Talk:Toby Ziegler

message: In spite of being called Tobias by his father in flashbacks and CJ in one instance, there is no evidence that this is his legal name. Documents (including his pardon) shown or read throughout the series only ever refer to him as Toby.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:C100:86A0:9459:D3FC:A320:3C6D (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toby's legal name 

message: In the second season episode, And It's Surely to Their Credit, Josh is told that the Southern Poverty Law Center wants him to sue the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.  When discussing this in the Cheif of Staff's office, Leo, Toby, Sam and Josh are present.  Leo states two things that indicate Toby is a lawyer:
Everyone in the room is a lawyer!, and
That said, say the word and we'll (implied to be Leo and Toby) take a leave of absence and join your legal team.
This leads me to believe that Toby is a lawyer.  Goodness, everyone else on the show is except the Bartlets!  Comment if you disagree. -Scm83x 20:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Season 4, Episode 11 or so, when Toby and Will are first working together, Will tells Toby that he is a lawyer and Toby makes a negative remark.  It definitely does not give anyone the impression that Toby is a lawyer, too.    Personally, I don't think the show has ever made it clear one way or the other.  And I don't think speculation and trivia and the nitty-gritty details belong in an encyclopedia. Rlove 21:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah hah!  Finally!  See Season 4, Episode 17, about the Federal Whistleblower case.  Toby calls in Josh specifically to get a lawyer in the room and admonishes Josh when a piece of federal law slips his mind and he makes a mistake.  They make it clear that Josh went to law school, Toby did not, and that Tobdy needs Josh for law advice.  Removing the "is a lawyer" bit -- which never had much evidence, anyhow. I would also like to stress that this is not a fan site and, as such, we should not put down speculation or presumptions, but only a basic encyclopedic outline of the character.  So even before my evidence today, we really did not have enough to make the claim in the article.  Rlove 02:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: He wasn't a lawyer at least to the best of my knowledge. Also the discussion boards are for all sorts of rambling. Toby is a Political Drifter who found something with Bartlet. (JJGlendenning 04:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not a lawyer, and I've removed this from the article. Sam was speaking in generalizations when he said "Everyone in the room's a lawyer." as it would have been awkward and unrealistic to say "Everyone in the room except Toby's a lawyer." The "we" implied in Leo's declaration of joining Josh's legal team could well have only implied Sam and himself, and even if it didn't Toby's an intelligent enough guy that it certainly wouldn't be to Josh's destriment to have him involved. But the events of "Life on Mars" make it clear that Toby's not a lawyer and no law degree is ever mentioned, nor does it fit with the other knowledge we have of Toby's background. --Harlequin212121 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference to Toby being a lawyer is back in the article.  Could someone please remove it? --LWSchurtz 11:01, 10 October 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.49.124 (talk)  
Toby is certainly not a lawyer, nor did he go to Law School. In S4 Episode "Privateers", Toby berates Josh for not informing of the details surrounding immunity from prosecution, and goes onto say something along the lines of "...were you not listening that day in Law School?", suggesting that TZ himself did not go to Law School. Robjgfox (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toby's law degree 

message: Teaching at Columbia? My interpretation of this exchange at the start of Season 7 was that he was LIVING in Columbia (The Country, not the School), for reasons that later become obvious...
What reason is that? All of season 7 had people visiting Toby in his DC apartment.  And if you turn on the closed captioning it says teaching at Columbia with a u instead of Colombia with an O which is the country.
:I guess we will find out -- and we should not write on the topic until we do -- but I disagree.  He is from NY, he is an intellectual, teaching at Columbia makes sense.  If he were hiding in Columbia, how is he in the states now?  Anyhow, only a few episodes left.. Rlove 17:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's certainly reasonable to assume that most likely Toby works at Columbia University, it is also possible he's spending time in Colombia the country.  Without any reference to suggest one way or another, I'm removing the reference. Doctofunk 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post West Wing Life 

message: "When Josh left the White House towards the end of Bartlet's second term to run a Presidential campaign and didn't take Toby with him, Toby viewed this as a betrayal and was extremely hostile to Josh until long after."
I got the impression Toby didn't want at all to come with Josh, because he didn't believe Santos was the man for the Democrats. Second, Toby didn't want to leave Bartlet and thought Josh abandoned the president. Stevendirk 14:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Josh realy wanted Toby at the Santos campaign? 

message: WHAT the crime was was clearly explained; however, what exactly was the NATURE of it? Treason? Fraud? Etc? What would be the legal term? Thanks in advance. Jessikins 22:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I think it's simply called "disclosure of classified information." (The only one-word summary I can think of that could possibly apply would be espionage, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply here, since Toby wasn't "spying" in any way.)--Hnsampat 00:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of Crime? 

message: In the episode with the female cantor and the organ, isn't Rabbi Glassman's strikingly anti-fundamentalist speech a more certain hint that Toby belongs to a Reform temple than the clues listed in the article?  Or would mentioning it just be gilding the lily?  Kasreyn 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this whole issue is pretty speculative, which would constitute original research. I don't think it is ever explicitly said that Toby is part of a Reform temple. I've removed that tidbit of speculation from the article entirely. --Hnsampat 02:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reform clues 

message: :Image:Schiff on West Wing1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Schiff on West Wing1.jpg

message: The article currently says that it's not clear whether Toby and Andi conceived by natural means or by in vitro fertilization but the show never even hints that in vitro was a possibility. Granted, they tried in vitro four years earlier, but that was before they divorced. It also seems unlikely that Toby would agree to in vitro considering his strong objections to raising the children out of wedlock. Obviously, we can't prove anything beyond a doubt but, given the absence of any mention of using in vitro to conceive the twins, I think the line should be removed.Nsfreeman (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the reference simply because the show never directly raises the question of how the twins came to be conceived and so I feel there's no point in us raising the question here. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pregnancy

message: Located here, not sure how to cite this in the article. --Blue387 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode itself is already cited. That should be sufficient, I think. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  City College sweatshirt 

message: This is a very well written article... kudos to the authors.  One item of interest relates to the Military Shuttle leak storyline.  Schiff himself is known to have hated the storyline, and most of us who followed the series would agree that for Ziegler to have been the source of the leak is far beyond the boundaries of the character.  One interesting twist in the plot line that was mentioned in the latter part of the final series (but not developed significantly) was that Ziegler had leaked the story not to save the astronauts (which he himself had said would have been against the astronauts wishes... and that even his own brother, had he been on the station, would have insisted on the Military Shuttle not being revealed just to save three lives), but to reveal the US's program of 'weaponizing space' in direct contravention of several international treaties.
While I wouldn't necessarily say this is within character, it is far closer to Toby's character than the 'astronaut-saving' reasons mentioned above.  Lastly, it is a technical weak point in the storyline that a space station emergency like this was employed at all.  The space station has an 'escape pod' designed to deal with precisely this type of failure.  This is clearly within the "poetic license" range, I guess, but for me was a weak point of a series that was very, very good for it's entire run. Posthocergopropterhoc (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shuttle Leak Background 

message: At the start of the Santos campaign - Toby is seen with the President's daughter going out for a drink several times. It is discovered that Toby has been sending her Bartlett's old speeches for the benefit of her husband's Congressional election campaign. There is a hint of an affair. Later we discover that the President's daughter's husband's campaign is hurt by his affair with the family Nanny. When CJ confronts Liz Bartlett about it - she says "I knew - look - marriage is complicated" apparently referring to a fallout due to the prior affair with Toby.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.169.174 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember that being in any Episode during either the 6th or 7th Season. Which Episode(s) did it show Toby and Liz having a drink?98.163.120.145 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but that theory is based on extremely flimsy evidence. Since when does having a drink with someone automatically mean having an affair? (I know, you said "hints" at an affair, but really, we can "hint" anything out of any action. Based on this logic here, we could "hint" that Toby has also had an affair with that random person we see in "In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, Part I" and Senator Rafferty, whom he has a drink with in the sixth season episode where he learns about his brother's death.) Also, marriage can be pretty complicated even when there are no extramarital affairs involved. It's much more likely, though, that Liz is referring to the fact that she knows her husband is having an affair and yet she's still with him because even though she hates him for having an affair, she loves him and wants to be with him or she's still staying for the sake of their children or whatever. Besides, none of this will ever get included in the article because it is pure original research. Thanks for your efforts, though! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toby's relationship with President's daughter 

message: I just finished watching In Excelsis Deo and I noticed two things. At 4:48 to 5:00 on the DVD Toby is able to identify a very old, partially-obscured Marine tattoo correctly, citing both war and battalion (Marine battalion second and seventh), which is obscure information for anyone who is not either a veteran or a military buff. Later on, at 40:31 to 40:33 Toby says "I got better treatment at Pan Mun Jom." That's a Korean village on the DMZ, and a site of a POW camp, but the POWs were released in 1953 so Toby couldn't have been there as a POW. However, it is possible that he may have been stationed there as a member of the military, if he didn't just visit as a politician. I know this is rather weak, but I'd like to know what other people think. Sandarmoir (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the subtitles on HBO max, the line is, “I got better treatment”. Veggiegirl12 (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Toby as a vet

message: N/T  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.54.162 (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE CONSISTET ABOUT WHETHER IT'S 'CJ' OR 'C.J.'''' 

message: This character is fictional. It is appropriate to have an article but not to detail everything the character "did." He was never "born" on such and such a date, and did not "attend" college. Please see the article "what Wikipedia is not" for discussion of in-universe style and indiscriminate information. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles which have no sources do not count as reliable sources. Sources must be secondary, as in something existing in the real world.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please first DISCUSS such a radical move before unilaterally deleting its content. I will thus revert all your deletions to this and similar articles. -- fdewaele, 31 January 2013.
I have discussed it, above. The article violates Wikipedia guidelines on in-universe style. Creating a lengthy article about someone who never lived and never achieved anything is not in accordance with this site. Please read the useful article "What Wikipedia is not" to learn more. Thank you.Catherinejarvis (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability, length and in-universe 

message: This page was relisted today for deletion. I would agree that the article could be tidied up a bit (and would be happy to do so once consensus is reached), but I strongly feel that the article should be kept. Discussion welcome.  B Hastings (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Relisting