Talk:Patrick Leahy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) person(s).
WikiProject United States / Vermont (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont.
 

Frank exchange of view[edit]

I just had to put in the info about the "frank exchange of views" that Cheney and Leahy had on June 22, 2004.

JesseG 01:49, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Censoring?[edit]

Should we censor Mr. Cheney's words?

The Washington Post didn't do it.

We're adults here, we can take it. Besides, is there one among us who has'nt fucked, being fucked over, or being told to fuck off at some point or other?

Great idea to use exact words! This will put the Patrick Leahy article off limits for children of parents with filters. And maybe the entire Wikipedia website. And it makes it very explicit for people who don't know what the less explicity f--- means. The people who were born yesterday, for example. Student7 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
For those of you who think this only cuts one way, and who have a strong stomach, try Evaluation of quotes. This is a review by a left-wing group of a right wing (and often wrong) set of alleged quotes, not of Leahy, but of another Democrat. It is essentially a smear, but I have a feeling there is a grain of truth somewhere. You won't see it in wikipedia, but it's a {bad} example of what can happen if we keep it up. Student7 12:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The broken window[edit]

There is a theory of the broken window. It says in short, if the neighborhood is allowed to run down, things will only get worse. So graffiti should be painted over; broken windows should be mended.

To me, profane language is a potential "broken window" for Wikipedia, our neighborhood. If the language of our encyclopedia deteriorates to street language, what future can we have? We are all familiar with vandalism by (mostly) teen-aged boys and young drunken men, using foul language. What sort of an example do we set for allowing it here where explicitness is unessential to the biography?

One editor claims that it is "essential" and "standard" to quote foul language and not to "censor" quotes. (One of the greatest oxymorons is "Wikipedia standards" - think of the Wikipedia "standards" for vandalism).

A paraphrase of a quote from Oscar Wilde comes to mind, "The man who feels he must call a spade a spade, is fit only to use one."Student7 15:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for minors. There are articles on shit and fuck; there is no reason not to include them in quotes.
To your "broken window" point, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not up to us to repair or maintain the level of debate in American society: that is the job of the politicians themselves, and their electorate. If anyone is to blame for deteroriating the level of debate, it is Cheney. --Saforrest 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous Political Experience[edit]

Whoever had written this was mistaken about Leahy not serving elected office prior to being elected to the Senate. I corrected it.

kick ass quote[edit]

Leahy: Of course-I'm sorry Mr. Attorney General- I forgot you can't answer any questions that might be relevant to this.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/09.html#a7085

Hah, that clip appearing on The Daily Show is what encouraged me to Wikisearch Leahy to find out who exactly he was. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 07:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)(A Canadian)

Middle FInger from the Cheney[edit]

I don't believe that Cheney gave they middle finger. Does anyone have proof? - Behun

  • I will be removing that part until there is proof otherwise. - Behun 04:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This old gas bag is good to the old gas bag voter in VT. He's nothing but blow hard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.247.208 (talkcontribs).

First Democrat[edit]

I apologize for attempting to raise the level of debate, but would like to point out that Vermont may have voted "Jeffersonian" prior to 1820. While it is hard to keep up with parties affiliations and beliefs prior to the Civil War, both parties having exchanged views and values periodically, it would appear that Leahy is, strictly speaking, not the first Democratic US Senator. There would have been several before 1820. Maybe we should drop vague terms like "before the Civil War," and specify dates.
But only if the adolescents out there are finished having fun with four letter words on bathroom walls. I wouldn't want to interrupt their pleasure for mere intellectural pursuits.Student7 11:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent move[edit]

Looks like someone was moving disambiguation pages en masse and did a not-so-good job moving this one. All the original links to Patrick Leahy lead to the disambig. page. I'm being bold moving the pages back to where they were (to the best of my knowledge) so at least most of the links can be correct.

Mr. Matté 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

I'm curious why the controversy section I inserted was removed. I have added it again and would appreciate at the very least an explanation in the discussion page as to why this section is objectionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplmac (talkcontribs) 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


I see it has been removed again. Would whoever keeps removing the CONTROVERSY section have the decency to leave an explanation. Cplmac (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is negative, unsourced, and contentious... it can be removed due to the biography of living persons policy. sourcing is required. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reinserted the sentence regarding his position on the leaking of classified information. It is unambiguous, accurate, and sourced. This has been stripped down to the most basic of fact and at this point it's removal would merely be an attempt to erase this part of his record. Cplmac (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The current negative material are not from WP:RS. Accusing him of causing the death of someone from poor sources should be acceptable. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed this sentence from the article:
There is a possibility that a leak of his led to the death of a covert agent in Egypt.[1]
Can we have some context to this one-line zinger? I don't have the cited book, but there just has to be more information on this somewhere if it is true. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
All the context is provided in the source. CENSEI (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that all of the context is available in your source; that should make this easy. Let's please get that context into the article so it accompanies that sentence implying Leahy killed someone. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to look at it yourself. CENSEI (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't need to -- I trust you. Is there some problem you are having with adding context to the article along with that one sentence? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Cameo[edit]

I believe I saw him in "His Story III" on Scrubs. Does anyone have any information on that? --76.4.255.172 (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Death Tax?[edit]

Death tax is not what the Estate Tax is officially called. That's the Republican name for it. As such it seems inappropriate in a neutral article.

"On taxation, Leahy has consistnatly supported instituting progressive rates. He has rejected proposals to remove the Death Tax and Alternative Mimimum Tax, and he has spoken out strongly against cutting taxes for the wealthy. Leahy has strongly supported the rights of employees, and has voted to increase the mimimum wage and allow for more union organization. He has voted against the most controversial of free trade proposals, such as CAFTA and NAFTA, but supported normalizing trade relations with China [5]." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Welsh (talkcontribs) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation[edit]

I would appreciate it if the pronounciation of Leahy's last name were added to the lede. Lee-high or Lee-hee? --KarlFrei (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more like LAY-hee, although I don't have a source for that or know how to render it in the phoenetic alphabet. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Content additions not supported by the source(s)[edit]

This paragraph has been removed because it is not supported by the source:

In 1985 Leahy threatened to leak secret information about a covert operation to topple Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi because of what he said was the Reagan administrations’ reluctance to be more open with congress. When the details of the operation later appeared in the Washington Post, the mission was aborted, with Reagan administration officials believing that Leahy and his staff leaked the material.
Cited to: U.S. Orders Probe of Libya Disclosure. United Press International. Nov 4, 1985

The UPI article does not mention any threats made by Leahy. It does not make any mention of what officials believe. It mentions Leahy only once, and that is to say the 2 vice-chairs, Durenberger & Leahy previously "wrote to Reagan asking how the plan would not conflict with a longstanding prohibition against U.S. involvement in assassination plots."

Also changed wording from "provided" to "showed" based on the source. Can we please use a little more caution when adding such information to BLPs in the future? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a link to the UPI article? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

email spoof[edit]

Info about the spoofed email announcing his death is here. http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1996599 4.249.63.146 (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lock Requested[edit]

I have a feeling that many people from the internet community will want to vandalize this page. We should have a lock on it until this SOPA/NDAA s***storm passes.

Contributions/Fundraising[edit]

When the storm is passed I would suggest adding some information from here http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=n00009918&newMem=N&cycle=2012 (or from the source you like) about from who Patrick is getting money.Ipvariabile (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a small paragraph about the abovementioned fundraising. --Ipvariabile (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ipvariabile. I've removed that small paragraph, after reviewing the one primary source you cited. According to that source, the top contributors were individuals. Also, the top contributor was TechNet. May I ask what "storm" you referred to above? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Xenophrenic, please have a better look at the source. The so called "individuals" are not people but firms/lobbies. In fact if you classify them by industry (please see the table "Top 5 Industries") you will realize who's is financing Patrick. Ipvariabile (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The storm? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm still trying to get a handle on what it is you are trying to convey to the reader by reproducing just a small subset of numbers, instead of all relevant information, in this article. I've read the primary source again (you really should try to locate a reliable secondary source to cite, by the way), and the selective portion you've chosen does not accurately indicate "who's is financing Patrick". In fact, the 3 "industries" you cited didn't even add up to half of the contributions received by Leahy, so you appear to be in error. I also note that on the "industries" page (click the link), it notes that Leahy is "Not a favorite of any industry for this cycle." So, could you elaborate, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I cannot get you: first you complain that top contributors were individuals without realizing that you cited a company [www.technet.org TechNet] mentioned (as industry) in the list I did. Then I have specified that the list was by industry but you complain that 3 industries are not enough. To make you happy I have added to the list 7 additional industries (so you get there the top 10 industries). Could you please explain clearly what are you looking for? Thanks, Ipvariabile (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am looking for answers to my above questions. Here, I'll repeat them for you:
1) May I ask what "storm" you referred to above?
2) What is it you are trying to convey to the reader?
That would be a good starting point. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Your questions were out of scope but anyway please find below the replies
1) The storm was referring to the fact the article was blocked because of some edits I suppose.
2) Nothing. I would like to show were the money comes from.
Now I am looking for answer to my above question. Here, I'll repeat it for you:
I cannot get you: first you complain that top contributors were individuals without realizing that you cited a company [www.technet.org TechNet] mentioned (as industry) in the list I did. Then I have specified that the list was by industry but you complain that 3 industries are not enough. To make you happy I have added to the list 7 additional industries (so you get there the top 10 industries). Could you please explain clearly what are you looking for? Thanks, Ipvariabile (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
My questions were about your above comments (scope?). As for your desire to "show where the money comes from", I looked at your edit and saw where only a portion of his campaign funding came from; not an encyclopedic description. I also noted that your edit covered only a selected recent 4-year span, not campaign funding sources for his many decades of public service. That, in itself, would be inappropriate. I also see that you are still citing a WP:PRIMARY source, instead of a preferred WP:SECONDARY source, which might indicate what significance or relevance this information might have to this BLP. I, frankly, don't see it. (The only related news coverage I could find were stories like this.) To me, the information appears about as significant as mentioning that he put shoes on before he leaves the house. Finally, in an attempt to better understand what it is you are hoping to convey, I've checked a number of random Senator wikipedia articles -- I don't see where similar information is presented in those articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot get you. Please see below the paragraph you have removed. I have tried to change in the way you could be fine with it but you are not. Please edit the paragraph as you like. Thank you Ipvariabile (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fundraising[edit]

According to what has been reported[2] the top 10 contributors by industry to Patrick Leahy (Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC) between 2007 and 2012 were:

  • Lawyers/Law Firms $816,213
  • TV/Movies/Music $503,656
  • Lobbyists $448,500
  • Computers/Internet $347,861
  • Leadership PACs $212,900
  • Securities & Investment $191,350
  • Beer, Wine & Liquor $132,000
  • Public Sector Unions $119,750
  • Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $91,250
  • Real Estate $89,050

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Joseph Persico. Casey: The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey: from the OSS to the CIA. Viking Press. 1990. pg 401-403
  2. ^ http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=n00009918&newMem=N&cycle=2012

President pro tempore[edit]

Shouldn't we wait until Leahy is sworn in as the new Prez pro temp? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing to this article now. - Thanks, Hoshie 00:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a voted position and the US Senate hasn't acted on it yet. 71.90.216.187 (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Senate approved a resolution by unanimous consent earlier today. There is no oath requirement in the Senate rules. Taking the oath is just a formality; he's already PPT. Mgruhn (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the Congressional Record for 17 December 2012, clearly showing Leahy's election as Pro Tempore. Congressional Record--Revmqo (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Leahy was sworn in as President pro tem, on December 18. Perhaps we should correct the date on this & related articles to December 18, 2012? GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the real question is whether or not he would have taken office if the Presidential Succession Act had need to be implemented, in other words was he eligible for the office of President on the evening of the 17th, after the Senate elected him but before his swearing in? I don't think there's a real clear answer in any of the sources. One can argue either way. I have no problem changing it to the 18th since the Senate site lists this date, but I tend to believe that the 17th is more appropriate.--Revmqo (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There's quite an interesting paradox, concerning how the House Speaker or Senate President pro temp (if required) would assume the US Presidential powers & duties. But, that's for another debate :) GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the argument that the Constitution requires one to be an "Officer" of the federal government to assume the role of President. Since only the Executive and Judicial branches have "Officers" of the government, there seems to be a legitimate argument that a Senator or Representative could not assume the office through this provision. Since it's never happened, no court has ever ruled. It really should be settled before the need ever arises. (Which I hope never happens!) Revmqo (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
GoodDay, there is no apparent legal requirement that the PPT take any oath whatsoever. Even if there were, with limited specified circumstances (senators elected to fill vacancies before a session of the Senate has adjourned sine die), taking an oath is required before "entering into the execution" of an office, not before holding the office itself. An example is Zachary Taylor, who became President of the United States on March 4, 1849, but did not take the oath until the following day. -Rrius (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Okie Doke. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think I have a definitive answer. Rule 1 of the Standing Rules of the Senate states "In the absence of the Vice President, the Senate shall choose a President pro tempore, who shall hold the office and execute the duties thereof during the pleasure of the Senate and until another is elected or his term of office as a Senator expires. Senate Rule 1" The phrase "until another is elected..." seems to settle the issue, since it says nothing about swearing in. And for the record, the standing rules only refer to swearing in Senator-designates who have yet to enter the office of Senator. Revmqo (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the Senate site's list shows the 18th. I flagged up the issue for them, ad they've responded that they are changing it to the 17th. -Rrius (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Secret Service[edit]

Does Patrick Leahy as President pro tempore recieve a Secret Service protection team, or is his personal protection the concern of the Capitol Police? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Crypto wars[edit]

Senator Leahy was one of the main politicians involved in promoting geek-friendly (pro-privacy, pro-cryptography) legislation in the Crypto Wars in the late 1990s, but there's almost no mention in the article, aside from winning's EPIC's Champion of Freedom Award and a {{cn}} call next to a description of him as "one of the leading privacy advocates in Congress".

Whilst he seems to be more comfortable with surveillance and wiretapping now than he was 15 years ago and he introduced PIPA (the other SOPA), his work in this area then was definitely notable. Is anyone able to expand upon this part of his biography? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A good starting point seems to be GovTrack: 1999–2000, 1997–98, 1995–96, if that helps — the Encrypted Communications Privacy Act, the Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act, the Electronic Rights for the 21st Century Act, the Internet Security Act of 2000, the Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act. EPIC and the EFF are gonna be good places to look, too.
I'll try to spend some time over the weekend, if I can. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

F-35 Fudge[edit]

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130415/NEWS03/304150017/Leahy-s-role-questioned-bringing-F-35-Burlington

Passes the BLP sniff test? Hcobb (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)