Talk:Jed Bartlet

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  hmmmm 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Govenor of New Hampshire??? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Succession boxes

message: 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)
thread_title: "Former"

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Template:President Bartlet's cabinet on The West Wing|Presidential line of succession for the Bartlet administration]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Middle Name

message: 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)
thread_title: Bartlet's Brother

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Possibly, but I believe it would be more common for people studying theology to have learned New Testament Greek. It would certainly be consistent with his interest in classics for the four languages to be English, Latin, Greek and German. ~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.220.27 (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Found the German reference.  It's in "Enemies Foreign and Domestic", Leo keeps persisting that they should help out their friends and contributors who will announce a huge chip recall and Bartlet exasperatedly asks: "Was willst du von mein Leben?"--72.1.222.142 (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only that is hardly German. It's grammatically incorrect to start with. "Was willst du von meinem Leben" would be grammatically correct, but still makes no sense whatsoever. Did they not have people who knew people who knew languages other than English? A 'snob' is a person who does not possess a title but pretends to be an aristocrat ('sine nobilitatis'). What do you call a person who has no education but pretends to be a tenured professor and accomplished linguist? 192.76.8.67 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

text: He does speak Latin. Remember when he yells at God in Latin in "Two Cathedrals"? --Hnsampat (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French 

message: When do we find out about the presidential library? What ep? --Mattbray 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the very first episode of the 7th season. (I don't remember the title.) --Hnsampat 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Presidential Library? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Question re Bartlet

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Out of Universe

message: 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)
thread_title: Secretary Of Defense

message: 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)
thread_title: hokey

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Info on Presidency

message: Is it deliberate that the article barely mentions that he's a Democrat? I'm not a viewer of the programme, but I came to the article to find out which party he's a member of, and it's brushed over so lightly in the article that I had to come to the talk page here to get confirmation. --VinceBowdren (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I think that his being a Democrat is so obvious to viewers of the show that none of us noticed that it isn't explicitly spelled out in the article. We need to fix that accordingly. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't be too difficult - needs added to the infobox, and the article's current introduction could do with a rewrite. It certainly wasn't deliberate IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party? 

message: it would be kind of cool... you could even try to put the signature (i think someone with more skills than i could make it up from -the only place i've ever seen it- the episode "bad moon rising", where it can be seen behind toby at 35'...)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilorojas (talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid not. Bartlet's not a real president; he's a fictional character, and so the fictional character infobox is used. Thanks for your enthusiasm, though! --Hnsampat (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  could the info box be more like the ones of the typical president? 

message: This is more then obvious for a former Catholic like I was. It´s so difficult to be truly devout from a Catholic perspective, that means total commitment to the Catholic faith and it´s principles that a Catholic who disagrees with the Church in this issue, in any circunstance doesn´t qualifies himself as devout, because only anti-abortion legislation shows the protection of human life since the beginning. Not many Catholic politicians I can think about can be qualified as truly and that´s the real point "devouts". These are the cases of Lech Walesa and Julius Nyerere, who, despite their political differences, are or were strongly pro-life. All the Catholics who support abortion rights or hide that under a total morally unacceptable "choice", are at odds with the Church because they are under a severe mortal sin, and can and in my modest opinion should be denied communion. Believe me, for any person who passed intensily by the Catholic Church it´s easy to understand why the Catholics don´t have the right to disagree with the Church in such issues. That´s why this fictional charater is totally disqualified from being genuinely "devout". If anyone asks a decent priest or bishop he would say the same. That´s the end of the discussion, and I think I can speak in the name of those who don´t follow the Catholic Church anymore but understand fully this very controversial issue.----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.85.173 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted you: see previous discussions above. In summary: Bartlet doesn't disagree with the Church as to its moral position; he simply disagrees that he should abuse his position as President to force his moral views on the nation. I note that the Church didn't excommunicate him, nor does it excommunicate numerous real-life politicians who "fail" to force through a Church line against the wishes of their electorate.  Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Genuine Devout Catholic Would Have to be Strongly Pro-Life 

message: I've added an in-universe tag because the biography section is very long and completely lacks perspective from the real world. Feel free to remove it once the problem is fixed. – DroEsperanto(talk|contribs) 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Er...I'm not sure if the length of the biography section alone is enough to classify the article as "in-universe." I feel like the article does include out-of-universe information in the "Creation and development" and "Reception" sections. Still, the biography could use some trimming; in particular, I think we should get rid of the "presidential appointments" thing altogether. What are the thoughts of the community? --Hnsampat (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-universe 

message: How do you change the cabinet table in this article? I'd like to correct the years of service for a member of teh Cabinet but when I go to "edit" for that section, I just see  and then  What's going on?
:Fixed the template directly. JasonCNJ (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Cabinet Table 

message: It's beyond silly that my summary of Bartlett's Presidency which I made the effort to add at the bottom has been removed.  Your own criticisms of the article say that it needs to be expanded to include an "out-of-universe" style.  My summary was reasonably based in fact, took into consideration an "out-of-universe" perspective and made a sincere effort to add a meaningful conclusion to the article which had been noticably absent.  You editors obviously have no goal other than to be king of s**t hill.  Word gets around and believe me, there are people who realize that there are very good reasons not to take Wikipedia seriously.
I'm not sure I really see any good reason to continue to contribute to your discussion when it's not really a discussion; or to make sincere well-meaning efforts to improve your encyclopedia when it's not really an encyclopedia.
Go bully other people, no one needs this nonsense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, chill out. Wikipedia is by definition the online encyclopedia that anybody can edit. This means that nobody owns any contribution to any article and that means that any contribution can and will get mercilessly edited by other users. So, be aware of that whenever you contribute and don't take it personally. Second, if you disagree with some other user removing your contribution, you're not going to get what you want by ranting and engaging in personal attacks. Now, about your contribution. I think you meant well and made a good-faith edit. However, you also unfortunately crossed over into analysis, speculation, and original research. Hence, your edit was removed. You are welcome to continue to contribute, but please keep Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in mind and remember that others may disagree with you. In that situation, the best way to handle the situation is to rationally explain your reasons on this talk page, not to rant and rave. That kind of behavior will only get you in trouble. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneccesary Removal of My Summary 

message: Bartlet's compassion is an important personality trait. I removed the words "[compassion] for those less fortunate"... Less fortunate than whom? Than Bartlet himself? If so, then is Bartlet's compassion for his political rivals (who are less fortunate when he defeats them, for example), equal to his compassion for the least fortunate among us?
Certainly not -- and the latter meaning is intended. My edit seeks to clarify.
To expand: Bartlett has compassion, especially for the least fortunate. It therefore seems unnecessary to add words that limit the description of that compassion to some unspecified class ("those less fortunate") -- which may, for example, include Bob Mayer (Vinick's speechwriter, played by Stephen Root -- who may arguably be considered "less fortunate" than Bartlet, Santos, Josh Lyman, and so on).
Surely Bartlet's compassion is for the "least" fortunate in society, and that is what is meant by the clause "for those less fortunate." Removing the clause clarifies that meaning because the clause is unnecessarily limiting, and confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salon Essahj (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of my recent (mostly stylistic) edits 

message: Perhaps the meaning of Bartlet's SAT result needs explaining to us foreigners who have never taken the test.  According to the Wikipedia article on SAT:The older SAT (before 1995) had a very high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. A score above 1580 was equivalent to the 99.9995 percentile
Originally, I thought Bartlet's 1590 score was supposed to be out of 2400 (shows how much I know) but that didn't really sit with him being 1)very smart and 2)very focussed.  1590 out of 1600 is a bit different.  Especially if you do it twice.
Moletrouser (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAT result 

message: I liked The West Wing, however, we should remember that this is an article about someone who never existed, except on a TV show where every other characters is fictional, too. So the article's length should reflect that the subject is not, in fact, notable at all. I also question whether Wikipedia articles describing specific episodes can count as reliable sources. It seems to be a circular argument: it happened because it happened. There are many good source notes and some which should be deleted because they are not actually sources, but merely descriptions on a different page which also have no sources.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability, sources and article length 

message: Using a Wikipedia article that does not have a source does not count as a reliable source. It is important to remember the policy on in-universe as well; this "person" never lived and never did things. "He" is fictional and so his actions are not relevant. The article should reflect real world experience: the actor, the producer, and not go on and on about the characters non-existent doings.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia articles are not sources 

message: Under the "Presidency" section, the article includes the sentence, "Bartlet's accomplishments as President include granting amnesty to illegal immigrants from the Americas...."  However, in the Wikipedia article on this application of the word "amnesty," it says: "In the illegal immigration debate, allowing illegal immigrants to legally remain in the United States is often called, usually by its opponents, amnesty.[22] Some observers contend that the word amnesty is improperly applied here. One reason is that the proposals under consideration include financial penalties for illegal immigrants. Another reason is that the government's current practice is generally to deport but not prosecute illegal immigrants and so there is sometimes no legal adjudication of 'guilt' to be forgiven."  
I don't know what Bartlett did on the show regarding illegal immigrants, so perhaps someone familiar with this plot line can say if this the use of this word is NPOV or not in this context.  Holdek (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the use of "amnesty" NPOV? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Josiah Bartlet. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20071021064516/http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/2005/01/index.html to http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/2005/01/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626105050/http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/1999/11/interview_with.html to http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/1999/11/interview_with.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715201332/http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/2002/05/the_today_show.html to http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/2002/05/the_today_show.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201103500/http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/2000/08/a_presidential.html to http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/2000/08/a_presidential.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have modified this article to change Abbie's name from 'Barrington' to 'Bartlet'. Nowhere outside of FanFiction and Pintrest can I see any source for her maiden name. Searching the West Wing transcripts also has no uses of the word Barrington across all seven seasons. Can anyone shed any light on the source of this surname?  Josheen1128 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abigail's Surname 

message: Obviously a purely academic point, but given we learn that the electoral college margin was 303-235 in his first election, is it ever similarly detailed for his second contest? We do learn that Bartlett won 58% of the vote, so presumably it must have been a Reagan-style avalanche? Culloty82 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The grand total final is 419-119 for electoral college & 53,766,221-42,992,342 for popular. There is a source for the latter (S04E07 38:17) but no source for the former as it is worked out from news stories & West Wing staff throughout the day in the aforementioned episode (Election Night). Josheen1128 (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral College margin in second election 

message: The TV series Pine Gap named a US aircraft carrier after Jed Barlett. US aircraft carrier are named after US Presidents to honor them. Should this be mentioned here as an honor bestowed up on Jed Barlett?
--85.212.251.3 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft Carrier in TV Series Pine Gap 

message: I've made some edits concerning Bartlet's political career. This is to explain them so they may not be reversed.
In the pilot episode (which aired in 1999), Bartlet tells a story that explains he had a bad day at the state house 28 years ago; 28 years before 1999 was 1971, meaning he was likely first elected in 1970. There is no canonical evidence to suggest Bartlet had been elected before 1970. Furthermore, I updated Bartlet's infobox to display that he served in the New Hampshire House of Representatives from December 1970 to December 1984; this is because, in the real world, the New Hampshire Legislature convenes on the first Wednesday of December, and there is no reason to suggest this is any different in The West Wing universe.
I also removed the New Hampshire Board of Education from Bartlet's biography. In the show, Bartlet mentions former rival Elliot Roush, a school board candidate in New Hampshire. Bartlet mentions he defeated Roush in his first congressional campaign, but again, there is no canonical evidence to suggest Bartlet served on the New Hampshire Board of Education. I believe the source of this confusion is that Roush is running for a school board seat, which may have led some to believe Bartlet is a former school board member.
Bartlet is described as being a two-term Governor of New Hampshire, yet this article reflected him being a three-term governor. It appears that New Hampshire governors in The West Wing universe serve four-year terms as opposed to two-year terms in the real world. Because Bartlet was said to have been a three-term congressman, I edited his bio to reflect that he served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1985 to 1991 (three terms) and as Governor of New Hampshire from 1991 to 1999 (two terms).
There is also canonical evidence to suggest Bartlet married his wife Abbey in 1967. I've added that to the infobox too.
I hope this clears everything up. Hayden64 (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there, Hayden64! In general, using canon to determine dates in the articles of fictional characters is discouraged; Wikipedia articles are ideally based on secondary independent sources, so coming up with new conclusions based on the work itself is not generally recommended. I would agree with some of your changes and removals otherwise, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I've made new edits according to your advice. Hayden64 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining some recent edits