Talk:Harry Reid/Archive 2

harry reid was an "amateur boxer"
the sources used on this subject are always repeating hearsay in other stories which are no more verifiable than someone who just used a Wikipedia article as a primary source of support on another website. I KNOW reid himself claims he was an amateur boxer, and his friend (another politician who endorsed him) says he was reid's boxing coach, but whether someone ever competed as an amateur boxer is verifiable. results of amateur boxing tournaments are published in newspapers, ESPECIALLY the results of big tournaments like golden gloves, etc. either he competed as an amateur boxer or he didn't, and I wouldn't call someone who hit a heavy bag occasionally an amateur boxer, the way you would call someone an amateur chef who cooks just for themselves or fun. an amateur boxer is someone who competes at the amateur level as opposed to paid professional boxing. we can go back and pull microfiche or digital online versions of old Nevada newspapers and we can get the results of every amateur boxing tournament. harry reid was NOT an amateur boxer. he never boxed ANYONE. he has never been in any kind of verifiable fight in his life, in or out of a ring. citing articles that are simply repeating the man's own lies as primary sources is NOT up to Wikipedia ("prove it" page) standards. you don't just use someone's own claims about themselves, especially a politician, or those claims about themselves being generously repeated in other publications that are not even pretending to check the facts, as citations for a fact as to whether someone competed as an amateur boxer. if a primary source can be cited that lists a specific tournament or competition boxing result, then cite it. otherwise, state that it is a claim of reid's, often repeated by his supporters without verifying it, that he was an amateur boxer, but can not be verified despite thousands of primary sources that list Nevada boxing results in that era (1950's) that never mention him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.204.251 (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Opening Introduction Needs Edit Asap
Opening introduction of Harry Reid is in need of an immediate edit.

At the end of the third paragraph, is the phrase 'Lies to Americans'...isn't Wikipedia supposed to be non-partisan?!?!24.59.16.113 (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight on the "Criticisms" section
The Criticisms section is awfully large compared to the other sections, so I have placed an undue weight tag there. Are there any suggestions on what should be done to fix this? Potential remedies would be to condense the section (although that wouldn't be done easily without removing some of the criticisms) or starting a new "Criticisms of Harry Reid" article, although I am hesitant to advocate for that, as I don't think I've ever seen that done before, and it seems that it would invite NPOV issues. I have to admit, I tend to not do as much editing with biographical articles as I do science articles, so I'm not sure what the best course of action is here. I'm hoping that this tag and discussion can help stir up some discussion from those who edit biographical articles a bit more. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just remove the criticism section. Illegal Operation (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, there was a Criticisms of Harry Reid article, which got deleted on the third try. I'm pretty much with Illegal Operation on this one. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename the section if you want, but the salient, pertinent info in it must stay. Wikipedia is not an arm of the DNC. Quis separabit?  23:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is a highly partisan, factually-suspect website a good duplicate source for information?
This revert frpm is saying I should take this to talk, so I am. What is the defense for using this when we have a good source in place for the claim already? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't have to if the link is not a RS, although what is "partisan" can be quite subjective. You should in general explain in either the edit summary or the talk page what's going on. If a non-RS link secondary to a valid RS link needs removing per BLP, fine; but then those of us who have the Reid page on our watchlists will not have to react and check it out. Yours, Quis separabit?  18:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for self-reverting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Senate Minority Leader
Let's wait until atleast the Senate Democratic caucaus nominates him for Minority Leader, before including it in the infobox. Remember, the US Senate of the 114th Congress will elect the Majority & Minority leaders. This won't happen 'til January 2015. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Senate Democrats might even give the job to another Senator. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Administrator Action
If an administrator is watching this page, could they please take action about the edit-warring to change Senator Reid's job title? A report has been filed at WP:ANEW. The same edit-warring is happening at Mitch McConnell.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014
Harry Reid is now the Minority Leader of the United States Senate, his title should be changed to reflect this.

88.106.255.222 (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: He is not yet Minority Leader. Stickee (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

He may not be Minority Leader yet, but he is definitely the Minority Leader Designate as the Democratic Caucus has elected him as Democratic Leader, and it is obvious that he will not serve as Majority Leader in the next Congress. No mention of the election at all? Is this really a debate about this article or does this Moderator have a political purpose in refusing to allow the article to be changed? 2601:6:1D80:1273:C518:5E95:6AD2:B36A (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Harry Reid is the still the majority leader, will continue functioning as such during the "lame duck" session, and will be until the next Congress is sworn in and the official leadership votes are taken. Stating current facts indicates no "political agenda". Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Which is the higher elected office? Reply
The article states that, as Senate Majority Leader, Reid is the highest elected LDS official to date. Orrin Hatch, another Latter-day Saint, was just made President pro tempore of the United States Senate. Which is the higher elected office? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to go all Bill Clinton on you, but it sort of depends on what the meaning of the word "highest" is. President Pro Tem is third in the line of succession to the presidency and higher than any other Senator in social/diplomatic order of precedence. OTOH, in terms of real day-to-day leadership clout, Majority Leader wins hands down. If we could find an appropriate source, I'd change Reid's description to "most powerful" and say Hatch was the highest. 2600:1006:B121:4AF6:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture and Succession
0bviously I made a mistake in my edit of Harry Reid and made the official photo disappear. Please help clean up this error on my part.--24.186.96.236 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Reid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140614213745/http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/congressional-scorecard/ to http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections-politics/congressional-scorecard/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Reid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316051233/http://reid.senate.gov/about/index.cfm to http://reid.senate.gov/about/index.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220122027/http://reid.senate.gov/issues/immigration.cfm to http://reid.senate.gov/issues/immigration.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316051233/http://reid.senate.gov/about/index.cfm to http://reid.senate.gov/about/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Pancreatic Cancer
I started a section about his pancreatic cancer but at the same time someone else added it to his injury section. I'll leave it to others to decide how to proceed. P37307 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed reference to wife's cancer
I deleted the mention of his wife's breast cancer, as it's been almost a decade since. The sentence also seemed out of place in that section.11 Arlington (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

choice of language
I noticed the term 'committed suicide'. Many in the mental health and suicidology community see this term as harmful. Is there any reason this criminalizing term hasn't been replaced in WP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.143.77 (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point ... I changed it after checking that the dictionary says that "committed" implies a wrongful act. -- Jibal (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)