Talk:Jed Bartlet/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

This TV series is very "politically correct" and pro-Democratic Party. I don't think he should appear as a "devout Catholic" if he supports abortion, even if most Democratic politicans who claim to be Catholic aren't pro-life currently. Also the duality shown by the precedent user invalidates for many people that he's in fact a "devout" Catholic, unless if he prays every night for abortion to remain legal, like many real politicians from his party. Nowdays is more politically correct to show a Roman Catholic Democratic President that is pro-choice then pro-life. I'm sure it would be a scandal for many American viewers if he was protrayed as a pro-life Democratic President and would cause many protests. This only proves how politics is replacing religion in the United States, in many ways.82.154.80.89 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How "devout" someone is isn't defined by their stance on individual issues. Devotion is about feeling a personal connection with one's religion and with God. I mean, Bartlet says in one episode that, had he not gone into politics, he would have become a priest. (When asked why he didn't become a priest, he says, "I met Abbey.") In any case, the whole point is moot, because Bartlet is pro-life. This is made clear in the pilot episode when Leo mentions to Rev. Caldwell that Bartlet is scheduled to give a speech encouraging women to avoid abortion. Leo says that Bartlet does not publicly push for pro-life legislation, however, because he struggles with whether it is proper for him to impose his faith on the public at large. There's a whole episode devoted to this kind of "duty to God" vs. "duty to the public" struggle in the first season, "Take This Sabbath Day", where Bartlet struggles over the issue of capital punishment. (He, in fact, allows an execution to go through, but then confesses this as a sin to his priest.) We can interpret this as "political correctness" or as Sorkin's attempt to show Bartlet as more complex than simply a politician who always does what is politically correct or a devotee who always has a knee-jerk reaction to moral issues. Regardless of that, we can't put our own interpretations into the article. What is clear, however, is that Bartlet is intended to be shown as somebody with a deep personal connection to his Catholicism and so it is more than appropriate to describe him as "devout." --Hnsampat (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I maintain my opinion that to call him devout is very debatable and not a NPOV. A deist can be a devout person, based on his own personal beliefs. A devout Catholic would have to be truly inspired and faithfull to is beliefs. For a Catholic to be pro-life isn't only a religious question, it's far more complex then that, even if certainly the religious beliefs have an important role in his stance. We can point that the Hyppocrates Oath is also pro-life, and many pro-life physicians or pro-life supporters are non religious, being atheists and agnostics. Some great American feminists were atheist and pro-life, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The question of capital punishment is different, since it's a punishment and the Catholic Church even today doesn't comdemn it totally. So what you said seems to indicate that he's not openly pro-life since he doesn't, at least from what is shown, supports the restriction of abortion. As I expressed previously this series is political correctness in action. There´s also some politicians in American politics who seem divided about this issue, because they aren't totally pro-life or pro-choice, wish seems to be this case.82.154.83.113 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're a little confused about what a discussion is. You posted here, then changed the article a minute later. Please wait until a consensus develops before making controversial changes to the article.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hnsampat. And as a Catholic, I do take issue with the suggestion that being pro-choice means a person can't also be described as "devout", or that Bartlet would have to enforce his pro-life values on others to be considered such. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You sound like too Catholic for the Catholic Church. Really.

A pro-life politician is one that opposes legal abortion for those who don't know. The Church says that all Catholics chould be pro-life and that all people in general too. There are many religious fakes and hyppocrites in american politics and since most Americans are Christians and Christianity is strongly pro-life, it wouldn't be surprising at all that most Americans were pro-life.81.193.189.109 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

However, the show The West Wing takes us beyond Josiah Bartlet's public image and takes us into his private life. In his private life, we see that he personally opposes abortion, but that he does not want to impose his personal views on the public at large. So, there's no question of being a "fake" or being a hypocrite. Josiah Bartlet is against abortion. You keep talking about "political correctness", etc. Frankly, I think they picked Bartlet to be a deeply religious Catholic, a member of the so-called "religious left", because they mirror Martin Sheen's own religious beliefs.

But, this topic is starting to get off-topic. The issue is not to argue American politics or to argue the abortion debate here, and so the quesiton of whether most Americans are pro-life or not simply does not apply. The issue is whether or not to call Josiah Bartlet "devout." And, from what we see in the show, Bartlet has a strong connection to his faith. You seem to think that his devotion is somehow invalid because he doesn't push for pro-life legislation, that by failing to oppose legal abortion, he is somehow not "truly" Catholic or not "truly" devout. Likewise, your statement "A pro-life politician is one that opposes legal abortion for those who don't know," shows that you feel that Bartlet's personal opposition to abortion is either invalid or "not good enough", that by failing to oppose abortion publicly, he is no better than being pro-life. That is an injection of your own POV.

The fact is, Bartlet is strongly religious, strongly connected to his faith, strongly identifies himself with the Catholic faith (which, as the article points out, leads to conflicts with his father), and is, therefore, a devout Catholic. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am confused now. He's pro-life or not ? I highly doubt that a Catholic with several problems with the Catholic faith can be seen as a true Catholic. John Kennedy was a practising Catholic but he's not usually seen as a devout Catholic, unlike his younger brother, Robert Kennedy. Martin Sheen himself is often called a devout Catholic, but, even being a member of the Consistent Life Ethic, he as some controversial views about abortion (See his Talk Page). To consider someone "devout" means that he as to be seen like that consensually, like it's not controversial at all to call Robert Kennedy devout. If to call even a fictional caracther devout causes controversy, I think it proves the word devout applied to a Catholic with some problems with the Church is controversial. For example, you pointed that he, a supporter of capital punishment, didn't commutate someone sentence. The Church doesn't comdemn totally the death penalty. If he was really against the capital punishment, like many Democrats, that would be the right thing to do. If not, he acted like a hyppocrite, and maye have commited a severe mortal sin. "He, in fact, allows an execution to go through, but then confesses this as a sin to his priest." I also need to point that it can be seen as a mortal sin for the Catholic Church to reject one of his mains teachings. So, since it's very controversial to call him a "devout" Catholic, like we can see by this debate, that expression doesn't apply to him. I also would find offensive if someone called Catholic dictators, like Franco and Pinochet as "devouts".82.154.83.176 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, yes, I think one would have to consider Bartlet a devout Catholic, in the sense in which devout may most directly be considered: a devotion to. Bartlet calls in priests to discuss his government violating church doctrine (i.e., the death penalty; he counsels young women not to get abortions; he attends Mass regularly; works Scriptural allusions and quotations into both casual and policy-oriented conversations, etc. He is, by almost every imaginable measure, a devout Catholic, even though some of his political and ideological position place him at odds with church teachings. Being Catholic is not a binary state composed on being obedient on every issue of church doctrine or being non-Catholic. (Indeed, confession exists to bring such folks back into fuller congress with the faith, not to welcome them anew to it.) "Devout" doesn't mean flawless, or even pure-as-he-can-be. It simple means he is devoted to and committed to the faith. So yes, Pinochet might certainly have been a devout Catholic. Second, as Leo makes clear when speaking to the evangelical minister in Season 1, Ep. 1, Bartlet is indeed personally pro-life: he does not advocate for abortion and does not wish it it ever be an option one would use. He is, however, not anti-choice, as are most other doctrinaire pro-lifers. That is, he has his belief, but does not believe that he should be able to enforce it on others. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the execution was that Bartlet, as a Catholic, was against capital punishment, but struggled to politically justify overturning the court rulings and staying the execution with all the issues that entailed (for instance, imposing his own morals on a country that largely supported the death penalty). We see him haunted by the decision, attempting to reconcile his personal faith with what he believes is the will of the people (at one point debating calling the Pope, and ultimately discussing his decision with a priest). As is usually the case in TWW, the "right" and "wrong" courses of action were by no means clear-cut.

But let's not get off track. Look, Dictionary.com defines the word "devout" as "devoted to divine worship or service; pious; religious". I don't see how any of this doesn't apply to Bartlet. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. By any reasonable definition of the word "devout", Bartlet is a devout Catholic. The IP user is applying a POV, one-issue standard, i.e., that Bartlet is not a true Catholic if he is not anti-choice. Furthermore, with all due respect to you, IP user, how familiar are you with The West Wing? I only ask this because you repeatedly refer to Bartlet's action as being "hypocritical" and don't seem to be familiar with his actual position on issues. You erroneously say that he favors capital punishment and don't seem to really be familiar with his stance on abortion. How many episodes of The West Wing have you seen? Are you making presumptions about Bartlet's devotion and his stance on issues based solely on the fact that he's a Democrat? Again, I'm sorry if I'm being overly presumptive here, but I just feel like your arguments are grounded more in your own presumptions and personal biases than they are in the facts of the show, the facts being that Josiah Bartlet is a man deeply in touch with his faith, having a close personal connection to God. I feel like anybody who has seen the show enough times would find it fairly obvious that Bartlet is deeply religious and is not a hypocrite in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of his stance on any given issue, Bartlet is devout. I can see that you seem to be somebody deeply in touch with your faith and you seem to feel that abortion is a non-negotiable issue, that failure to be 110% against abortion is a failure to be properly Catholic. However, please understand that you are thus applying a tough POV standard to the word "devout"; as has been pointed out many times before, Bartlet is definitely "devout" according to the common usage of that word. Now, let's bring this discussion to a close. The consensus here is that it is accurate to call Bartlet a "devout Catholic." Case closed. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What's next? --Patchyreynolds (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I never watched the TV series and I just read about it. Since most of TV series and films who deal with American politics, with some exceptions like "Prison Break", are very political correct, and tend not to be very creative, it never interested me that much. But there are some questions that remain unansweared. First, to be really pro-life in nowdays American politics is to support laws that would restrict abortion to extreme cases. The official stance of the Democratic Party is to be pro-choice and since 1976, all the Democratic Party tickets have been like that. If this fictional caracther, that is a highly idealized President, is more pro-life then pro-choice how did he ever won the Democratic nomination ? Of course, it wouldn´t be impossible in a TV series, even if in reality it would be virtuality impossible. Other thing, since this question lies also in the nomination of judges to the Supreme Court, would he ever nominate judges who are believed to be more pro-life then pro-choice, like George W. Bush did recently ? It´s also stated in the series if he would vote for a law that restricts abortion in a near future ? Bush is also pro-life and he also said that he wouldn´t push for laws about this issue during his Presidency. I repeat that this is a highly idealized President, like we can see by the Nobel in Economics, since until nowdays not a single Nobel in this field was Head of State anyhwere, so to present a second American Roman Catholic President as a "devout", which he seems to be to a certain degree, would make more sense then one that seems more faithfull to a political party then to the Catholic Church.81.193.223.109 (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen, this discussion is really dragging out too far. By any reasonable measure, Bartlet is devout. The issue has never been how pro-life Bartlet is. If you have other concerns, then I suggest that you actually watch some episodes of The West Wing and see for yourself. Right now, you refuse to believe that a Democrat like Bartlet can be a devout Catholic and can have a moral objection to abortion. You're basing your entire argument on assumptions and generalizations you have about the nature of American politics, the Democratic Party, the abortion debate, and Catholicism (assumptions, by the way, that I feel are not only incorrect but also very narrow-minded and that I and several others in this discussion have taken strong exception to). But, consensus drives Wikipedia and right now the overwhelming consensus is that a reasonable definition of "devout" is a more than fitting description of Jed Bartlet. If you're not satisfied, go watch The West Wing and see for yourself.

I don't usually make this argument, and I apologize if I'm being harsh, but right now the consensus is overwhelmingly opposed to you and yet you refuse to concede that your assumptions about a TV show that you admit you've never seen may be wrong. Enough is enough. (Also, we're not going to speculate on what Bartlet might and might not do, as speculation is original research.) Suffice it to say that Bartlet is a devout Catholic. Period. Case closed. End of story. End of discussion. Thank you very much. Have a nice day. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn´t I that started a debate about if the word "devout" could be apllied to this fictional character or no. Admitting that he can be seen as devout, it could start another topic about his stance on controversial issues. I agree, it´s the end of debate about if the word devout can be apllied to this character. But since you´re not the only wikipedian posting in here, I would appreciate if someone could answear me in what way the questions I asked before are answeared in the series. Other thing, for those who don´t easily understand why I find unlikely that a devout Catholic could be a Democratic President nowdays, except in a TV series, I can point that there is only a pro-life Roman Catholic Democratic senator nowdays, Bob Casey, Jr.. End of discussion about his "devotion", and thank God that this is nothing but a fictional character.85.240.23.85 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Link added

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)