Talk:President of the United States

David Palmer
David Palmer is the only President to serve a full term on 24.

This isn't quite correct, since Prescott took over the Presidency twice. First for a couple of hours during Day 2, and then for several months while Palmer was recovering from the assassination attempt. He is the only US President on the show to be elected into office and finish his term, but none has actually served a full term.--62.16.193.81 13:51, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

LBJ & Carter
Why does it say LBJ then Carter?

Your forgetting Nixon and Ford :) WaffleStomp 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nixon and Ford have so far never been mentioned anywhere in the 24verse. You'll notice there are a few dozen other presidents missing from the list, not just these two. --Proudhug 05:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Preceeded by... Succeeded by...
This may have been brought up before, but on the pages for each President, shouldn't we list the next ones and the previous ones that we know? i.e. shouldn't we say FD Roosevelt came after Lincoln, even if there was someone inbetween? It would just make the timeline along the bottom actually worth having. SignorSimon 14:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem is that we don't actually have an IU source for the order of real-world presidents. We list them in order on this page because it just makes sense.  I'm torn about the solution to the browser problem, though.  It seems to me our options are do it as you suggested, leave it the way it is, or remove it altogether. --Proudhug 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can leave it the way it is - if you feel it is a bad idea to add the Presidents that we know, which I agree with, I think we should remove it altogether. SignorSimon 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just forsee people "correcting" the order by adding in the proper successor instead of the next known IU successor. I suppose a hidden note could be added.  Either way, browser is perfectly valid for the fictional presidents for whom we know the proper uninterrupted order, so if we do decide to remove it, it would only be from the "real world" presidents.  If I had to vote, I'd go with your suggestion, but I'd like to hear more input, at least Blue Rook's before we decide.  I can see all arguments making sense. --Proudhug 17:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The browser simply shouldn't be there for real life Presidents like Reagan and Lincoln. First, it looks patently ridiculous that we're technically bound for it to say "unknown" before and after real Presidents. It only creates problems since anonymous users will never understand this, and will continually try to fix it (hidden notes are unfortunately not reliable, they are quite often ignored, intentionally or not).

Then, it's misleading to say, as Simon suggests, that Lincoln was succeeded by FDR, since this is false. If we do that, it is also worse because we're breaking our own rules. This is because it has not been confirmed IU, as Proudhug noted. That banner should be reserved for IU Presidents, starting with Barnes, who should be the only one with "UNKNOWN" in there. And, with regard to the President's article itself, it is simply a necessary evil to list them in order there. That browser banner is a different story: all our problems are solved if we reserve it for IU Presidents. Nobody ever said that the banner must always be used on all Presidents, even for the lame sake of consistency.

I just thought of a possible solution. We could make a differently-worded banner for the real Presidents, which says "Featured successor" and "Featured predecessor". This weasel verbiage would allow us to list FDR after Lincoln, even though it would be an OOU banner since the info was not confirmed IU. The current banner specifically says "succeeded by", which is an exclusive phrase for the immediate successor. – Blue Rook 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)talk contribs


 * Or better yet, how about "previous known successor" and "next known successor" for all of them? Or substitute "president" for "successor".  This way we can maintain the consistency and be accurate and IU (except for the order thing).  Oh and remember, we don't know for sure that Palmer was Barnes' successor. --Proudhug 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer my idea. Using "previous known successor/President" for all of them is too weaselly. Think if we used it for Keeler. We know for certain who his predecessor and successor were. Using the phrasing "Previous known" logically leaves room for others in between. That's just the way the wording is structured. Because it's ambiguous despite the fact that we know there was absolutely no one in between, it's unencyclopedic since it's not as specific as it can and should be. – Blue Rook 07:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)talk contribs


 * So what about "previous known" for only the real world presidents? --Proudhug 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two problems with it. That phrasing does less to solve the permanent problem of clueless newbies because it still invites them to add Truman, etc, since they "know" who followed Lincoln. I believe that "Featured" self-explanatorily indicates that we are indeed aware of the succession but have made a conscious choice to include only those mentioned IU. The second problem is that, technically, we again don't know from in-universe sources that LBJ came after JFK, so us saying "it is known" would be a lie. The phrasing can't be stretched to be OOU either, because we all know the successors quite clearly.

By saying "Featured successor/predecessor", we're clearly labeling the banner as an OOU tool in those instances, and I'm confident it will do more to discourage newbs from inserting unmentioned successors/predecessors.

Is there something specific that you don't prefer about "Featured successor/predecessor"?– Blue Rook 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)talk contribs


 * Um, there are only two things I don't like, and they're both petty, I guess. I'm a huge stickler for consistency.  And I don't like the word "featured."  FDR was never featured on 24, he was merely mentioned.  And of course, "mentioned" wouldn't work well, either.  So these are my only qualms.  Also, ideally, like with the U.S. states, we'd eventually have all of the past presidents mentioned. --Proudhug 01:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

True, he was never featured on the show, but I'm using the word in the sense: next President article featured on this wiki. We could also go with "notable" instead of featured... better, yes? – Blue Rook 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)talk contribs

Political Parties
Assuming that David Palmer and his brother were in the same party and that the two parties IU are Democrat and Republican, we can infer the political parties of all of the presidents from the reference to David Palmer, so I added them.

There's some discussion of how much we can infer about the IU world in the succession thread. I would suggest we can assume the IU is the same as our world unless it specifically contradicts it. I think everyone does this already (JFK is president) and deviations from this approach are arbitrary. (Ugrul 15:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC))


 * The reason we don't included this type of real-world information isn't just because we're avoiding making assumptions of similarity between the real world and the 24verse, but rather because Wiki 24 is an encyclopedia of information from and about the TV show 24 and its spin-offs. I'm sure in the 24verse the presidential succession (at least up to Reagan) is identical to the real world, but unless they're mentioned directly, we don't include them in our list.  For the same reason, we only list political affiliations of characters when they are specifically mentioned, rather than inferring them all.  I hope this clears things up. --proudhug 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this should be considered about what information is on the show, rather than what we know about the fictional world, since it seems to me that every show set on Earth presumes the fictional world is the same as the real world until contradicted, and I'm glad to hear that's not the purpose of the policy. I would suggest, though, that on a chart, where real-world presidents appear with fictional presidents and a category exists for something (like living/deceased), we should fill in that empty slot with the real world information rather than "unknown".  It's not like it is adding extra space.  The blank spot on the chart is already taking up space. I would also suggest we know that Palmer and Prescott, at least, were Democrats. I also removed the "deceased" status from Reagan.  Since he died during the course of the show and since the show is deliberately ambiguous as to its time frame, it should stay blank.  (Ugrul 19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

Real life counterpart succession boxes
I added disclaimers noting the succession line of the presidents mentioned throughout the series. However, it just came to my mind that the succession of the real life presidents have never been mentioned. For all we know, "Lincoln" could have been a president in between Harry Barnes and David Palmer (even though it's not). So even if we do know that LBJ came after JFK in real life, it was never cited on the show, and should be removed. On another tangent, their status should not be automatically considered "Deceased" either, as this was never mentioned on the show; and since the audience was never provided with the fact that some were born more than 100 years ago, they cannot be assumed to be dead. (I hope that last sentence didn't seem like a run-on...) --Deege515 11:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I brought up the Status point on the Talk:Reagan page. After some consideration, I think we should just go with the minimal real world information with regard to status and order of succession, as it prevents a lot of headaches.  As long as this information isn't put in the main body of the article, I see no problem with minor real world assumptions trickling into the character and succession boxes.  I mean, technically we don't even know that JFK was a President, only that he's someone who had two schools named after him.  The character box isn't actually IU anyway, since things like "Seasons," "First Seen" and "Played By" are OOU, so I see no problem filling in a real-life character's correct, but unmentioned, status.  Much like with describing real life cities in the present tense (ie. "Los Angeles is a city..." rather than "Los Angeles was a city..."), I think this warrants an exception to the IU-only rule. --Proudhug 12:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Gulf War is mentioned. So therefore can't we assume George H.W. Bush and every real-life President before him is canon in the show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.215.118.224 on 20:41, 18 June 2008


 * We must avoid assuming anything, so all we can catalogue from statements from the show is whatever is explicitly said: in that case, that there was a Gulf War. We don't look to real history and fill in blanks; that would make this encyclopedia explode beyond it's intended, specifically-tailored scope. There would be no limit that wasn't totally arbitrary to additional information people would want to draw from outside sources, so we include none of it. – Blue Rook 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)talk contribs


 * That's impossible. The show presumes we believe that the world in the show is like our world except where it specifically contradicts it.  When Jack accuses Brett Marks of thinking he's George Washington, the accusation only makes sense if we assume that George Washington was president.  To assume none of these things would be to not assume that fire extinguishers are really fire extinguishers rather than an alien decoration that looks suspiciously like our own.  What would be arbitrary would be to exclude RL assumptions. (128.100.247.73 18:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC))


 * You're missing the point of the policy I was describing. While real history fills in the blanks for understanding the show, we never include real history that wasn't explicitly reflected on the show when we write articles for this project. If we wrote out long explanations of stuff that was seen on the show, like fire extinguishers seen in the background in your example, the pages would be bloated with useless information.
 * Also, your example of George Washington being president doesn't really apply. Jack was referring to Washington's involvement in the drafting of the Constitution, not necessarily the presidency. 20:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer
I think there should be one, since 4 or 5 different IP's/users removed the names. --Deege515 07:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that it was probably the same person, though. Deleting pre-Day 1 presidents isn't something that would commonly be done in good faith, like adding Reed Pollock's video appearance or changing Behrooz's status to Alive.  The presense of these presidents is self-evidently justified to anyone who reads the article.  I don't think that adding the disclaimer is any more necessary than adding "Please don't vandalize this article" to every page.  It's common sense.  But if I turn out to be wrong and repeated users continue to delete them, we can for sure put it back in. --Proudhug 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnes
I don't remember much about Veto Power, but can we safely say that Barnes was POTUS during Day 1? What was the timeframe between VP and Day 1? --Pyramidhead 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the terrible life expectancy of all the presidents we've seen on the show, Air Force One carrying Barnes could have been shot down, his hand could have been contaminated with an unknown substance, or the sale of nerve gas to terrorists could have forced him out of office. Perhaps even another election took place between Barne's and Palmer's presidencies. We can't say one way or another. He was never explicitly stated as president during Day 1; and saying so would, therefore, be considered speculation. Revert. --Deege515 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gardner
I have to say I obeject to Hal Gardner being placed on this page until we find out whether he was POTUS or not. Has the show actually said that Wayne took over from Hal Gardner? For all we know, Logan's cabinet didn't vote to allow him to activate the 25th Amendment. --220.233.124.201 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The 25th establishes the line of succession in any case where the President is unable to run the country. The cabinet doesn't have to OK it if the President dies or resigns. Anyway, Wayne didn't ascend, he won an election. --StBacchus 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For all we know, he suffered a heart attack at 07:00:01 and died, leaving the Speaker of the House to fill his place. There is absolutely no in-show basis to indicate he was ever sworn in, other than Buchanan's speculation. --Pyramidhead 21:35, December 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon me asking but, who suffered a heart attack and died at 7:00? Thief12 02:04, December 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * The person whose name is the heading of this section? --Pyramidhead 02:11, December 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Silly me, you were speaking hypothetically. I kinda got lost. But anyway, just like we assume that most characters that vanish after a season are still "alive" (and are identified as such in the infobox), we have to assume that Gardner "lived" and was sworn in, as it's supposed to happen. Thief12 04:13, December 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I used a heart attack as one possible reason why he wouldn't have become President. Yes, we can assume he's alive, but we can't assume anything beyond that. --Pyramidhead 23:43, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we? There's absolutely no reason to assume it didn't happen. If a character says "I'm going to bed" and we don't see them again, we're free to assume they made it to bed safely, unless the narrative implies otherwise. In Day 2 8:00am-9:00am, Division wants to hold a meeting with CTU-LA about their proposals on LAX security upgrades and Mason suggests the morning of the 15th. Despite Mason dying later that day, we have no reason to assume this meeting didn't take place. Likewise, we can safely assume that Gardner became President because it was stated that he would. If Bill hadn't made that comment, I might think you had an argument, but since he did say that Gardner would be sworn in, and since the creators gave us no hints that this didn't happen, we have no reason to believe otherwise. This is exactly the same situation as the assumption of "Alive" status for disappearing characters, as Thief12 mentioned. --proudhug 02:33, December 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * No reason to believe otherwise, yes, but no reason to believe it, either. This also touches on an unrelated topic - I think we should start adding qualifiers to "disappeared" characters' statuses, so that it's "Alive (Day X)", with Day X referring to the last time they were seen alive - Memory Alpha does something similar with years. We're so strict on not including info that was never in the show - real-life references, deleted scenes, etc. - that it seems lax to assume something happened just because a character said it would. I think it's fine to leave the note about Bill's comment, and note that it was most likely the case that he became President - but until there's some kind of in-show allusion to a Hal Gardner administration, I don't think it belongs in the chart. Anyways, everything we know about this hypothetical presidency can be summed up in the "Background information and notes" section. --Pyramidhead 03:00, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's reason to believe it. Bill said it would happen. 90% of the time, all we have to go on is what characters say in dialogue. The fact of the matter is that, especially on an show like 24, everything can be put under question at all times. Wiki 24 documents what is revealed on the show and this includes dialogue. If Bill says he used to work at CTU Seattle, we believe him. Could he be lying? Sure. But it's unrealistic to base this encyclopedia solely on information that we've actually seen on the show.

As for character status, this is a different topic for a different talk page. I don't see why we'd need to qualify anything when the characters last appearance appears in the sidebar with their status. Not to mention the article itself is written chronologically so it's clear when they are last know to be alive. --proudhug 03:26, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Prescott
I have some objection to Jim Prescott being named on this list as he was Acting President of the United States never President per se. as noted on wikipedia there is a difference especiall legally. Pat 17:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:S2e21f09.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Prescott is sworn in as President. Shortest term ever!]] Prescott was actually sworn in as President, so he really was President per se. Afterward, he resumed the VP role when Palmer was put back in office. You're thinking of Noah Daniels, who remained Vice President and served only as Acting President. 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * However being sworn in isnt required to be President and under the wording of the 25th ammendment the Vice-President or any other principle officer in the presidential line of succession can only become Acting president under Section 4, which was invoked during day 2. The only way to become "President" would be via death or resignation See the article on wikipedia: Section 4


 * What you bring up is interesting, and I'd like other users to weigh in. I'm willing to change my mind, the more I read about it, but I'm still pretty sure that being sworn in makes you President, and that was the express point of that scene. Something to keep in mind, in addition, is that this show is complete fiction, as besides all the characters and events, the Nat'l Sec Advisor has a vote in the world of 24, where in real life, she wouldn't. 22:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a fictional universe and doesn't need to follow the same rules as ours (and clearly doesn't, in many cases). We have canonical sources indicating that Prescott became "President," not "Acting President." Twice.

Incorrect information
The president is NOT the highest ranking politican in the united states. He is simply the highest ranking member of the exectutive branch. Changed. WaffleStomp 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln
If this is an IU article, why is there a random painting from the white house next to the 'Lincoln' entry? :P --Acer4666 00:32, February 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I hate that picture too, but believe it or not, it's actually an iu image from a wall of the White House or something. Proudhug himself added it.
 * Now, although it's permissible for inclusion, and even though Proudhug was the editor, it still is ugly in my opinion. Just because we have a picture, doesn't mean we must use it. No picture is better than an ugly one I always say. This is the reason why I put the image of the hand in the Brian (Day 2) character article (because that is what the character basically was, a Helping Hand for Jack), but left that nightmarishly blurry image of the actor's face over in Brian Durkin for the sake of showing what little we saw of the actor's face. If you can horizontally crop that same image from the scene, it might look better in that table. I might take a try at it sometime soon. 01:42, February 16, 2011 (UTC)