Talk:Josiah Bartlet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cabinet Question 2 Page moved, 2004-09-20 3 President's title - Should this always be used? 4 A "devout Catholic"? 5 Link added 6 Presidential info 7 Yeah, we all know we're not allowed to make stuff up right? 8 Secretary of Health and Education 9 Owen Lassiter 10 Birthplace? 11 Owen Lassiter, "former" President Bartlet, and literary present tense 12 Rebuttal to ommission of "Former President" 13 hmmmm 14 Govenor of New Hampshire??? 15 Succession boxes 16 "Former" 17 Presidential line of succession for the Bartlet administration 18 Present Tense 19 Middle Name 20 Bartlet's Brother 21 Censure? 22 French 23 Presidential Library? 24 Question re Bartlet 25 Out of Universe 26 Secretary Of Defense 27 hokey 28 Info on Presidency

[edit] Cabinet Question

Jack Buckland is only promised to be put on the Short List for Labor Secretary by Josh, when is it ever confirmed he was MADE Labor Secretary? Staxringold 20:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Alan Fisk's tenure as Attorney General is 2003-07 according to the article. Dylan Baker only appeared once as Fisk (in Abu el Banat) in which it was mentioned that he was going to run for Governor of Mississippi. That would mean that he have to resign as Attorney General in order to campaign for Governor as he cannot serve as Attorney General and campaign at the same time.

Has there been any indication that he did not run for Governor in order for him to remain as Attorney General until 2007. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page moved, 2004-09-20

I don't know why this page was moved today from 'Josiah Bartlet' to 'Josia Bartlet (fictional)' ... I hope no-one's getting confused with Josiah Bartlett, who is the "real" Josiah Bartlett (note the different spelling of the surname!) I've moved it back to retain a semblance of consistency - if you have any problems with that, please discuss it here before making any more changes -- Neuropedia 19:37, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

[edit] President's title - Should this always be used?

There is no consistency on this page (and other West Wing pages) over whether Bartlet should be referred to as "President Bartlet" or simply "Bartlet". Should I go through and change all references to be "President Bartlett"? Arthur Holland 12:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simply "Bartlet" is sufficient, see articles on real-life presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, e.g. --ThorstenNY 19:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A "devout Catholic"?

Should the description of Bartlett as a "devout Catholic" be qualified in some way? Bartlett has been shown to struggle with his faith from time to time. E.g., in one scene, Bartlett lights a cigerette inside a church and then extinguishes it on the chuch floor--in what appears to be a deliberate act of defiance to his God. Also, at least parts of the real-life Catholic leadership deny communion to supporters of abortion rights (which would include Bartlett.) --ThorstenNY 20:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

While I accept the point you're making I'm not sure these examples justify a caveat to Bartlet's faith. In "Two Catherdrals", I think it is fair to say Bartlet had made his peace with God by the end of the episode. As regards his pro-choice stance; it is mentioned in the first series (by Leo, while talking to Al Cauldwell) that Bartlett had toured in the south giving talks trying to persuade young women not to have abortions, but that he believed that it wasn't the Goverment's place to legislate on the issue. Arthur Holland 11:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link added

Link added to U.S. presidential election, 2002 (The West Wing) 68.113.200.34 11:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Sarah

[edit] Presidential info

There is a segment recently added it seems using the same style that is used for actual Presidents. While all this is fine, do we know every piece of information to be correct? How do we know that's Jed's birthday? How do we know he was born in Moltonbourough (I thought he was from Manchester?)

it should be noted that josiah bartlett is not a real president Rubber cat 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The opening sentence does that - "Josiah Edward "Jed" Bartlet, President of the United States, is a fictional character played by Martin Sheen on the television serial drama The West Wing." Arthur Holland 09:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

oh well ok then Rubber cat 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, we all know we're not allowed to make stuff up right?

Jed Bartlet was not born on August 3, 1940 just because Martin Sheen was. In The Short List, Justice Crouch mentions that he's served on the bench for 38 years and that he began the year Jed started college (i.e. when Jed was 18) making Jed born around 1943. Also, was his prep school ever mentioned, I don't believe it was, and when on EARTH was it mentioned he played football... athletic endeavors don't fit with anything we know about Jed.

Actually, he does say in "Arctic Radar" that he played basketball in prep school. The rest of that information, though, is complete conjecture as far as I know. --Hnsampat 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secretary of Health and Education

Where did we ever get this post from? I know for a fact that there is a Secretary of Education in TWW world, as Santos chooses his nominee for the post in "The Last Hurrah". Are you sure Bartlet reads this secretary off when he's calling the vote? Are you sure he isn't just asking two people at once or something? Staxringold 12:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was pretty surprised when I heard Bartlet say that, but it's true. He doesn't call for more than one person. In Twenty Five, he's asking for the vote of the "Secretary of Health and Education." (You can go back and check the episode, or check the transcript here. Also, you can see a brief discussion of this issue here.) Like I pointed out, this is a bit odd, considering that both the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services are referred to in various episodes of the show, although their respective secretaries are not. Maybe, by the time Santos was elected, the post had been split into two, like what exists in our world. (More likely, though, that the writers simply forgot that they'd invented a "Secertary of Health and Education," although I wonder why they invented it in the first place.) --Hnsampat 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Lassiter

There seems to be a little edit war (or maybe more of an edit "skirmish") going on regarding Owen Lassiter. Some seem to believe that he was Josiah Bartlet's immediate predecessor. Others say that he is not.

As far as I know, Owen Lassiter is mentioned only once during the entire series and that is in the fifth-season episode The Stormy Present. I don't think that episode ever specifically says that Lassiter was Bartlet's immediate predecessor. Some speculate that he was by virtue of the fact that Lassiter was a Republican and we know that Bartlet's immediate predecessor—whoever he may be—was a Republican.

However, speculation isn't good enough for Wikipedia. If somebody can quote me the exact line that indicates that Lassiter was Bartlet's immediate predecessor, then we'll change the page to reflect that. Otherwise, Bartlet's immediate predecessor is unknown. --Hnsampat 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace?

The article lists Moultonborough, NH as Bartlet's birthplace. In my years of watching the show, I've never heard Bartlet's place of birth mentioned, neither is it mentioned on the NBC website or any of the three 'big' fansites (West Wing Continuity Guide, westwingepuides.com and Bartlet4america.org) I've checked.

Are we all missing a reference to Bartlet's POB, or has someone just plucked this out of the clear blue sky? Idp 22:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That little tidbit was added by an anonymous user who also said that Bartlet attended Phillips Andover Academy. (Some other anonymous user later changed that to Phillips Exeter.) That information has never been mentioned on the show nor has, for that matter, Bartlet's birthdate. Unless somebody provides evidence of Bartlet's birthplace and birthdate in the next few days, please feel free to delete both bits of information. --Hnsampat 18:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment above, without tildes, was mine. Have replaced the tildes.

Whilst that, as I said and his school seem to be just flights of fantasy, the information on Bartlet's birthdate can be extrapolated roughly from the episode Two Cathedrals, which takes place in (or just after) 1960 and in which Bartlet is either 17 or 18. Rather than deleting the reference to Jed's DOB, it might be better given the frame of guesswork to list his birthdate as "circa 1942-1943". Idp 22:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have changed it accordingly. Also, I got rid of this little Moultonborough, N.H., business. --Hnsampat 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As of May 15, 2006 there are conflicting references in the two tables in the article. One says the president before Bartlet is 'unknown'; the one at the bottom says the one before Bartlet was Owen Lassiter. Whatever these two tables say, at least they ought to agree with each other, right? tharkun860 03:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Lassiter, "former" President Bartlet, and literary present tense

I reverted some recent changes and I'd like to explain why. In the past few days, I've had to revert these same changes several times and yet people keep making them without discussing it here. Let me explain why these changes have to go:

1) People insist on listing Owen Lassiter as Bartlet's immediate predecessor. The only episode in which Lassiter is mentioned is The Stormy Present from the 5th season and, as far as I know, that episode only says that Lassiter came sometime before Bartlet. It doesn't say that Lassiter came immediately before Bartlet. To explain in terms of our world, Gerald Ford (who was president in the mid-1970's) and Bill Clinton both chronologically came before George W. Bush, but Bill Clinton came immediately before him. All we know is that Owen Lassiter came sometime before Bartlet; we don't know that he came immediately before Bartlet. Therefore, Bartlet's immediate predecessor is UNKNOWN.

2) For some reason, people insist on calling Bartlet the "former" President of the United States. I imagine that this is probably because the series is now over and Santos is the "new" president. However, as I have said before in my edit summaries, Bartlet was the President of the United States from the beginning of the series until the last fifteen minutes of the last episode, which was at the end of the 7th season. For the entire series, Bartlet is POTUS. Calling him the "former" president says that he is the former president throughout the series, which he certainly is not.

To use an analogy, according to Batman Beyond, Bruce Wayne is no longer Batman. But, none of us would call Bruce Wayne "former" Batman would we? The reason for that is because, throughout the history of the Batman comic book, TV, and movie series, Bruce Wayne has been Batman. Likewise, just because Bartlet's presidency ended in the last episode doesn't mean that we now call him "former" president in his article. (This all relates to literary present tense, too, which I will now discuss.)

3) Some people have indiscriminately put in "was" every place there is an "is" in the article. Again, they're doing this just because the series is over. However, remember all that we learned in grammar class about "literary present tense." The TV series may technically be over, but its story is still described in the present tense (which is also why Bartlet is POTUS, not former POTUS). See Talk:The West Wing (TV series) for Scm83x's fine discussion of this.

So, please don't say that Owen Lassiter immediately preceded President Bartlet unless you can quote the exact line where it says that he was Bartlet's immediate predecessor. Also, he is the POTUS, not the "former" POTUS. As you watch each episode, you will say that Bartlet "is" the President, not "was." He is POTUS, not "former" POTUS. --Hnsampat 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal to ommission of "Former President"

To call Bartlet anything than the former President of the United States is wrong. At the end of the series, he has been succeeded by Matt Santos, and is therefore the former President. By extension, C.J. is no longer Chief of Staff, and has been replaced by Josh. Her article reflects this information correctly, labeling her the "former White House Chief of Staff."

Additionally, your Batman analogy is just wrong. First, Batman is not an office, it is a persona. Second, to continue the discussion of C.J., she was Press Secretary for the majority of the show's run. Does this mean that it is incorrect to call her the "former Press Secretary?" How can she be both Press Secretary and Chief of Staff? Likewise, Bartlet can never be both a private citizen and the President of the United States. He may always be referred to as "President Bartlet;" that is a matter of custom, as you will hear Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter referred to as "President Clinton" and "President Carter" even after they have left office. However, this does not mean that either of them are still President of the United States.

Personally, I don't like that C.J.'s article calls her "former" Press Secretary either. It would probably be better to just say she's a "character" and then say that in the early part of the series she's Press Secretary and later she's Chief of Staff (although that might be a spoiler for those who haven't seen the later seasons.)

My Batman analogy wasn't meant to be an exact analogy. I was just trying to make a point about how Bruce Wayne is overwhelmingly identified as Batman and therefore to call him "formerly Batman" is to imply that there was a long period in which he was no longer Batman. Likewise, I feel that calling Bartlet "former president" implies that he is the "former president" throughout the show, which is incorrect.

But, be that as it may. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that. How about we just let the reader decide what he is? I've changed the article so that it explains that he's POTUS until the last episode. (NOTE: I deliberately have not written who his successor is because that's a spoiler for those who haven't seen the 7th season.) --Hnsampat 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The key thing to remember here is that we are dealing with fiction. The key things that people want to know about the character will be what they were and did in the series to the best phraseology is something like "chracter was President of the US for virtually all of the series". DJ Clayworth 17:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(Just my 2 cents) I think Wiki should talk about the TV show for everyone, including people who did not watch the series yet. Is the fact it was on TV means it happens for everyone? Is the minute a book is published means it is over? In literature because a character dies at the end we do not constantly refer to him as “the dead serial killer” we say “the serial killer”.

Pretend you have to sell the series to a new market (on Mars), then you have to make a “sales pitch” will you explain how “this former president did this and that”? Rather how “this president do this and that”. This being said, it is a minor issue IMHO (no flame-war from me, will not edit in any way on this), but I am pretty sure specific rules exists, any English Lit or Journalism teacher can butt in here? For my personal knowledge)YegLi 30 Oct 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hmmmm

I think the lead is technically wrong when it says that he was always President. Remember when I think Chloe was kidnapped and he stepped down for a bit? American Patriot 1776 00:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, but that's actually a gray area in American law in real life as well. Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush invoked the 25th Amendment during their presidencies when they were going to be under anesthesia for a few hours when undergoing colonoscopies. Their VPs (George Bush, Sr., and Dick Cheney, respectively) became the "Acting President." There's a bit of a debate as to whether Reagan and Bush were still POTUS while under anesthesia. Generally, though, it is agreed that they were and that their VPs were just "Acting Presidents." Likewise, Glen Allen Walken (who took over when Bartlet invoked the 25th amendment) wasn't the "actual" POTUS; he was the Acting President. --Hnsampat 10:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Reagan and Bush were still the President. They held the title and the office, just not the powers of the office. Nooders123 23:34, 23 May (BST)

[edit] Govenor of New Hampshire???

In 'Bartlet for America', we see Leo going to visit Bartlet to encourage him to run for president. He was govenor of NH at this time. However in The Shadow of Two Gunmen, when the results of the primaries come in, they say that former NH govenor wins the primaries. The Presidential Election took place in 1998, so the primaries would have taken place before this, and so Bartlet would not have still been govenor in 1999, right?

Although throughout the primary season he is called Govenor, is this because he still holds the office or is entitled to in the same way that former presidents still hold the title and not the office? Nooders123 23:34

It's possible that he resigned as Governor after accepting the Democratic Nomination for President. In New Hampshire the Governor is elected every two years so his office would have been up for election on the same day he was elected President. Had he not resigned he would still be Governor when the election was held. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.81.12 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

Does anyone else think these are a little dumb? Only two names go in any of these (Bartlet and Santos) and now the series is over we know we will never get any more. Having a succession box for a position only ever held by one or two people is not very useful. DJ Clayworth 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and it makes the page rather "busy" for no apparent reason. Jc37 00:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Former"

The issue of "former", and whether Owen Lassiter precedes the President Bartlet, are all issues of timeline skew, and shouldn't be an issue on this page for the several reasons Hnsampat stated above. (In particular, point 3.)

Also, while we "can" say former President Clinton, we can also say President Clinton.

So at this point, I would think that the point is moot, and the article should be done in the present tense.

If one felt it necessary, a footnote or subsection at the bottom could inform about the Santos victory. This would leave the article intact, and yet give accurate information. Jc37 00:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential line of succession for the Bartlet administration

Because that page and this page duplicate information, I turned it into a template for easier editing of information.

This page has better formatting, so I suggest that we merge the two into the template.

However, the template includes the Speaker and the Pres Pro-tempore of the Senate.

Maybe we should remove them, and just rename the page: President Bartlet's cabinet on The West Wing.

(Or something like that : )
- Jc37 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Present Tense

While I agree with the "present tense", there is a grammatical problem with tense in the sentence progression.

"In the seventh and final season of The West Wing, Bartlet is in the last year of his term. He is succeeded by Democratic Congressman Matthew Santos, a former Houston Mayor, who defeats Republican Senator Arnold Vinick of California in the 2006 presidential election. Bartlet returns to his New Hampshire home aboard Air Force One with his wife, and has the last word of the series: when Mrs. Bartlet asked the introspective former President Bartlet what he is thinking about, Bartlet replies, "Tomorrow.""

Event A follows after event B. So if event B has occurred, then event A needs to be past tense.

So since, in the sentence, Bartlet is defeated by Santos, then anything that occurred prior to that MUST be in the past tense.

Incorrect:He is succeeded by someone, who defeats someone.

Correct:He is succeeded by someone, who defeated someone.

Following this in rewriting the paragraph:

"In the seventh and final season of The West Wing, Bartlet is in the last year of his term. He is succeeded by Democratic Congressman Matthew Santos, a former Houston Mayor, who defeated Republican Senator Arnold Vinick of California in the 2006 presidential election. Bartlet then returns to his New Hampshire home aboard Air Force One with his wife, and has the last word of the series: when Mrs. Bartlet asked the introspective former President Bartlet what he is thinking about, Bartlet replies, "Tomorrow.""

- Jc37 05:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While I see your logic, I disagree. This is one of those quirks about literary present tense. In normal speech, it makes sense that if something in the present follows something else, then that other thing is described in past tense. However, one of the keys to literary present tense is that the entire literary work is in the present tense. We saw the 2006 election and we saw Santos beat Vinick. So, for us, that is as much in the present tense as is Santos succeeding Bartlet. The entire series has to be in the present tense. The only situation in which it might be acceptable to say "Bartlet is succeeded by Santos, who defeated Vinick" is if Santos' victory over Vinick occurred before the show began. (This is also why it is usually considered acceptable to call Bartlet the "former" governor of New Hampshire but not the "former" President; he was governor of New Hampshire before the show began, if that makes sense.) So, while it may seem illogical, literary present tense dictates that the grammatically correct sentence read: "Bartlet is succeeded by Santos, who defeats Vinick," since both events occur during the story of the show. --Hnsampat 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. It's either grammatically correct or not. If there is a stylistic concern about keeping the wording in literary present tense (LPT), then the sentence(s) need rewriting. Style only outweighs grammar in poetry : )

Btw: Check out Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#tense (and other places on that page) for a discussion about LPT and several other examples. - Jc37 21:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On this one, I'm going to have to side with jc37 slightly. The LPT is limited to the event that you are talking about currently. An example:

"Goldilocks opens the door to find three beds, just like the three bowls of porridge she found earlier."

So the sentence in question should have Santos succeeds Bartlet, Santos defeated Vinick. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with both of you and stand by my statement that present tense is needed here. However, let's agree to disagree and compromise on this. I'm going to change the wording to something along the lines of "In 2006, Congressman Matt Santos defeats Senator Arnold Vinick, becoming Bartlet's successor." Sound good? --Hnsampat 01:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several problems with the most recent edit:

"In the seventh and final season of The West Wing, Bartlet is in the last year of his term. In that season, the 2006 presidential election is held, in which Congressman Matthew Santos, a former Houston Mayor, defeats Republican Senator Arnold Vinick of California, becoming Bartlet's successor. Bartlet then returns to his New Hampshire home aboard Air Force One with his wife, and has the last word of the series: when Mrs. Bartlet asked the introspective former President Bartlet what he is thinking about, Bartlet replies, "Tomorrow.""

How about this:

"In the seventh and final season of The West Wing, Bartlet is in the last year of his term as president." (And add some bridging sentence.)

"Near the end of this season (and the series), the Democratic nominee, Congressman Matthew Santos, a former Houston Mayor, defeats the Republican nominee, Senator Arnold Vinick of California in the 2006 presidential election, and thereby becomes Bartlet's successor."

"Bartlet subsequently returns to his New Hampshire home aboard Air Force One with his wife, and while en route, has the last word of the series. It occurs when Mrs. Bartlet asks the introspective former President what he is thinking about, and Bartlet replies: "Tomorrow.""

I split this in three sections, because they are three separate ideas (which should be separate paragraphs) The first paragraph could use some fleshing out (Bartlet in the final season), if for no other reason than to bridge going from "last term" to suddenly talking about another semi-related event (the election) which also occurred in the last season. - Jc37 02:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That paragraph, as currently written, crams too much information into too few words. Go ahead and change it. --Hnsampat 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that the "bridging sentence" be something about Bartlet dealing with the Kazakhstan issue, but I just noticed something. This article says little to nothing about Bartlet's policies and accomplishments. Maybe we should expand on that a bit? Also, on an unrelated note, the article says that Bartlet served on the New Hampshire State Board of Education. In what episode does it say that? As far as I know, he never served on that (although one of his former election opponents did win a local school board election in "The Midterms"). --Hnsampat 13:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Name

What episode is his middle name "Edward" from? I can't seem to find it searching through transcripts. Is it from the 6th or 7th season, or is it just assumed by the nickname "Jed?"--216.125.50.226 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a reference made by the Special Prosecutor when he hands down the subpoena for the impending grand jury investigation. The episode referred to is "Ways and Means" (Season 3) Prqc 19:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks alot. It's not in the transcript, because it wasn't stated. It was seen on the paper.--Tim Thomason 02:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bartlet's Brother

Should there be some mention made in this entry that Bartlet has at least one brother, Jonathan? (Mentioned in the 2nd season episode "Somebody's Going to Emergency...") LJade728 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censure?

Should there be some mention of Bartlet being censured by the House during Season 3?

[edit] French

Abby mentions in "The Indians in the Lobby" that Bartlet doesn't speak French. So, we know Bartlet speaks four languages and French isn't one of them. Here's the question: should we specifically mention that he doesn't speak French just because it's been mentioned on the show as such?

I say we should not. There are many other languages that Bartlet does not speak (i.e. every other language in the world except for the four that he does speak). While other episodes may not explicitly say "Bartlet doesn't speak X," we can infer what other languages Bartlet doesn't speak. For example, since he needs a translator to talk to Abdul Shareef, we know he doesn't speak Arabic. Since President Nimbala of Equatorial Kundu speaks to Bartlet through a translator, we can assume that Bartlet does not speak whatever language Nimbala speaks. Also, we can infer he doesn't speak Spanish since he has to talk to all Latin American leaders through translators. Ditto for the Indonesian president. If we say that Bartlet doesn't speak French, then it's only fair that we also mention what other languages he doesn't speak, according to other episodes of the show. (Failing to do that would indicate that we feel that French is more deserving of mention than other languages.)

But, as we can tell, that list of languages he doesn't speak would get very long very quickly. So, that's why I say that we just stick to the languages he *does* speak and no others. --Hnsampat 11:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

More basically, the number of languages a character speaks is more trivial minutiae than anything notable. Certainly the languages he doesn't speak is even less notable (or more non-notable). --EEMeltonIV 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merely asking for a translator is not enough to infer the lack of ability to speak a language. Politicians often use translators as a tool to give them more time to think when speaking to foreign dignitaries. At other times a the translator serves to fill in for a politicians lack of complete fluency. Moreover what viewers infer is not fact, but Abby specifically mentioned that President Bartlet speaks four languages but not french. The same source that gives you the fact you cite lends equal veracity to my point, the same sentence even. Now I don't know all the rules for this forum (and until I received a message I didn't know I could communicate with other Wikipedia Users) so I am sorry if I make some mistake in the signing of this post. ForeverZero 05:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC) ForeverZero

The fact that Bartlet does not speak French, though, is trivial. Okay, so Abbey may have mentioned that he doesn't speak French. That still is not enough to merit its inclusion in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It adds nothing to the article to point out which languages he *doesn't* speak. It's just one of those things that is interesting without being notable. Furthermore, by including it in the article, we are demonstrating that we consider French to be superior to other languages, since we are going out of our way to mention that Bartlet does not speak that. I know that you feel we are merely quoting Abbey and so that should be okay, but it's not. --Hnsampat 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I think you're right. You guys have a good point. BUT HE STILL DOESNT SPEAK FRENCH!!!!! ~FZ

I added the citations for the other languages, but I thought I would explain, since there was a thing here. In "He Shall...", Bartlet translates a passage from a Latin version of the Constitution; in "The Women of Qumar," he tells Charlie that Ernst Haeckel's book is better in the original German; and Bartlet frequently speaks English throughout the series. And it actually is kind of weird that Bartlet has a doctorate in Economics but can't speak French, especially given the significant early French work in political economy. But if I didn't speak French, I wouldn't want in my Wiki article, either.Hansonfan 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Library?

When do we find out about the presidential library? What ep? --Mattbray 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the very first episode of the 7th season. (I don't remember the title.) --Hnsampat 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's much earleir in the series. Season Two ( Somebody's going to Emergenyc...) --Darthbalmung 02:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's true. In that episode, they're talking about selecting a location for the Bartlet Presidential Library. But the first the we actually see the library is in the first episode of season 7. --Hnsampat 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question re Bartlet

Question: Barlet's Presidency started in 1998, did it not? That certainly fits with the elections in 2002 and 2006. This needs editing, no? --Stephen K Bush 22:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bartlet was elected in 1998, so his term began January 20, 1999. What exactly do you feel needs to be edited? --Hnsampat 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of Universe

I'm going to try to make a very small start on turning this into a genuine, encyclopedic, out-of-universe description. 199.71.183.2 17:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. However, the edit that you made was redundant, as that information is already in the article under "Notes" (although that may not be the best place for it). But, please keep up the effort! --Hnsampat 02:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secretary Of Defense

I think the cabibnet listing should be changed to show that Miles Hutchinson was not Secretary of Defense from day 1 of term 1. At some point in the first term he became secretary, but theres many military strategy moments early that he is not in the situation room where he would most definatly be had he been the Secretary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.81.12 (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hokey

Please could this word be explained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk)

From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (which can be accessed, along with other dictionaries, at http://www.dictionary.com):

hok·ey /ˈhoʊki/

1. cloyingly sentimental; mawkish.

2. obviously contrived, esp. to win popular appeal or support; phony.

I've Wiktionaried the term in case anybody else gets confused. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info on Presidency

It should be amended to show that his presidency was struggling to get anything done until the episode Let Bartlet Be Bartlet. ~ Dancemotron (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead and add it. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd say that, exactly. The point in that episode, I think, wasn't that the administration wasn't getting anything done, it's that they were gravitating towards what was popular as opposed to what they believed to be right. Shoemoney2night (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

They weren't even doing what was popular. They mere merely doing what was safe. Remember how their approval ranking dropped by a few points without them doing anything? The point, though, is that when we say they couldn't get "anything" done, we mean they couldn't implement their own policies and were basically getting pushed around by Congress and the media. --Hnsampat (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)