Talk:Commander in Chief (TV series)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can anyone give any decent figures for the popularity of the series? Strikes me there are three series running up to the latest elections West Wing, Commander-in-Chief, and 24, that oddly mimic the results. LookingGlass (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the most biased comments in the article

The article refers to President Allen's husband as the "First Gentleman". Is there a source for this? I was listening pretty carefully to the episode to see if he would get that title or some other, and I did not hear that phrase used at all. Did I miss it, or perhaps I should edit the article?--Keeves 11:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not based on the show but on expected practice. The article on First Lady of the United States is quite explicit that in the event of a female president one of two things would occur. Either a female relative of the President would be first lady or her husband would be first gentleman. It is quite clear that her husband is taking on the roles of first lady and would therefore be first gentleman. - Jord 14:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was confirmed in the newest episode as "First Gentleman." K1Bond007 02:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly misleading, I think. Warren Keaton should be referred to as a "former Army General," since the rank

The name of the show is not Commander-in-Chief but instead Commander in Chief. I can provide a screenshot if necessary. I will move the article sometime in the next 24 hours if there are no objections to the move. - Scm83x 10:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. I was wondering why the dashes were there in the first place. Sfufan2005 16:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Also, shouldn't it be Commander in Chief (television) ??? i don't like the {Tv Series) part....check if other series have it also..I don't think the West Wing article has it.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 18:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot of shows have the (TV series) (e.g. Lost, Rome) thing, but a lot don't like you've said The West Wing. I would have no problem with the (television) though. Sfufan2005 00:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Hope everyone's OK with it. Sfufan2005 00:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason for the sudden call for copy editing? The article seems find to me. I checked over any spelling errors and there seems to be none at this time. Sfufan2005 22:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the errors and am in the process of fixing them. Sfufan2005 23:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link to "Vince Taylor" is pretty obviously NOT the Vince Taylor from this show. The same goes for "Jim Gardner," who I don't think is an anchor on Philadelphia TV in his spare time. le 09:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take this for what it's worth, but as someone who has a BA in Political Science, the premise upon which the show is based seems somewhat unrealistic. We are expected to believe that a conservative Republican chose a registered Independent to be his running mate in a hotly contested election. That is something that just does not happen - it's difficult enough to get a political party to accept a running mate from another "wing" of the same party, let alone someone who is not a member of the party at all. Spotts1701 00:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well what about if Allen was a Republican but disagreed with some stuff and left the party? That's the case of Jeffords in the Senate right now. He is still rather conservative in some issues. I don't know, as a student of political sciences I find it more credible that in our present political reality that an independent is chosen for running-mate rather than a member of the opposition.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 14:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since

Teddy Bridges would later express such dissatisfaction with her, shouldn't the plot details of the pick be mentioned in the article? -Fsotrain09 06:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Mackenzie and Rod were Republicans; Rod may still be. Allen was approached by local Republican party leaders to run for Congress as an Independent (she thought they wanted Rod, which is how we know he was a Republican too). The reason is that a Republican from the far-right was going to inevitably win the nomination, but they didn't want him to win the seat. Mackenzie apparently never changed her affiliation back to Republican when she left Congress, nor when Bridges brought her on as his running mate; we don't know why. As for why Bridges did it, and how the party accepted it, remember that Bridges was a very popular VP; he had the Republican vote locked up. What he needed were swing voters. Mac's presence on the ticket attracted moderates and probably a few pro-woman Democrats who just wanted to see a woman elected. And really, that's all VPs are worth these days -- what extra constituencies can they bring to the ticket? Powers 13:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The description of its #1 status, or lack thereof, is particularly convoluted. I'd make an attempt, but my head hurts at the thought of unraveling that syntactic knot. Moncrief 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it at least be moved from the introdution? Not only is it a syntactic knot, but one displayed in the article's lead! -Fsotrain09 06:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence of a criticism, three sentences defending against the criticism - that's not balance. I'm going to add two more sentences on the critique side, pointing out that lead writer Steve Cohen served in President Clinton's press office and was Ms. Clinton's deputy director of communications. Also that two former Clinton White House staffers - national security advisor Sandy Berger and social secretary Capricia Marshall, are advisors for the show. Finally the right-wing charge is a political label that can be replaced with "conservative", and that correction doesn't add a new sentence keeping the balance at 3-3.

I agree about the lack of balance in the controversy section and it's important to try to keep this part neutral. Pointing out the political affiliations of the creators seems and the charges seems appropriate. Also some of the criticisms have come from the left-of-center New Republic that said that this was a thinly veiled campaign commercial for a “Hillary 08” campaign. My only other suggestion would be to provide links to back up the criticisms and defenses of the show as this section currently is unsourced. --Thorleywinston 17:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer a section called "Controversy", but the topic of controversy is discussed in and indeed dominates the "Reception" section. It is notable that this discussion centers around criticisms from the Cato Institute and other right wing shills. Also notable is the absence of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes ratings. Compare these features with the "Reception" section for "Madam Secretary", more or less a right wing counterpart to Commander in Chief. ---Dagme (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard from someone that

I appreciate User:Matty1019's exhaustive character list, but is it really necessary to list every single character who ever appeared on the show? Powers 15:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, there is no reason for having all the characters. Let's name only the main ones.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 19:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, the more the better. I often use Wikipedia to look up information on a television show if I start watching it in the middle of the series and find it invaluable to bring me up to speed. Also by listing additional characters, it provides a framework for someone to flesh out their descriptions and backgrounds should they become reoccurring or involved in some important part of the story.--Thorleywinston 17:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing also has 2 very long articles listing all of it's characters, so since CinC is a similar genre it deserves that article. 82.152.214.192 18:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im thinking of doing a sort of

Technically, you're correct, but the text as written is correct if one assumes that she would not run again after losing (former presidents rarely do so) and that she would not run for a term she could not Constitutionally serve (which would be silly). Powers 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You all are so pathetic. Your just ticked off because when "West Wing" went off the air you were relived because now you could go back to IGNORING the mess you have made in the real White House, without being reminded on national T.V.every week. The station has made a huge mistake and given in to the right wing neo-con whinning! Shame on them. I hope they rethink this decision and come to their senses. So grow up, we tolerate WAAAY more then you do. like O'rielly the liar, Raush the druggy, Hannity the nut. I guess they should be removed because they are GOP-ers. But then your party is very good at removing our constitusional rights, like freedom of speech! Grow up and stop your incessant whinning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.33.21 (talk • contribs) 22:12 15 June 2006 (UTC Haha, "whinning." This is a perfect example of that particular liberal's "intelligence." How does cancelling a show take away somebody's constitutional rights, BTW? Raush? O'rielly? lol. Pathetic!Politician818 04:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling of the word is "whining" which has one "n". Also, could you please stop phrasing your comments as attacks?

Wikipedia is not

a Repubs vs Democrats mudslinging zone. Please be civil to your fellow contributors, regardless of their political leanings.

Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks which can be found

talk) 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I watched the show and I just want to know why this ok show was canceled? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Alakey2010 (talk • contribs

) .

It was cancelled for a variety of reasons: (1) ABC put the show on a long hiatus in February which caused a ratings decline when it came back and (2) there were problems on the set, first with series creator Rod Lurie who was having trouble with deadlines then ABC hired a new showrunner Steven Bochco who took the show into a different direction and left the show after having a disagreement with ABC. By the time Bocho left, ABC had replaced the show with a third showrunner and although the show returned somewhat to form, ratings were down which brings us to now. Sfufan2005 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, ratings were down because ABC moved the timeslot from Tuesdays. =) Powers 19:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC just messed the show around too much. It had a great plot, great storyline and great cast. But ABC messed it up by changing producers, slot times etc. But according to ET a while back, Geena said if the CIC movie went well then ABC may consider more episodes.Samaster1991 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should include Sfufan2005's observations provided citations are included. The show started well (except that Allen won absolutely every fight and that her political rivals were two-dimensional caricatures). But the series degenerated into a family drama, leaving politics behind. The episode with one of the kids stealing a historical document at a teen party run amok at the White House was the last straw for me. The Brady Bunch movie at the White House was more credible. Ronstew (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The show was canceled because the ratings were low because you never new when it was on. I think that ABC changed the day or time, what, 5 times in one season, and it went into two hiatus's? That is completly rediculous. The 5th year of FRIENDS wouldn't have survived that kind of season. 74.4.143.185 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just a little late but what the hell....

When you see the wingtips of airforce one it clearly shows the 747-400 Winglets, however Airforce One is a 747-200B as I recall - and earlier in the prog with what I assume is stock footage it is minus it's winglets !!!

Maybe an errors section to the mainpage !!!

Excellent Series though —The preceding

Yesterday I removed an edit that added an episode "Little Shop of Horace" in the list of episodes, but perhaps I was too hasty in doing so. IMDb lists its original air date as 14 June 2006, the same date as "Unfinished Business". Does anyone have more information on this episode? Plot? --Bensin 01:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I axed the second half of the last paragraph and completely removed

Conservative pundits accused the writers of advancing the presidential bid of Senator Clinton and soon thereafter, the show's successful timeslot was changed and ratings deteriorated in a predictable manner. Disney-owned ABC wasn't taking any chances. An award winning and highly rated show was bulldozed out of existance due to its role as a credibility builder for Clinton.

as it seems to somehow imply a large-scale political conspiracy against the show. Maybe if someone can find proof that "conservative commentators" and Disney were attempting to sabotage Hillary's campaign through the cancellation of a low-interest show then it can go back... --JD79 13:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following sentences from the "Ratings" section: There were some factual inaccuracies evident in the pilot episode viz; i. The Nigerian woman allegedly convicted for adultery and sentenced to death by stoning by a sharia court is named Oria Madula.There is no Nigerian tribe that bears a name like that.Most likely, she would have had to be a muslim to be tried under sharia and muslims do not bear such names.

ii. The Nigerian Ambassador, upon being informed of the extraction plan at the meeting of the Joint Chiefs, stated that he would inform the Prime Minister.Nigeria operates a presidential system of Government and the head of Government is designated as president.

iii.At the extraction by the American forces, we are shown what is deignated as "Kirikiri prisons, Lagos".Sharia is practised only in some states in Northern Nigeria.Lagos, the commercial capital of Nigeria, does not practise sharia and is located in the south-west region of Nigeria.The real Kirikiri prisons in Lagos does not bear any resemblance to that depicted in the series.Similarly, the depiction of the prison as being manned by soldiers is inaccurate as Nigerian prisons even during the Military dispensations in the past are manned by prison wardens. End of deleted material.68.32.53.190 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

Please go to

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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair use rationale for Image:President-allen.jpg

fair use

.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Blame where it belongs

Why can't you spell out the obvious? -- the show was a hit under its original producer and went into a nosedive when the network removed the original creators of the show and replaced them with Bochco. Not only did Commander of Chief crash, but the amazing run of innovative and popular ABC programs (LOST, DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, GRAY'S ANATOMY, COMMANDER IN CHIEF) came to an end. The bean counters defeated the creatives and were left with no beans to count. Along with JOAN OF ARCADIA, cancelled one year earlier after a brilliant beginning, it's a textbook case of why a network should not interfere with its programs. CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in the DVD version

On the DVD, in the pilot, certain lines have been changed, for example the infamous "freedom is our gift to the world" part in Allen's inauguration speech was dubbed with "human rights is not just an issue for the free world, but [...] the responsibility of a free people". Should these changes be mentioned in the article? --

Imladros (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Original research

The section 'the Commander in Chief universe' of this article appears to be entirely

reliable sources can't be found, it should be removed. (The same goes for the 'Reception' section, which only has a single reference.) Robofish (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Paper sources from 2005

I added soem paper sources from 2005. I hope to get links for them, but I could not find them immediately. I got the sources from my own collection of ephemera. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that

List of Commander in Chief episodes be merged into Commander in Chief (TV series). I think that the content of both articles are short of enough that the content of List of Commander in Chief episodes can easily fit into Commander in Chief (TV series). The television series Commander in Chief has only eighteen episodes so it's unnecessary to have another article for the list of episodes. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose: the episodes page includes detailed synopses that would clutter up the main page unnecessarily, although I propose the episodes page could be redirected to a page simply titled Commander in Chief (season 1) --Unframboise (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to a single article as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVPLOT the episode summaries should only be 100-200 words and several of the episode summaries are longer than that. If the episode summaries were shortened than they wouldn't "clutter up the main page unnecessarily". No, the the page should not be moved to Commander in Chief (season 1) because it's not about season 1, just a list of episodes of the series. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose, as mentioned this is too detailed to merge, and, as hundreds of other episode pages, seems fine as an addition to the show collection. Randy Kryn 14:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Commander in Chief (TV series" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Commander in Chief (TV series and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Commander in Chief (TV series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]