good lord, that far back? God, I'm getting old... Get off my lawn, you whippersnappers! rdfox 76 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is the narrator?

This is my favorite film and I think I've read close to everything ever published about it, but nowhere have I seen a credit for - or even speculation about - the narrator. My top suspect is Peter Ustinov. Does anybody have a clue on this?Aileron Spades (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Length of plot synopsis

The length of the plot synopsis exceeds the guideline of "400–700 words" established in WP:FILMPLOT, yet text continues to be added. The Plot section doesn't need to be a word-for-word recitation of everything in the screenplay. Anyone have any thoughts? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, text continues to be added, but not words. Is this eight character edit really worth threatening me? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you, but I did get a little insistent when you didn't respond to notes placed here and on your personal Talk page.

To answer your question, no, the eight-byte edit--your most recent--isn't terribly large, but the preceding three or four added 1,384 bytes to the article, and many of them are words. You also commented in one edit summary, "plot length seems fine to me". — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The film's on TV now so I came to have a look... the Plot section stands around 1300 words, nearing double the recommended maximum. Unfortunately, I don't know the film well enough to trim it effectively. This is why i'm tagging it again. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting to Bat Guano

There is no way to get here without knowing he's a character in Dr. Strangelove. When I searched here on the name, with initial caps, too, it took me to the guano page. There is a disambiguation page for "guano" but not for "Bat Guano." I'm not sure what needs to be done, once again, to avoid the automatic redirect, but I sure wish someone would tell me. I'm really tired of running afoul of them. If it weren't for IMDB, I'd still be searching. Zlama (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why one would be searching for "Bat Guano" without knowing it was a character in this film, but Bat Guano is now a redirect to Dr. Strangelove#Cast. Opera hat (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't remember the sequence of events, but I kept coming across names in articles that were links. When I followed them, they took me to pages that had the same name or were related by spelling if not by meaning or purpose because of Wikipedia's automatic redirect. It's a crutch, I'd guess, for authors to just put the brackets there and let the software do the work, but it would be nice if they'd check first to see if there was an actual page that applied. ;) /end rant Zlama (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"News of the detonation..."

The final paragraph of the Plot section begins with: "News of the detonation reaches the war room; the activation of the doomsday device is inevitable..." I don't recollect the scene where any news reaches the war room; could someone please refresh my memory? 71.162.180.66 (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no on-screen receipt of the news of a detonation, but it is sort of implied by the tone of the conversation towards the end that things have worked out badly.RJ4 (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's no on-screen receipt, isn't the sentence in question giving a wrong impression? The personnel in the war room are bounding along on a flight of seriocomic fantasy, planning out their sexual futures, without any regard to any inevitability. They get the news the same way the rest of the world gets it—when the planet is suddenly vaporized. Shouldn't this inaccuracy be fixed? 71.162.180.66 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Implied" is going to be in the POV of each viewer. I have seen the film more than 50 times and I never got the sense that they new what had happened with Kong's plane and its bombs. I can see where other viewers would speculate that something had occurred but our plot should reflect what is seen onscreen so I have had a go at reworking the paragraph. MarnetteD | Talk 17:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done MarnetteD. 71.162.180.66 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they def. don't get news of the bombing in the film - they just prepare for the worst-case outcome and the mineshaft gap! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any significance of the name Merkin Muffley?

Merkin has a Wikipedia page. Muffley, is muff+ly. Merkin and muff seem to both refer to fur fashion accessories and possibly a womans pubic area. So it might be part of a joke. Geo8rge (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Try imagining Peter Sellers saying quickly in a fake Mid-West accent "I'm not British, I'm a Merkin". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Release date vs production date

The film was made in 1963, not 1964. Hence "a 1963 film". See the credits at the beginning of the movie (1'47). It was released in 1964. This seems like a minor point, but the confusion between the production year and the release year can lead to serious mistakes in interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historienne2012 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We use the release date in the lead sentence. See WP:FILMLEAD and please don't make such changes again. Yworo (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the release date is really stupid. See the example of Andrei Rublev: Wikipedia says it's a movie "of 1966" and it's true, it was made in 1966, but shown abroad during the Cannes festival only in 1969, censored in USSR until 1971, and not officially released in the US before 1983. So please chek out your "rules" again. --Historienne2012 (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I'll fix that. Yworo (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Title

Concur with User:Darkwarriorblake. There was a consensus here to use the common-name title. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Character names

There should probably be a list in the article indicating the names of the characters in the original novel Red Alert, because all of the main characters' names were changed from the book to the film. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

General Ripper's Motive

Plans to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar and ice cream were motivating factors for General Ripper not disclosing the code to recall the nuclear strike of Russia. The entire Dr. Strangelove movie is about getting the recall code from General Ripper needed to recall the Nuclear bombing of Russia and General Ripper's refusal to disclose it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.202.166 (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

SEXUALITY: The reply letter from Kubrick could also be looked at as sarcasm to the writer,rather then true insight as the article claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox omissions

We need to mention that the film is in black-and-white. Also the aspect ratio, which the article notes was changed for the 1994 re-release (and note that in the infobox too). --96.237.205.243 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Rentals?

"The film was a popular success, earning US$4,420,000 in rentals in North America during its initial theatrical release.[51]"
Rentals? There were no video rental stores in those days. Video cassettes hadn't been invented yet, let alone DVDs. [-- 01:01, 19 December 2014 184.147.123.145

Think it's just an entertainment-industry term referring to rental fees charged for providing big film reels to movie theater owners (as opposed to raw ticket sales), as partially explained in footnote... AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Origins of Dr. Strangelove

Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove was original. The screenplay was not based on a novel. Any student doing research on his creative efforts would consider The Mouse That Roared (1959), where he had seen his main actor Peter Sellers play three roles. The novel itself was a humorous satire, also about nuclear war - a small country wins it by declaring war on the United States. As discussed in the Wikipedia section Themes, Stanley's options on Red Alert were used to delay Fail-Safe's release. I do not know of any interview to support this, but clearly the creative themes of The Mouse That Roared stirred the mind of Kubrick enough to extract Peter Sellers for equally humorous, and more adult purposes in Kubrick's production. Markbeaulieu (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

First, the sourced info in the Dr. Strangelove#Novel and screenplay would indicate that you are incorrect in your assessment of the situation. Next, to state that both are nuclear war films is to overstate the case. For one thing any reference to nuclear bombs in TMtR does not come info the film (or the book) until, approximately, halfway through the story. Next, so you have any WP:RS that Kubrick and Southern wrote this film based on TMtR? - or that he had ever seen that film? - or read the book? The sourced info in this section Dr. Strangelove#Peter Sellers.27s multiple roles indicate that it was the studio that wanted Sellers cast in multiple roles not SK. Your assertion that there is a "clear" connection between the two is WP:OR as well as WP:SYNTH. Now, there is nothing wrong with your having that theory but until you can find verifiable WP:SECONDARY sources to back it up this is a WP:NOTESSAY situation. There are other plenty of other places on the web (like facebook) that you can write about your theory. Unfortunately, without sourcing, Wikipedia is not one of them. MarnetteD|Talk 20:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 BBC News Item on George's work on Dr Strangelove here: [9] The Dr was George's invention and he wrote a whole backstory for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, in the novel Dr. Strangelove was injured in the bombing of Peenemünde which is why he is in a wheelchair and has a prosthetic arm and hand - hence the black glove on one hand only. That's why he is unable to control it properly - nothing to do with 'alien hand syndrome'. The novel opens with a destroyed Earth being looked-over by aliens.

I nearly forgot. George wrote and had published two version of the story, the original Red Alert upon-which the film was initially based, and a later novelization of the film scripts entitled Dr Strangelove: Or How I Learned .....

At the time he wrote Red Alert he was a serving RAF officer and due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter was forced to use a pen name - "Peter Bryant". By the time he wrote the novelization that no longer applied and he was able to publish Dr Strangelove: Or How I Learned .... under his real name - "Peter George".

BTW, the aerial photograph of Burpelson Air Force Base on General Ripper's wall is actually a picture of London Heathrow Airport.

A sourced opinion requires attribution to whoever offers it—it should not be a statement of fact

The removal of this text was reverted on the sole basis that it was sourced:

Kahn came over as cold and calculating, for example in his willingness to estimate how many human lives the United States could lose and still rebuild economically, but this was unfair, as he was not really advocating nuclear warfare. (He simply meant that if it came to nuclear war, there might in fact be a limited one, and we should keep our options open.)

This section is opinion, not fact, and it requires attribution to the person(s) or group(s) giving that opinion. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The item is quite clearly sourced to the Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, Volume 1. How you have missed that is worrisome. MarnetteD|Talk 12:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. A REFERENCE is provided, but the text does not provide proper attribution, instead stating it as a fact. It is not a fact; it is an opinion, and therefore the text itself should say who is giving it. How about you pay attention to the specific concern I'm raising? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

General Ripper's Recall Code

Genaral Ripper's Recall code POE or Purity Of Essence or Peace On Earth. When Guano shoots his way in to General Ripper's office Mandrake is looking at General Ripper's notes trying to figure out what the recall code is. The Notes General Ripper wrote were Peace On Earth and Purity Of Essence. What the Recall Code was and it's meaning should be discussed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.202.166 (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember that Mandrake says, "Something like POE or OPE." In fact, I thought I'd seen something in the film that indicted the recall code began OPE, but I couldn't find it. Nonetheless, OPE remains a possibility.Marcomillions (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, the code prefix/recall code is hardly a mystery. You can see the code OPE being set on the CRM 114 at 0:17:58 or you can hear the voice of SAC Communications Control read it at 1:13:15 (timings from the Special Edition DVD) Aileron Spades (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Mandrake suggest OPE as meaning 'Our Precious Essences'? Khamba Tendal (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Misc improvements

I made a few improvements to the article which someone is undoing for no apparent reason. They were:

1. I changed "Sellers is said to have improvised much of his dialogue" to "Sellers is said to have ad-libbed much of his dialogue", because "ad libitum" is a general concept, and linking the text "his dialogue" would suggest that the article linked was specifically about this instance of ad-libbing.
2. I changed "However, as he later explained during interviews, he began to see comedy inherent in the idea of mutual assured destruction as he wrote the first draft. Kubrick said:" to "However, he began to perceive comedy in the idea of mutual assured destruction as he wrote the first draft, saying", because "as he later explained" implies that Wikipedia also believes whatever Kubrick said, and that there is comedy to be perceived in MAD. We don't take positions like that.
3. I removed the block quote tags because there was no need for them. Quotations should generally be worked into the article text, so as not to inhibit the pace, flow and organization of the article.
4. I added a citation tag for the claim that Southern and Kubrick did not do much to dispel the impression that Southern had written the script.
5. I changed "Peter George wrote an indignant letter" to "Peter George wrote a letter". Applying a judgement as to the tone of a letter is not the function of this encyclopaedia. See WP:NPOV again.

The user reverting my edits did so without offering a reason, merely saying "rvt to last clean version", and following that up with very childish insults when I asked them for an explanation on their talk page. I do not think my edits were in any way "dirty". In fact, I think they were not just useful but essential, and that undoing them was an act of vandalism by someone who either didn't understand them, or (more likely) didn't even care whether they were good or bad. I thus hope that someone other than this user will express an opinion here. 86.185.226.91 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Whether they are improvements is debatable. As to the reasons you are in error about most of them - especially the removal of blockquotes. Per WP:BRD you should not restore these edits until others have commented on them. MarnetteD|Talk 22:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If it were debatable, you'd probably have given reasons when you were reverting, and perhaps even responded sensibly to this discussion. 86.185.226.91 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You made quite a few changes so it was probably difficult for Marnette to summarize his issues with your edits. He may not even have disagreed with all of them, but rather than discussing the etiquette of reverting let's discuss the issues at hand: i) In this particular context "improvising" and "adlibbing" mean the same thing, but the alteration does reduce the WP:EGG factor; ii) I think this was actually an improvement because not everyone sees humor in the possibility of nuclear war; iii) Yes, going by the guideline you are technically correct and would probably win if you pushed the point, but on a personal basis I have a preference for the current version because I like quotes to stick out a bit; iv) Do we know for sure this isn't sourced by the book i.e. have you checked the citation at the end? v) If the accompanying source states the letter was "indignant" then its inclusion here is justified, but I agree that you have a point that dropping it might be slightly more in keeping with an encyclopedic tone. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Betty Logan and any others who post here. After the IPs first edit (which included a CN tag for an item that was already sourced) was reversed here they came to may talk page and posted an unjustified attack on me. It was difficult to AGF after that. After I decided that I was being goaded I felt it was better to make no further replies to the IP. Later, I noticed this thread which seem to back up my suspicions that something was fishy Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP#August 2016. As to the specific edits please feel free to restore and alter any of them as you see fit. MarnetteD|Talk 01:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dr. Strangelove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QSnEvFKT?url=http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.ts.html to http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.ts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070125083244/http://www.berlinale-talentcampus.de:80/www/73/viewentry/118 to http://www.berlinale-talentcampus.de/www/73/viewentry/118
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929132220/http://www.scriptfactory.co.uk/go/WhatWeDo/Extract_285.html to http://www.scriptfactory.co.uk/go/WhatWeDo/Extract_285.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107041313/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1944_6.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1944_6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229141901/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/directors.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/directors.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The physical act of love,,,"

MarnetteD -- Mandrake asks Ripper when it first was he realized about the bodily fluids, and Ripper says it was during the physical act of love. If we don't discuss the end of the world resulting from one general's inability to get it up, we're skipping the main satiric point of the script! 73.30.24.162 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A) That is your interpretation of one scene. Others will find other meanings so B) That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on your part. Ripper also sees fluoridation as a wider plot that is sapping more than just sexual energy from Americans and that is what the caption is about. C) per WP:BRD your edit should not be put back until others have commented on the talk page thread. MarnetteD|Talk 04:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Self reverted tho captions really should not be used to explain plot points of the film. MarnetteD|Talk 04:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

C'mon, MarnetteD, it's hardly "interpretation" or WP:OR when one character asks the other when did you discover this plot and gets the answer "it was during the physical act of love." Your caption said Ripper is telling Mandrake of "how he first discovered the Communist plot." He's telling the time and circumstances of his discovery—not the breadth of the plot. If you don't want to mention Ripper's motivation for destroying the world (and giving us a movie) here, then please, let's work it in somewhere.—73.30.24.162 (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wish I were a faster typer! I love the caption now -- thank you both!—73.30.24.162 (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ending

I don't really know of any sources that can verify my point, but I do know that a lot of people believe the use of We'll Meet Again in the ending conveyed that some people survived the detonation of the Doomsday Device. This is flawed thinking, as it was detonated before Strangelove's plan regarding mineshafts could be put into action. Kubrick used the song ironically, as he also did with Singin' in the Rain in A Clockwork Orange and the theme for the Mickey Mouse Club in Full Metal Jacket. Would this be pertinent to include in the article, and if so, would a reference be necessary?72.128.4.168 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As it is now, there is no implication as to the meaning of the song, merely that it is played. To insert a comment regarding the intended meaning of the song you would need a verifiable source. SpigotMap 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Even if the Doomsday Device was detonated immediately, it would take some time, weeks or months, for the fallout to reach the USA. So there would be time for a few to take refuge. Barsoomian (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The song was suggested by Spike Milligan and the point to using it was that they wouldn't meet again. No-one would. Ever. So it is indeed, Irony.

Or the point is that they all will meet again, immediately, in heaven, since they're all going to die.71.109.147.55 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If you watch the film you'll see that the only two main characters who aren't mentally deranged are President Muffley and Group Captain Mandrake. The rest are all having trouble grasping the seriousness of the whole situation. And for the most part, it is they who are running things. That's one of the jokes of the film. "The lunatics have taken over the asylum".

... the other point of the film is that the other characters all think they are doing the right thing, which they would be in different circumstances, and do their best to carry out their orders. But the circumstances aren't what they perceive them to be - at least not initially. So what they are doing is exactly wrong. You see, all the sophisticated 'safety measures' implemented to prevent an enemy thwarting retaliation conspire to first, prevent access to Burpelson Air Base, and finally, prevent the recall of Ripper's final lone bomber. And that leads to the end of the world. By mistake. That's the joke.

... and that's why We'll Meet Again is used for the finale. Because no-one would ever be meeting anyone ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I perceived the final song was this: "We'll meet again" is highly reminicent of the British Blitz of WWII. To me, its use at the end of Strangelove communicates a blitz spirit - but not necessarily survival. Ie: "Looks like the world is ending again dear, best batten down the hatches and settle in until its over." with a melancholy note of "maybe it will never be over and we will all die".

Imagine the news comes in that a doomsday device has been detonated and fallout will arrive in some small number of days and everyone herds into shelters to wait it out, not knowing that the wait will be too long, and they are singing the song to pass the time/keep up spirits.

So for me it is unknown whether anyone survived the doomsday detonation, or if so, for how long, and the movie ends on a pessimistic-but-still-weirdly-hopeful kind of tone.

The song at the end is indeed irony. No-one will ever meet again. Everyone dies. That's why the Soviet device was called the 'Doomsday machine' and the final sequence shows the linked detonations of the machine going off. The people in any mineshaft(s) will eventually die of thirst or starvation or end up eating each other. That is the lunacy of it all. "We'll meet again" is an optimistic song in a situation where there is no possibility of an optimistic outcome whatsoever. None. That's why the song in that context is funny. If they were all going to meet again in heaven the song wouldn't be funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we know what the "plagiarism" lawsuit is for?

Plagiarism isn't a cause of action in U.S. law. The lawsuit was likely for either copyright infringement or some sort of unfair competition. Does anyone know? Croctotheface (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This journal cites a 1963 article of the Hollywood Reporter that stated the suit was over "copyright infringement and unfair competition". https://journals.openedition.org/inmedia/634

Goon Show

There is a citation needed on the assertion that "Additionally, Sellers' ad-libbed dialogue as the President on the phone with the Russian premier is drawn from a skit between him and Milligan in the Goon Show episode "The Lost Emperor".)" . Dubious.

A transcript of the Goon Show episode in question (http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts_show.asp?title=s06e03_the_lost_emperor) and a recording of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jog_DFO4kHM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VeadL48ovQ) provide little support for this idea, other than a few exchanges similar to Muffley's "Fine, fine, fine" dialog, which resembled not one bit the one-sided conversation heard in the film. MrNeutronSF (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your looking into this ((u||MrNeutronSF}}. If, after a few days, no one replies with a WP:RS I think it would be okay for you to remove the item. MarnetteD|Talk 15:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Film Ratio for may years was screamed as Varieble ratio e.g. The B-52 scenes were 1:33 and War 1: 66 I feel like I am alone regarding this issue . the Critwerion CAV Laserdisc had the variable ratio..

1 Atwozed (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You are not alone, I remember hearing about this, but I don't have a ref.RJ4 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Original negatives

According to the Tim Cahill interview with Kubrick for Rolling Stone in 1987 [10], Dr. Strangelove very nearly would've ended up a lost film, because the studio didn't take good care of all the negatives and prints. Quoteth Kubrick:

"We discovered that the studio had lost the picture negative of Dr. Strangelove. And they also lost the magnetic master soundtrack. All the printing negatives were badly ripped dupes. The search went on for a year and a half. Finally, I had to try to reconstruct the picture from two not-too-good fine-grain positives, both of which were damaged already. If those fine-grains were ever torn, you could never make any more negatives." --46.93.158.170 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cast section

Are we perhaps laying it on a bit thick in several entries of the first part of the Cast section? Is the "King" nickname for Major Kong really a reference to the movie monster—isn't just a natural nickname for a guy named Kong? Likewise General Ripper being a "reference" to the 19th century serial murderer: is it really a reference or is it just a coy smile? Same for the Soviet ambassador and the 18th century writer and revolutionary thinker. Seems to me that if you claim every little thing is a reference, then you lose some of the punch of your real references. Also, is the tabular structure of the first part of the cast section really the place to discuss characters' backgrounds (particularly when we come right back with the very same information presented more prosaically in the very next section)? Isn't the first section about, ummm, casting? There's a lot of repetition in this article.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on both points. Certainly the cast section is simply for who played each role with minimal explanation. I suspect some of the "references" can be sourced, but it should be done later in the article if at all. With stuff like "King" Kong, Jack "the Ripper", I'd want to see verification that Kubrick has stated that he intended it the way it is taken. That might make it worth reporting. Yworo (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone even refer to Major Kong as "King" in the dialogue, Yworo? I can't remember its being used anywhere.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I don't think anyone does. Yworo (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexual themes in the movie are reflected in many character names based on either bodily functions or sexual implications. This point has been made in several documentaries and articles on the movie. Wiki warriors, playing the game of citing the rule requiring references to content likely to be contested makes all content likely, and resulting in lists of references longer than the article, will task editors with finding references for information that is a priori in the content of the movie and articles about it. Although every name is probably not mentioned in every, or any article, the sexual themes of the movie, and the discussion of the names in interviews with the producers, supports the conclusion that when there is a sexual theme, or bodily function interpretation possible in the name that is the intended reason for the name. "King" Kong in a sexual themes context refers to a large penis which is caricatured in his last moments by his straddling the bomb. Jack the ripper murdered women. Since Jack D. Ripper murders many people Jack The Ripper is the reference. Jack D. Ripper describes not sexual impotence but coitus interuptus. His coitus interuptus response to his perception of the profound sense of fatigue of the resolution phase of intercourse, which he perceives as loss of essence, is interpreted by psychologist Madrake as resulting in intense sexual frustration which is often cited by psychologists as a cause of delusions, and violence. Ripper's motive in attacking Russia is an attempt to resolve his frustration by violently removing other sources his sexual frustration deludes him in believing is cause of his loss of essence. The topics above have been written about in psychological journals, and other media examining the sexual themes of the movie. Wiki warriors, as they are playing a trolling game, will dispute its inclusion, and task any editor with finding the journals and articles. So it will probably remain only on the talk page. 98.164.64.58 (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Maj. Kong's Stetson

According to Mr. Pickens (as related to a conversation we had on the set of Tom Horn), the idea that Kong should wear a white Stetson was his. He exclaimed to Kubrick that "I've worn a Stetson in every movie I've ever been in, and damned if this will be the first one!" to which Kubrick said "OK...". BruceWiley (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ending again: Russian ambassador?

I see no mention of the final action of the Russian ambassador, just before Turgidson's "mine-shaft gap" speech. Isn't he planting a bomb? I've read that he's using his last chance to take pictures undetected (an exercise in futility). But I don't buy it; he's clearly fiddling with a clock-like timer, not a camera. Strangelove's final plan is never going to come about since everyone in the War Room is about to be dead. I always thought this was an important aspect of the ending. Am I wrong? Larrydberg (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you're wrong. It's a clock-like camera, as explicitly mentioned earlier in the film. EEng 19:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dr. Strangelove/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC) I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "(who were ordered by the general)" in lead - not sure why this is needed?

• Stray ]] in ref #6.

• Not sure that "centerfold" should link to "playmate", as the concept is more general than that. Probably link to Centerfold.

• There are uncited statements in several paragraphs under 'Cast' (in Mandrake, Muffley).

• We hear very little about the character of Kahn, von Neumann, Teller, and seemingly most importantly, von Braun. Perhaps we need something on what if anything these men did to be satirised as Strangelove; the statement that his character is "an amalgamation of" theirs implies in an unsubstantiated way that there existed at least some slight "hooks" in their characters for the satire to have some meaning.

• There are uncited statements in 'Sets and filming', 'Fail Safe', and 'Ending'.

• Herman Kahn is however introduced repeatedly, as if for the first time, and overlinked in 'Novel and screenplay', in 'Satirizing the Cold War', and yet again in 'Sexual themes'. Perhaps this needs unifying but he certainly doesn't need repeated glosses.

• The discussion in 'Cast' and the discussion in 'Themes' are however at least adjacent; I wonder if these might be reorganised slightly to reduce the feeling of repetition with Kahn popping up again and again.

• In 'Themes' it's said that two characters deride Gen. Curtis LeMay of SAC: why was he singled out for such treatment? Some mention of his character and opinions would seem highly relevant, preferably cited to a film critic.

• There is a "better source needed" tag for the image caption "sitting at an IBM 7090 console[8]".

• There are uncited statements in 'Satirizing the Cold War'.

• "... (see On Escalation)." isn't good style; please incorporate the aside into the text.

• " semirealistic "cobalt-thorium G" doomsday machine": this seems to be uncited as it's not from Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy.

• Release - we don't need a section 'Box office' just for one sentence; it can readily be merged into 'Reception'.

• Critical response: I feel this is missing any kind of summary of contemporary reviews from the 1960s, when it was sharply felt because of the Cold War. This needn't be long but there should be a short paragraph (indeed, we could have 'Contemporary' and 'Modern' subsections in Reception).

• There are uncited statements in 'Critical response'.

• The 'Awards and honors' table is missing nearly all the required citations.

• Henriksen and Rice in 'Further reading' both sound as if they should be cited in the text.

• Why is IMDb listed in external links?

• A question: part A) What makes Terry Southern, Brian Siano, Grant B. Stillman experts on this film? part B) If the answer to (A) is "plenty" then why not quote and cite them in the text? If not, why are they here?

• The David Bromwich essay is on Criterion so it is certainly noteworthy. It states that "Merkin Muffley (who looks a good deal like Adlai Stevenson, the symbol, for conservatives, of everything intellectual and unmanly about American liberalism)." This would seem to be well worth saying and citing (and wikilinking) in the article.

• Rotten Tomatoes is already used in text so it needn't be repeated in External links.

OK, that's about it from me. I very much enjoyed the article, finding the descriptions brought back memories of the movie. I hope the comments will be useful and taken in good part. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I'll try and get to this today. I'll need some time. I am not the best WP editor in the world. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll look forward to it... I guess you're rather keen on this particular topic! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Truthfully, I am only kind of a fan of Dr. Strangelove, at least for now. I would like to read up more on each topic it presented. I love the film itself though. The reason I call myself "StrangeloveFan101" is because I had to change my old username due to it being "disruptive." StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, looking forward to your responses to the items above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(Here's the sandbox I made to edit the article: User:StrangeloveFan101/sandbox SL) I thought I'd be able to do this today, but due to the amount of unsourced information that is in this article (which would require quite a bit of time and research to flesh out), I can't get it done. At least not today. I don't mind researching, but the problem is that I don't have a lot of spare time that I could put toward this particular thing, and I have matters in real life that need tending to. So unfortunately, I won't be able to finish it soon. I'm really sorry about this. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

How would you like to proceed? If you need a couple of weeks to do it over the weekends that would be fine; if you're rather stop now, that's fine too, this page will act as an aide-memoire for anyone else planning on taking the article to GA. Let me know what you'd like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, it's clear this isn't going anywhere. If the nominator or anyone else would like to take up the reins, please address the comments above, renominate the article and ping me, and I'll resume the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my delayed response here. I've had to deal with some things in real life. I won't be able to (at least right now) deal with the article right now, due to the fact that I just don't have the time. I'm sorry for this. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Col. Batguano: Are we sure about this?

I can't get a good enough look at his name tape to know definitively that "Batguano" is his surname, as asserted here in a recent edit. Google search returns everything as "Col. Bat Guano", first name and surname. Until the recent edit here, I've never seen it as "Batguano", all together as a surname, anywhere. Thoughts?—HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that "Batguano" is not the surname. I too am unable to read the letters of the ID strip on his uniform, but I can see the lengths of words (rank and names) and the spaces between quite well. The best place to examine these is in the sequence in the hallway outside Gen. Ripper's office involving the telephone booth and Coke machine. Keenan Wynn stands more squarely to the camera, and the lighting is flatter and lower contrast than in the scene inside Gen. Ripper's office, where dark shadows from the daylight coming through the windows make it harder to be sure about spaces between words. What I see are three word-units, consistent with "Col. Bat Guano." The third word-unit, the surname, is not long enough to be "Batguano." Moreover, Mandrake, in reading the ID strip, pronounces the name as if three separate units. I mean, how should we pronounce "Batguano" if it were a single name?Marcomillions (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Watch the film with VLC player. In the scene inside Gen. Ripper's office, freeze the frame at 1:09:20, just as the Guano character says to Mandrake, "While he was shaving, huh?"

Using VLC Player's "Interactive Zoom", it is then possible to clearly read the name tape as, "Col. Bat Guano". 72.215.148.50 (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks IP72.215.148.50. I have to change some of my forum-ids from "Pat Guano" to "Bat Guano". :-( And I was so sure ... --37.72.205.64 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

He's Col. Guano and his nickname is 'Bat'. Isn't 'Bat' in quotes on his name tape? Khamba Tendal (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Has first name ever been present on the US Military ID strip? I don't believe rank has ever been on the strip, but first name I'm 95% sure never has been. See OG-107 which has an image of a period uniform. -98.110.215.172 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• WarRoomModel.DrStrangelove.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge from CRM 114

That article is pretty much WP:TRIVIA with major problems regarding WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. WP:SIGCOV doesn't really exist - there most we get is a paragraph here. There are some other passing mentions here and there, and this source may conaint some discussion of similar devices in real life (but I can't get access to more than a snippet). Overall, I think this topic can be discussed in a paragraph in Dr. Strangelove but I don't think it merits a stand-alone article. As something might be salvageable by merging here, let's try a merge discussion first; hopefully AfD won't be necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The "Other uses" section could not be usefully merged into this article. Some people might consider that a good thing, but others wouldn't... AnonMoos (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge per nom Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether we should have more (and shorter) articles or fewer (and longer) articles is a matter of taste. For my part the current state here is fine. If the desire is to reduce the amount of material in the other article, that's for that article's talk page.

The merge tags have been on the article for almost a year, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere so I'm removing the tags. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Major Kong's nickname...

I've watched the picture many times, and I've never once heard anyone refer to Major Kong as "King" — yet it seems that our story works "this nickname" into most every mention of Kong. If it's not used in the picture, then it ought not be in this article. If no one can cite its use in the picture, then let's lose it from the article. — ~~— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.30.24.162 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It's been two weeks now... Any thoughts on "King"? — 73.30.24.162 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Maj. T. J. "King" Kong is how TCM, AllMovie, American Film Institute refer to the character. These are wp:reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia goes by. Just ramblin': The nickname may have been an inside joke. The use of King might have been cut from the final version or script. The guy doing the credits may have slipped it in. Or the nickname was left in the credits. Who knows. You might be able to find an RS on "King" - how it came about. It would be of interest to add it to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, if it's in the credits, then I'll stop whining. I never saw it there. Hey, we can check those credits to see if Bat Guano is one word or two (that was the subject of some bilious wrangling some time back. And we can see if the German words for strangelove are one or two. Why would the German be two words while the English is just one? — 73.30.24.162 (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The credits do not list any of the character names. Major Kong's nickname and initials are not specified. Neither is there any reference to the name of James Earl Jones character, nor the surname of "Ace". I don't know where they have come from. Maybe the novel. Maybe. RJ4 (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Major Kong (Slim Pickens) refers to his co-pilot (Shane Rimmer) as "Ace" twice during the latter part of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.248 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty meaningless. Words like Ace, Bubba, Gretchen, Doofus and many more are commonly used as generic nicknames. In the Air Force especially, "Ace" would be common. 203.160.80.94 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait who calls people "Gretchen"? Herostratus (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Too many antecedents...

There's a mountain of copy, and a lot of conjecture, about the antecedents to the Strangelove character -- four probables (though only 1 Nazi) and one "definitely not" -- Kissinger, who was unknown at the time. The section -- still under the "Cast" umbrella -- swells and even introduces a discussion of MAD. There's even a faceshot photo of John von Neumann, one of the "amalgam" guys. I guess the photo is there to help me understand MAD. Shortly thereafter, under the heading of "Satirizing the Cold War" there's another turgid (sorry, Buck) account of the cold war era that introduces topics hardly (if at all) mentioned in the movie like Nelson Rockefeller's foolish plan to build a network of fallout shelters. If an event itself is foolish, then just mentioning it is not satire.

Has to be Wolfgang Schäuble. ---Dagme (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, there's no question that Gen. Turgidson is based squarely on A-F Gen. Curtis LeMay, who was a public figure in 1963. How come he doesn't get a mention, let alone a photo!

I always assumed that Turgidson was based on Leslie Groves. I am serious this time. Please explain why it should be LeMay rather than Groves. ---Dagme (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, editors, step back and look at the balance of this piece. Our readers are asking the time, and we're explaining the metallurgy of building a watch! -- 73.30.24.162 (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Strictly for the wild speculation department, not for the WP article, but it struck me as amusing that Arthur C Clarke's wife's (Marilyn Mayfield) ex-husband was an Edwin Torgerson. (I know that because I'm a genealogy buff.) I wonder if Clarke, who started working with Kubrick on 2001 from 1964, could have mentioned the name to Kubrick. Clarke and Kubrick first met a few months after Dr Strangelove was released but Kubrick might have been aware of Clarke before that... --Heron (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

2021

LeMay, who was one of the primary commanders in WWII and in charge of much of the daylight bombing campaign in Europe, later became the head of the Strategic Air Command. Parodies of him (flattering and not) appear in quite a few films, including "Command Decision" (1948) and "Strategic Air Command" (1955). However, the thing that makes him such a good fit as the model for the Turgidson character is the fact that he openly suggested suing nuclear weapons in a tactical role. Four years after the movie, he even went to the extreme while campaigning as George Wallace's running mate of insisting that we should use nukes to bomb North Vietnam. Groves, on the other hand, was much more of an engineer. He oversaw both the Manhattan project and the construction of the Pentagon. Groves was indeed a self-promoter, which got him into trouble, but I haven't found anything in his record to suggest that he advocated using nukes in a first strike. There are pretty good Wikipedia articles of both LeMay and Groves. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkidofriend (talk o contribs) 05:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"by whom" tag under "Peter Sellers's multiple roles" section

This was said by Pamela Carlton, who had the role of "Continuity" on the film, in the documentary "Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove". This can be seen at 8 minutes 7 seconds in on this youtube video: [11]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCDTmzS-UTw&t=487 Feggart (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Genre

There is a genre overkill in the article (the current genre is LITERALLY "satirical political war black comedy"), I suggest resuming it to satirical black comedy or simply black comedy. 83.53.75.198 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. I agree, I just shortened it to black comedy. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• King, Mike (2008). "Dr. Strangelove". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 46–49. ISBN 978-0786439881.

Material

Peter Sellers as President Merkin Muffley

Kubrick's next project was Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), another satirical black comedy. Because Kubrick came of age after World War II and the beginning of the Cold War period, he, like many others, was worried about the possibilities of nuclear war. He became preoccupied with it in the late 1950s, fearing that New York, where he lived, could be a likely target, and even considered moving to Australia. Kubrick studied over forty military and political research books and eventually reached the conclusion that "nobody really knew anything and the whole situation was absurd". After reading the novel Red Alert, he decided that a "serious treatment" of the subject would not be believable, and thought that some of its most salient points would be fodder for comedy. Kubrick hired noted black comedy and satirical writer Terry Southern to transform Red Alert into "an outrageous black comedy", loaded with sexual innuendo. Peter Sellers agreed to play four roles in the film; "an RAF captain on secondment to Burpelson Air Force Base as adjutant to Sterling Hayden's crazed General Ripper; the inept President of the United States; his sinister German security adviser; and the Texan pilot of the rogue B52 bomber". The film scholar Abrams considers Dr. Strangelove to be the direct opposite from Fear and Desire, in that in contrast to the monologues and aloof atmosphere of the latter, in Dr. Strangelove, "Kubrick addresses the question of what happens when men try to handle the most important human issues as collectives rather than as individuals", featuring "ridiculous dialogues". He points out that Kubrick was a "unique kind of absurdist", and enjoyed presenting how human beings face the absurd in the face of death.

Kubrick found that Dr. Strangelove would be impossible to make in the U.S. for various technical and political reasons, forcing him to move production to England. It was shot in some 15 weeks, ending in April 1963, after which Kubrick spent eight months editing. Dr. Strangelove, a $2 million production, employed what became the "first important visual effects crew in the world", and the War Room set created for the film by Ken Adam was considered by Steven Spielberg to be the greatest set that Adam had ever designed. A custard pie scene was actually shot in the room over one week, striking down President Muffley, but in end Kubrick thought it was too farcical and inconsistent with the dark humor of the picture. Upon release, the film stirred up much controversy and mixed opinions. Although Time, the Nation, Newsweek and Life, among many, gave it "positive, often ecstatic reviews", New York Times film critic Bosley Crowther worried that it was a "discredit and even contempt for our whole defense establishment ... the most shattering sick joke I've ever come across". Robert Brustein of Out of This World in a February 1970 article called it a "Juvenalian satire that releases through comic poetry, those feelings of impotence and frustration that are consuming us all". Kubrick responded to the criticism, stating: "A satirist is someone who has a very skeptical view of human nature, but who still has the optimism to make some sort of a joke out of it. However brutal that joke might be". Today the film is considered to be one of the sharpest comedy films ever made, and holds a near perfect 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 68 reviews as of August 2015. It was voted the 39th greatest American film and third greatest comedy film of all time by the American Film Institute, and in 2010 it was voted the sixth best comedy film of all time by The Guardian.

References