Talk:Toby Ziegler

Toby's legal name

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)

Toby's law degree

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

Post West Wing Life

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)

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)

It's deliberately ambiguous, to keep you guessing during the space shuttle intrigue. We can't conclusively determine either way, and it's misleading to state that he is teaching at the University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.129.194 (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Josh realy wanted Toby at the Santos campaign?

"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)

Nature of Crime?

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)

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)

any allusion to treason should be removed 72.189.90.159 01:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reform clues

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Schiff on West Wing1.jpg

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)

Toby/CJ "flirting" relationship

There's a short paragraph in the "At the White House" section where it is stated that Toby's closest relationship at the White House was with C.J. and that this relationship had a "flirtatious" aspect to it. It essentially suggests that there is some romantic subtext between the two characters. The only source cited for this is an interview that Richard Schiff gave on The View. Reading the transcript of that interview, I read it to mean the Schiff was lightheartedly suggesting that Toby and C.J. will end up as a couple, not meaning to seriously suggest such a possibility. No other sources have been cited for such "flirting" aspect of their relationship and frankly I think it remains speculative at best. (Even if Richard Schiff was being serious, he was still speculating as well.) I think, therefore, that this mention ought to be removed as unsourced speculation. (FYI, my personal view is that Toby's closest friend is Sam, not C.J., but that's just my opinion.) Thoughts? --Hnsampat (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

CJ is certainly Toby's oldest friend of the major characters (they knew each other prior to joining the campaign), whether or not she's his closest friend is moving into speculation (I'd argue yes, but that's just my opinon). I agree that Schiff was probably joking in the interview referenced, given the context; on the other hand, I have read in a couple of places that, although the two characters had not necessarily been intended as romantic interests for one another, Richard Schiff and Allison Janney often liked to bring layers of subtext into their characters' interactions that were not in the script. I'll try to dig up the original source. Shoemoney2night (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not the only article I've read where Richard Schiff discusses the Toby/C.J. thing and the adding of flirtation and their deep relationship. I've honestly never even heard of someone who's watched this show and didn't pick up on the Toby/C.J. thing, it's a pretty major aspect of both characters. They often shared things with each other that they didn't tell others (Hoynes, the thing with C.J.'s dad, Toby's brother killing himself), I mean, hell, Toby's final scene in the series was with C.J. and dealt with them rebuilding their close friendship. I mean, in my mind this is honestly like trying to cite moments where, say, Sam and Ainsley flirting... it's just, that's what a large part of their relationship was. They were each other's best friends, just like Josh and Sam were best friends or Jed and Leo were best friends. They were extremely close, there was a flirtatious dynamic. To not even discuss the depth of their friendship and their closeness when we *do* discuss it for Sam and Josh just seems silly to me.

I wish I could get my hands on more of the articles and interviews Schiff's done on the subject. He was light-hearted in nature when he said things because, sure, why wouldn't he be? But does that make it less valid? Either way, other parts of this article cite Richard Schiff as a source on things about Toby, so we could do that as well.

Either way, some of the stuff that's been reverted is stuff dealing with C.J. and Toby's falling out after Toby's leak and then not reuniting until Toby's last scene... and none of that stuff can be debated in any way, shape or form. It's what happened. I'm adding that back in. As for the other stuff, we can keep discussing it.--67.165.141.239 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Toby and C.J. were close, as indicated by all of the examples cited above. However, I'm not necessarily sure that C.J. was Toby's "closest" friend and that their relationship had any "flirting" aspect to it, which is what the article was saying before I removed that bit. If all of this is really, really obvious, then there should be no problem finding sources for it. (I'd say get sources from West Wing writers, since they are the ones who ultimately decide what the "truth" about the characters is.) I mean, there are abundant sources out there citing the flirtatious nature of Josh and Donna's relationship (and they've been available even since before Josh and Donna got together). Just remember that what can seem unbelievably obvious to you or me may not be so obvious to somebody else, which is why we need sources. Also, we need sources to make sure that we aren't passing off our own opinions as facts. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Hnsampat on the above points. There is no direct evidence that there are any romantic feelings between Toby and C.J., aside from the occasional remark that passes for Noel Coward-esque by-play between the two of them. (And even this was far stronger in the Sorkin years than in the succeeding seasons.) As well, C.J., the only female senior staffer for most of the show's history, engaged in more more flirtatious back-and-forth with her colleagues simply because they were colleagues. Had she had one of her tongue-in-cheek exchanges involving Toby--"You want to make out with me right now." "Well, when don't I?"--with a subordinate it would have been fairly out of character. Finally, Hnsampat is quite right in emphasizing two points. First, one's personal take on the show cannot be inserted within the article. Second, Schiff, perhaps ironically enough, is not necessarily the final arbiter of what Toby felt about anything. An actor playing Hamlet could, as did Laurence Olivier, decide to play the famous Gertrude scenes with a heavy air of repressed Oedipal desire; it does not, however, mean that that's what that production's "Hamlet"--the collaborative creation of directors, designers (did Schiff pick out Toby's neckties?), and most importantly, a writer(s)--actually wanted. In essence, Schiff's take on the character, while an informed and important one, is also limited, contingent, and prejudiced. As such, "evidence" gleaned from such interviews should more properly be placed in a separate section or flagged as the actor's opinion (though I realize this would complicate the article's in-universe style). Additionally, even were one to decide that C.J. was Toby's "closest friend"--and that is conjecture--one must also ask what it means to be "close" to Toby. Aside from one reference to his visiting his nieces and nephews for the holidays (presumably Hanukkah) and a game of pick-up ball with the president, Toby appears to not have had much of a social life outside the confines of the White House. Might all of this debate be about a character element that really tells us very little about the character? As well, one cannot make definitive comparisons--"oldest," "closest"--without having all the necessary history elements of the narrative universe. We know from his California recruiting drive that Toby and C.J. know one another by voice alone, are on a first-name basis, and are comfortable bantering with one another, but that does not necessarily make them "friends." Finally, C.J. is (apparently) Toby's longest-tenured acquaintance/friend among the later senior staffers... that we know of. Both he and Josh are very active in Democratic politics prior to Bartlet's primary run, for example, and certainly might have known one another, crossed paths, fought over the same woman, etc., but the show simply never tells us if A) they met in N.H. after Josh joined the campaign, B) they had a passing acquaintance, but Josh ran in more elevated Democratic strata than serial loser Toby, or C) something else more sordid/mundane. That many of us debate these matters speaks well of the show's enduring appeal and complex (if amorphous) set of intertwined histories. It's great that we want to make the WW universe as well-rounded and knowable as the one we wake up in every day. Yet such conjectural debates seem more appropriate for a fan site rather than the wikipedia project. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are examples of their "flirting" relationship, for instance in “Somebody's Going to Emergency, Somebody's Going to Jail" (s2, ep 16): CJ: You want to make out with me right now, don’t you? Toby: Well, when don’t I? -- Lowenslow (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, but it's CJ. Who doesn't want to make out with CJ chrisboote (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pregnancy

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)

I don't agree. Their previous attempts mean that viable embryos might well have remained after their divorce. Because we simply cannot know and her previous ardent support of IVF promotes the likelihood that Abdrea might have tried this on her own, the ultimate pregnancy should be considered as the result of two possible paths. Finally, multiple births are more common under IVF, and we have no evidence or mention of Andie and Toby having resumed a physical relationship. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

City College sweatshirt

Located here, not sure how to cite this in the article. --Blue387 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The episode itself is already cited. That should be sufficient, I think. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Shuttle Leak Background

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)

I can't say I was very good at reading deeply into the show, so maybe this is all said from a shallow perspective, but I always felt that CJ was the leak, Toby realized it rather quickly, and Toby fell on the sword to allow CJ to continue on as Chief of Staff. You could even say it was an act of loyalty to the President, because if it was discovered that his own Chief of Staff defied his actions and had to be summarily fired, it would severely weaken the President. Add in his loyalty to and friendship with CJ, and potential lingering anger toward his brother, and the story goes like this: Toby learns from Annabeth about the leak, and later Kate Harper tells him that the FBI believes the leak is from the White House; Toby realizes that only a select few people had the information, and CJ had outed herself to him by asking if David had ever mentioned a military shuttle; Toby decides that he will use this as his opportunity to blame himself and protect CJ, though when meeting with the prosecutor, he can't bring himself to point the finger at David and besmirch his brother for something he didn't actually do.--Avenger42 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He's not saving CJ or indeed the President. He's saving Leo McGarry and therefore the Santos Presidential campaign. If he wanted to save the President or CJ surely the confession would have come closer to her testimony rather than just before McGarry's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.128.24 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Toby's relationship with President's daughter

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)

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)

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)

Toby as a vet

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)

As with Law School, there is direct evidence that TZ isn't a vet. In S4 'Angel Maintenance', when Toby talks to Congressman Richardson, Chairman of the House Black Caucus, they end discussing the draft and the selective service lottery system. TZ's was 125 in the last year of the draft missing out by 30 and avoided being called up. His comment afterward and his general demeanor suggest a certain relief about this; something which would be different, I guess, if he has volunteered for the Armed Forces.

Perhaps the comment was an ironic one? Or, as you say perhaps TZ is, despite appearances, a armed forces buff! Robjgfox (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the age of Toby's father, and that "he needed the GI Bill" (The Two Bartlets, season 3, ep. 12) it can be speculated that his father was a WW2 or Korean War veteran of the USMC 2/7. It should also be noted that the Second Battalion of the of the Seventh Marine Regiment is one of the most historically significant and decorated USMC units, having served in many WW2 and Korean War campaigns including Guadalcanal, Okinawa, and Chosin Reservoir, so this episode is a tribute to veterans on many levels.

Reviewing the DVD of "In Excelsis Deo" (season 1, ep. 10) it is difficult to determine the exact line, but it may be "he got better treatment at Panmunjom" rather than "I got beter treatment at Panmunjom" but the former version is confusing because Panmunjom was the site of the Korean war peace talks and POW repatriation, not the site of a POW camp.

If he was a POW, Lance Corporal Hufnagle (the homeless vet) would have passed through that Korean town. Maybe it is a reference to the conditions under which US POW's (including both Hufnagle and Toby's father?) were held by the North Koreans while waiting POW exchange, or of the prompt medical attention the POWs received after being returned at Panmunjom. Lowenslow (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't say "I" got better treatment, he says, "guy" got better treatment. The full line is, "Took the ambulance an hour and twenty minutes to get there. A lance coproral in the U.S. Marines. Second of the Seventh. Guy got better treatment in Pan Moon Jong." http://www.westwingepguide.com/S1/Episodes/10_IED.html 2601:8:A280:C11:293A:7EC1:B040:5262 (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the subtitles on HBO max, the line is, “I got better treatment”. Veggiegirl12 (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE CONSISTET ABOUT WHETHER IT'S 'CJ' OR 'C.J.'

N/T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.54.162 (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability, length and in-universe

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)

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)

Wikipedia articles are not sources

Wikipedia requires reliable sources, which exist in the real world (magazine, newspaper, or a book). A Wikipedia article which has not other source is not a source in itself. Continually adding content that has no source besides some other Wikipedia article is the same as having no source at all.Catherinejarvis (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Get of your soapbox. You're acting very hypocritical: without debate YOU delete content, and then you go on accusing me of doing things without debate. I merely restored the ex ante situation in order to be able to have a debate without losing content. Besides nothing you claim is actually listed on "What Wikipedia is not". You are pushing a personal agenda. So please first have an open discussion on what should remain and what is to be deleted before destroying Wikipedia content. Please stop your personal crusade and go to arbitration or I'll have to start an edit war until after open discussion a majority view is reached.

Personally I think the content is well sourced to other links - which is the only way to do with TV characters. Either you do it this way or otherwise the article has no right of existence at all and should be AfD. The remaining content can than be added to the main TWW article or in a "List of characters " article. Your rump article is actually a bigger "waste" of Wikipedia space than the larger version and has become - because of your deletions - even incoherent. But deleting this type of content and articles is a slippery slope because then one'd be able to say that the episode articles should be deleted and so on... -- fdewaele, 31 January 2013.

Funny you should mention deleting articles about individual episodes of The West Wing. They should ALL be deleted. Consider this: there are articles listing episodes for other popular TV shows (All in the Family, MASH, Hill Street Blues, Cheers, and Mary Tyler Moore) but there are not hundreds of articles about every episode. Why should the West Wing be treated any different?Catherinejarvis (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to open a Request for comment on the issue, but Wikipedia is driven by consensus, a concept which it seems evident you don't fully grasp. Perhaps you should enroll in an adoption course, where an experienced Wikipedian will guide you for a certain amount of time. It's up to you, but they're helpful to learn Wikipedia's policies. Go Phightins! 02:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am an experienced Wikipedian and I already know the policies - such as Assume Good Faith and WP:BOLD. The condescending advice and insults above are a breach of that policy. I have made a valid effort to correct an article which is flawed. People are allowed to make changes to articles anytime they wish when there is a good reason for it - which there is in this case.Catherinejarvis (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel condescension; it was not intentional, but the fact remains that you do not have a solid grasp of policies; if you did, you would know that the editing guideline WP:BOLD says that you should be bold, not reckless. Deleting tons of content without discussion is reckless. I am assuming that you're acting in good faith, but I don't think you havea firm grasp of consensus, which is how everything is done here. We need one giant discussion to determine consensus as to whether "biographical info" should be placed on characters' articles. Go Phightins! 21:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I can only second what Go Phightins said. Strive for consensus because unilaterally acting is no way to ensure article quality. I also agree with the idea of having a general discussion whether biographical articles on fictional characters are appropriate but it should encompass a general guideline for all types of fictional characters, not only for TWW. -- fdewaele, 2 February 2013.

Relisting

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) I just watched the episode and it was pretty clear Toby said " I got better treatment at Panmunjomm. not "he" I think we just need to remember this is a tv show and this episode confused many people as it inferred that Toby was a vet but the writers decided to go a different direction with the character later.