Talk:List of The West Wing politicians

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fictional characters This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of The West Wing politicians was copied or moved into List of The West Wing characters with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Character and Actor name formatting

All the character entries should be standardized similar to the following:

• • Josiah Edward "Jed" Bartlet — Martin Sheen (Seasons 1–7)
  • Matthew Vincente Santos — Jimmy Smits (Ep. 7.22)

(edit this page to see format, if uncertain) - jc37 18:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The next step is to go over to imbd.com and find out the actors' names. Most of these are *not* unknown.)

Episodes

Unlike the Characters page, most of the entries on this page only appeared in a single episode, and in some cases, were only mentioned and not even seen.

Characters, such as the President, who appear most of a season should still have appearances listed by season, but others should be listed by episode: (Ep. 1.1).

So far, only Season 1 characters are "done".

Episode Reference Requirement

I think at this point, while we want to all act in good faith, in order to accurately proofread the listing (which is getting quite long), we should require a episode reference for any new politician name additions to the page.Jc37 07:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations missing templates to the top of the page. Hopefully this will be more of a reminder for editors to provide episode references for names, not to mention a suggestion that we citecheck the current list. Jc37 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

The majority of these would appear to be original research.

Citations would be useful.Jc37 07:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalies

Thiele/Theo - imdb has Theo (episode 5.4), westwingepguide has Thiele. I think it's likely Thiele, so I'm going with that.

Shallot/Shallick - It's listed as Shallot on an online transcript, but as Shallick, both on imdb, and on westwingepguide, so going with Shallick.

Senator Grace/Greys

Is Senator Greys the Senator refered to in the list the one from The Lame Duck Congress because in the subtitles for that episode it is spelled Grace. I am just wondering if these two Senators are the same as the names would sound identical. Benw 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WestWingTranscripts.com[1], the senator in The Lame Duck Congress is Senator Greys and there is no senator in any episode with the last name "Grace." The subtitles may or may not be accurate. (I've seen them summarize lines or get lines wrong before.) The one way we can know for sure is to check the closed-captioning. In my experience, the closed-captioning shows the lines verbatim. If the closed-captioning says Senator "Greys", then it stays and "Grace" goes. If vice versa, then "Grace" stays and "Greys" goes. One thing is for certain and that is that we're talking about one senator here, not two with similar-sounding names. --Hnsampat 18:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your inclination to go with the script is correct. I've seen the subtitles throw out several words and use a new ones to make things shorter. Benw 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but since many scripts from that site are apparently not from original scripts, but the work of fans, I might lean more towards the DVDs. Everything online (including imdb) is done by fans, in one way or another. (Note Shallot/Shallick, above.) Jc37 07:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Committee

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary. (Big Tobacco subplot in Seasons 2-3) Affected: Ritter, Kalmbach, Stacy, Miner, Warren, and Rossitter.

Had a hard time finding anything in an actual script that stated whether it was a Senate or House committee. (Appropriations Committee)

Finally found a Senate reference for Ritter in "The Short List" (Ep 1.9).

Therefore, moving all these names to the Senate.

FYI, I did a Google search and found that the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary is indeed part of the Senate Appropriations Committee. So, you're right to move them all into the Senate section. --Hnsampat 18:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then the wikipedia entries about them are incorrect:

For the Senate:

U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science

U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

For the House:

U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice and Commerce, and Related Agencies

U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary, District of Columbia

So perhaps someone should double check those pages too?

I double-checked. The list above is correct. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary existed prior to the March 2, 2005, reorganization of subcommittees on the Senate Appropriations Committee. So, the subcommittee existed in 2001 when it was mentioned on "The West Wing," but as of last year no longer exists (or, rather, has been renamed and reorganized). Incidentally, there is an article, U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, that needs to be rewritten to reflect this change. --Hnsampat 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney General

This is what we have currently under Attorney General:

• Dan Larson — Sherry Houston (Ep. 1.21)
• Alan Fisk — Dylan Baker (Ep. 5.9)

Several things:

1.) In Ep. 1.03 they make it clear that the Attorney general is black.

In 4.05 they note that the initial AG nominee, Cornell Rooker, was black, but that they withdrew him as a nominee.

2.) In 1.21 this is the quote:

"BARTLET
Mr. Attorney General.

DAN
Dan Larson."

I don't think that Dan Larson is female, even though that is the credit both at the episode guide, and at imdb. And I find it curious that that episode is the only listing for that actress.

This would seem to likely be an error.

- Jc37 07:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Presidential line of succession for the Bartlet administration was apparently just a fork from the main West Wing page, and because the politician's page now has the information duplicated, I suggest that we just merge what little data is left to this page, and turn the succession page into a redirect to here. - Jc37 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Discussion

are very much welcome : ) - Jc37 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no comments so far.

As stated above, all this data - except the speculated years in office - already exists on the politician's page.

Changing the banner to a RfD. -Jc37 04:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking over the options, added the prod banner, since it's been over a week without comment by anyone else. -Jc37 04:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{prod}} is unnecessary. {{mergeto}} is enough. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Since the Josiah Bartlet character page duplicates the exact same material, I turned this page into a template, for use there, and anywhere else that someone might find it to be useful, and to ease editing the same material in multiple locations. For this reason, I also removed the mergeto banner. as well. - Jc37 01:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet entry

There is simply no need to get snippy about it. 'Your' list of Cabinet members is not owned by you, nor will it ever be. Constantly insisting that the known surgeon general from multiple episodes is the secretary of a Cabinet department is simply not appropriate.

I don't know who's in the Cabinet, but IMDb says Millicent Griffith (Mary Kay Place) is Surgeon General, which is not Secretary of anything. In reality, there never was a "Department of Health and Education", it was the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, HEW for short.

It would help if you guys would log-in/register.

—wwoods 17:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In an episode (I can't remember which one...), President Bartlet does a sort of roll-call of the cabinet members (a vote on something, I think...) and he mentions the Secretary of Health and Education. I'm pretty sure that it's mentioned on the DVD's commentary or somewhere else as a mistake, but that explains why it keeps getting added. It may not be a real position, but it was mentioned on the show. kmccoy (talk) 19:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe the episode you're likely to be referring to is Twenty-Five (Season Four Finale; post-kidnap response and elevation of the Speaker to Acting President). Can't remember if SecHealthEd was mentioned though. Must watch again. AE.

I think it's earlier than that, I was pretty sure I saw it on DVD and I only have seasons 1-3. kmccoy (talk) 16:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whatever episode it was, it happened when he was reelected. After he left the room Leo informed the room he would need their resignation letters. Also the President mentions something like this is considered the best cabinet or most stable or something like that. It was Sec. of Health and Education. (JJGlendenning 03:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Any further discussion regarding Secretary of Health and Education should be moved to Presidential line of succession for the Bartlet administration. Thanks -Scm83x 03:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the Discussion from there to here - Jc37 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Surgeon General is a cabinet-level position. Attorney General certainly is, even though the title isn't "secretary." On another matter, I can't find the White House Counsel's office. Lionel Tribbe, Oliver Babbish, Ainsley Hayes, and Joe Quincy should be on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.194.221 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the members of the White House Counsel's office are listed on List of characters in The West Wing. The Surgeon General is actually not a Cabinet-level position, even though it is a high-ranking government office. The Attorney General is more than just a Cabinet-level official; he is a member of the Cabinet, as he is the head of the United States Department of Justice, which is a federal executive department. The Surgeon General, on the other hand, is the head of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, which is a part of the United States Public Health Service, which is in turn part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Surgeon General is outranked (by several levels) by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is a member of the Cabinet. This is why the Surgeon General is not a Cabinet-level official. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign leaders

I recall a recent episode in The West Wing when President Bartlet refers to a fictional French president and a fictional German chancellor. Does anyone remember their names ?

Maureen Graty

Is it said anywhere wheter she is a Tory or Labour? I think she's a Tory (Thatcher resemblant) but I don't think it's stated anywhere. Wouter Lievens 20:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What party she belongs to is never stated, but several British web posters on Bartlet4america.org have guessed she's a Tory because of her resemblance to Margaret Thatcher and her hawkish attitude.

Sam Seaborn

On here it lists Sam Seaborn as a representative from California. That has never been stated in the series. If someone can produce evidence, we can keep it in, but I've given it a "citation needed" designation and will delete it if not cited in the next week or so.--Metros232 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an "either-or" proposition. When Will Bailey was selected by Toby to become Deputy Communication Director, It was decided that When/if Sam returned, he would be promoted to "Senior Counsel". We never saw Sam return to the West Wing.

So either:

a.) Sam won

b.) Sam lost, and he's just been offscreen, and Oliver Babbish replaced him without explanation.

c.) Sam lost, and they didn't follow through on offering him a position.

b&c are entirely *not* believable in any scope of the show.

Therefore, Sam must have won.

In any case, I would suggest that you leave the "citation needed" up until the end of this season, "just in case" it might be resolved in the near future (based on the previews last Sunday) - jc37 14:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Sam probably has won, although I'm sure that somebody could think of a scenario by which he won but for some reason didn't return. Regardless of that, before the end of this season, it will probably be revealed exactly what happened to him, so I agree that we should keep the "citation needed" until the end of the season. --Hnsampat 14:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it can be assumed and interpreted that Sam won, but until there's evidence to fully support it, it can't be part of an encyclopedia. But, yes, it should be interesting to see what occurs with it. An argument against it might be that in a season 6 episode, "A Good Day," the Democratic congressmen (including Santos) all hide out overnight in the Capitol so that the Republicans will think they're out of town, call the vote for stem cells and win. One would presume that Sam Seaborn would be the first to be there willing to serve his president in addition to the dozens of others that were there. Just a thought to play devil's advocate.

It shall be interesting to see where this storyline heads with him coming back in the "reunion special".--Metros232 14:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, the position of "Senior Counsel" or "Counselor to the President" is not a position in the White House Counsel's office—it is not even a legal position, despite the confusing name. It is just a generic senior adviser to the president. See, for example, Dan Bartlett in the current administration, or any of the ministers without portfolio in the Nixon administration. Rlove 19:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may all agree that Sam "must" have won his congressional race, but until such a victory is stated explicitally in the show, we can't put it up.

As stated above, keeping Sam on the page until the end of the season. Jc37 20:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our hunches may all end up being wrong. The teaser for next week's episode shows Josh offering Sam the position of Deputy White House Chief of Staff, which I really doubt Sam would take if he was a congressman. This could mean that Sam won and then later was voted out of office, that he had to resign for some reason, or that he never won in the first place. To know for sure, we'll have to check out next week's episode, so, as agreed, we keep Sam on the page at least until next week. --Hnsampat 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sad irony is that we may never know. At this point, I think we do well by leaving him off the list (anyone interested can easily read this page : )

Jc37 07:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that Sam won -- and 4 years later, when Josh approaches him to join the Santos White House, he is working at a California law firm. It is possible that he won a single 2-year term and then lost, but more likely is he lost and then went to the law firm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.194.221 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Mitchell

The list of politicians entry states that Morgan Mitchell won the PA Senate election in the 2000 midterm. This is correct, as I distinctly recall this from the appropriate episode.

However, in Election Day, Part II, I also seem to recall someone stating that "Senator X" (I honestly can't remember the name) lost re-election in Pennsylvania. As Mitchell was elected in 2000, he should have been up for re-election in 2006. However, I don't think the last name of the Senator mentioned was "Mitchell," and, to me, it was implied that the Senator who lost in 06 was a Democrat.

This would make sense if Mitchell died in office or was forced to resign. A replacement - presumably a Democrat - would have been appointed by Governor Baker. I briefly wrote something about this in the main article, but I quickly deleted it afterwards. I am simply no longer 100% sure that one of the Senators who was described as losing in 2006 was from Pennsylvania.

Is there anyone who has Election Day, Part II on tape and would be willing to check into this?

--WayneNight 21:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIA

Should the CIA be on this page or under "Situation Room" on List of characters on The West Wing? On the one hand, the CIA is an "independent agency" and so it fits well on this page alongside the FEC. However, I'm not sure if I'd call CIA agents or directors "politicians." (Well, directors maybe, but agents definitely not.) --Hnsampat 03:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting fine line. As you said, it fits well under independant agency. I might lean towards this being a "members of the government" article, which would include any government agencies, etc. created by law. However, that might include quite a few that are on the Characters page. Several, if not all, of the Situation Room characters might be classified as politicians, or at the very least members of government. I am hesitant, perhaps even reluctant, to move them here, however, because of the overlapping job titles and framework within the executive branch. (see: NSC for an example.)Jc37 07:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leo as VP?

Lucy-marie added Leo to the list of Vice Presidents under "The President's Cabinet." While Leo did posthumously get elected Vice President, he never actually served and so I don't think he should be there. Thoughts? --Hnsampat 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was the candidate on the ticket the election result if he were still alive he would have been vice president. He should be on the list but only as vice president elect and not vice president.--Lucy-marie 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to quote matthew santos from election day part II "I'm not naming a new running mate in the next 5 minutes Leo was on the ticket, If I win he wins." this implies that even through death he is considered the vice presient elect.--Lucy-marie 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Leo was the Vice President-elect, albeit post-humously. However, I don't think he belongs on this page under the category of VP, since he never actually served. Sure, had he lived to be inaugurated, he would have served. But he didn't. It is kind-of-sort-of-but-not-really like how Peyton Cabot Harrison III was going to be Bartlet's nominee to the Supreme Court, but never actually was. (Not a good analogy, I know. What can I say? It's Friday evening and my brain is tired.) Some more thoughts? I was hoping we could get opinions from other people here, too, so that it's not just you and me going back and forth. --Hnsampat 23:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this step by step. Leo did not take the oath. Leo was not Vice-president. He was, however, VP-elect. He was also Labor Secretary in the past. This makes him a politician. This means that he can be listed in the Cabinet as Labor Secretary, but not as Vice President. He took no oath of office for Vice-President of the United States, therefore, he should not be listed in that office. Jc37 07:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This also means that Baker should not be listed as VP either. Jc37 07:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we add a section of vice presdeints who were never sworn in officially in the show but were mentioned implicitly in the show.--Lucy-marie 09:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Leo McGarry, who would that include? - Jc37 09:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baker as well--Lucy-marie 13:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are several issues here.

1.) Leo:

Just because Leo won the popular election, it doesn't mean that he is VP (he needs the electoral college). However, I seem to recall that Santos commented that Leo did win in the electoral college.

The question I have is: Are you aware that Leo already has a listing on the List of characters on The West Wing?

These two pages are intended to supplement each other (At one point there was a discussion to merge the two). And since this page has become rather long, I don't think we should be adding duplicate entries. The only exceptions are President Bartlet, Matt Santos, and Arnold Vinick.

If you feel that Matt Santos and/or Arnold Vinick should be limited to only this page, I would be more than happy to entertain the idea : )

(We've had a similar problem on the characters page with editors wanting to add Lord John, even though he is in the ambassador section of this page.)

Though at first I thought I would have no problem with Leo being listed as Labor sectretary, as long as the chronology (and episodes listing) is listed as well, it comes back to duplication. It's already explained that he was Labor Secretary in the characters' list.

For example, note that we have a "former presidents" section. They aren't listed up with president. Same for Leo, we probably shouldn't have a "former labor sectretary" section, since it's prior to the pilot episode. Just as we don't list President Bartlet under Governors (NH).

2.) Baker:

He wasn't confirmed by the Senate. Good intentions does not a VP make. : )

I think that a comment next to his name as governor is enough.

3.) Other projected nominees by Matt Santos

Following that, none of the other cabinet members (such as Arnold Vinick as Sec of State) have been confirmed either. So even though it was projected that they would "make it", it doesn't mean that they did. (Consider the discussion about Sam Seaborn for Congress, above : )

- Jc37 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on each of these points above. Let's change it so that Leo is only on the characters page (not the politicians page) and that Eric Baker's vice presidency is noted next to his name in the "governors" section. You're right, "good intentions does not a Vice President make." --Hnsampat 13:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Health and Education

This is very simply a continuity problem.

The Dept of H&E ONLY appears in Twenty-Five (4:23). But in that episode, we actually have an actor portraying the secretary of that office.

The Department of Health and Human Services is mentioned in:
The Women of Qumar 3:08

The Department of Education is mentioned in:
Shibboleth 2:08
Noel 2:10
Game On 4:06
Shutdown 5:08

(Also: The Undersecretary of Education is mentioned in The California 47th (4:16)

Which means that there are references to a "stand alone" department of education before AND after episode 4:23.

In addition, there is a historical (in real life) Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that existed from 1953 to 1979. Education was split off into its own department, and the remaining department was renamed.

We have several options:

1.) Sometime between Game On and Twenty-Five the DoHHS remerged with the DoE, and then sometime between Twenty-Five and Shutdown, the DoE split from it again.

Since the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare continued on as the department of Health and Human Services. That means that that department never "ceased to exist", but was merely renamed. If Education was remerged with it, it just reverted the renaming of the Department.

2.) It was a writers' mistake. (In addition, The Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation were not mentioned in Twenty-Five. And there have been many references to both departments in the series.)

Either way, we have to list all three departments, since all three were mentioned.

DoHHS resides in the line of succession where DoHEW was (obviously, since it was merely a reorg/rename.)

DoEd is right after the DoEn

And since the names are to belisted chronologically, HEW will be listed before HHS. - Jc37 05:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no Jim Kane listed in Twenty-Five (or in any other episode). So removing the name. - Jc37 06:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the footnote, the departments of HHS and Education are referred to, but their secretaries are not. Still, I'm thinking that "Health and Education" was a script mistake and, since it was mentioned only once, I changed it such that only HHS and Education are listed, with H&E being mentioned in the footnote only.--Hnsampat 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote in question very much needs rewriting, if for no other reason to clarify how it is speculation.

Also, I found when Jim Kane was added, it was when there was still a "Secretary of Education" listed. I can't find an episode reference, but I also can't check most of season 6, and part of season 7. - Jc37 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Kane was mentioned as the "Secretary of Education" in the episode The Last Hurrah by Helen Santos.--216.125.50.226 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local Politicans

I think we should probably remove this section. There have been innumerable "whistlestops", and moments of hand shaking, etc. Should we actually list every Mayor and school board member?

While I do shy away from the "Noteable" opinion, for the most part, I think there does come a point to where even we might be getting too inclusive : ) - Jc37 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't know the name of every mayor and school board member that Bartlet has met, now do we? :)

Actually, I think this section should stay. We don't have to worry about it getting too long or anything because we know very few local politicians. Furthermore, I think we need "local" so that we have all levels of government (federal, state, and local). Let's keep it.--Hnsampat 00:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military

Should the list include the Ciefs of Staff and the military advisors at the White House?

No, military officials are not politicians. Furthermore, they're already listed on List of characters on The West Wing. --Hnsampat 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany to the list of foreign leader, and while they were never stated directly, a President D'Astier and a Chancellor Earhart were mentioned in season 7 episode 4, Mr. Frost, as potential visitors to a state funeral. D'Astier is obviously a French name and Germany is the only country, other then Austria, using the title Chancellor to any extent it would warrent an invite to a state funeral

The two names for German chancellors currently given in the article are Weissman and Earhart. While I don't remember the episodes, there is no way the names would be spelled like that in German. Weissman would most likely be Weißmann and Earhart is probably supposed to be Erhard, Erhart or Erhardt (note that there was a German chancellor Ludwig Erhard about 40 years ago). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.4.46 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have this article divided into the executive, legislative, and judical branches of government, it does seem a bit odd to have the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate under "The President's Cabinet." I understand that it's because they are in the line of succession, but I think there's a better way to do that. I propose that, under both the "House of Representatives" and "Senate" sections, we create a subcategory of "Leadership" and include the Speaker (or President pro tempore), Majority Leader, Majority Whip, Minority Leader, Minority Whip, etc. for that body there. I think this will make it clearer who the congressional leaders are and so the reader of the article will be able to infer the line of succession from that.--Hnsampat 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a seperate section for congressional leadership (including past leaders) would be a better idea.

In episode 5.03, there is a character repeatedly mentioned called "Berradi" (sp?), who resigned over Walken's attack on Qumar. Was this the UN Secretary-General? EJB341 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added a few names (Solicitor General, some Assistant Secretaries, fixed the fact that Blieden was an *Assistant* secretary), but they were removed with no explanation. I understand the format changes I did (mostly for my own stylistic appeal) were undone, and have no problem with that, but I don't believe *all* of my changes were necessary to be repealed. They were sufficiently researched and corrected, plus I removed at least three mistakes on the page that were re-added.

Can my additions be re-analyzed and placed back in the article?--Tim Thomason 05:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try splitting up your additions into several edits to make it easier to identify, and perhaps prevent all from being reverted. - jc37 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Santos listed among the Presidents? Is it because he's listed as a Representative already? And if so...why is he not listed both places the same way Bob Russell is? I'll wait a few days then add Santor so the president tab if nobody has a good reason behind his ommission.98.220.57.204 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith isn't explicitly mentioned as a governor, and may well refer to the Surgeon General ("governors and cabinet members doing spin", I think they say)

Atkins isn't a governor. In the show, he's mentioned as having delegates at the 2006 DNC, and he's mentioned earlier in "King Corn" as a "fringe" who is black and will rail about racial injustice candidate. But spoilers for "King Corn" give more info on Atkins, though much of the stuff about him was cut. He's a mayor (not stated where or what state), a former reverend, charismatic, and a critic of NAFTA. Probably meant to be an Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson-type character. Though this was cut, I still think it's more reliable that completely unsourced speculation that he's a governor.

http://westwing.bewarne.com/extras/spoilerblog1-05.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.255.122 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Haffley has been proposed for merger into this article. If there were any text that were not both un-cited and un-challenged, I would support merger. There isn't. I would therefore support only a redirect of the Haffley article to this article, with deletion of the un-supported text.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]