Talk:Patrick Leahy/Archive 1

Frank exchange of view
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?
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
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
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
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
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 (talk • contribs).

First Democrat
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
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
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 (talk • contribs) 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.
 * 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
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?
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 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation
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)
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? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

email spoof
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
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
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
According to what has been reported 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

President pro tempore
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
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
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
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)

Adding a filmography section
Should we add a filmography section? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Patrick Leahy. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100707020520/http://www.pogo.org/honorees/good-government-award/ to http://www.pogo.org/honorees/good-government-award/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED Kostas20142 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) Patrick Leahy → Patrick Leahy (US Senator) -
 * Revert of queried requested move. And then Patrick Leahy (disambiguation) to Patrick Leahy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does this man get to have the name "Patrick Leahy" with no disambiguation? Who died and left him the heir to the primary topic? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a great way to start a discussion, . Is this a move proposal or general discussion? Sending WP:APPNOTE to and  who are the only other people who have been involved in looking at this issue recently. If you think this Leahy is not the primary topic, please put your reasons why; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has info which could help you formulate your argument. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The other 8 Patrick Leahy's are listed in Patrick Leahy (disambiguation). The question is: "Is the Vermont senator a dominant meaning?" Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , Why such a leading question? He's a man, just a man. It's not like Paris France which has a dominant meaning over Paris Texas. Let him get in line like all the other Patrick Leahys. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. Among people known primarily as Patrick Leahy, the senator appears to be the primary topic. We can hatnote if necessary.  ONR  (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Perhaps proposers are not aware of the role primary topic plays in deciding titles on WP, including in titles of articles about men?  --В²C ☎ 23:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When comparing pageviews for all the Patrick Leahys, the senator gets by far the most. Even if you add in all the people whose articles are at the diminutive "Pat Leahy", the senator is still on top, with 98% of pageviews. As a US Senator for 40+ years and former president pro tempore, I don't think it can be argued that he doesn't meet criteria 2 either. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Page views should be of small importance, but there are plenty of reasons to support PrimaryTopic for this person.  At the top are (1) he is a current internationally significant politician, and no other is comparable. (2) The page has been at this title since 2003.    The only good justification to overcome these things would be if quality sources introduced him differently or with prominent disambiguation.  I find that quality sources introduce him along the lines of a person who needs no introduction,  at least beyond his honorific "Senator".  I lean in favour of disambiguating all biographies, but this is not the page to start.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose no case to answer. Also, Batman and Robin. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Primary topic is irrelevant to the question. The guidance clearly states, "Among several other proposed criteria that have never won acceptance as a general rule, we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic: ...Principal relevance only to certain people or groups" (bold mine for emphasis). Since primary is the only criterion cited by the "oppose" voters, IMHO they should be disregarded as being in violation of policy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that to our attention, . I'm not sure what that guidance means, but it can't possibly mean what you're interpreting it to mean, because that would run counter to countless articles about people with ambiguous names who are recognized as being the primary topic and are at the base name, the latest example I know of being Kim Davis, which was just recently undisambiguated. --В²C ☎ 15:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went back through the archives at WT:D and found this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_46. What they're saying is if a topic (not necessarily about a person) only has principal relevance to certain people (as opposed to all people in general), then we would not consider that to indicate that the topic is primary topic. Anyway, it does not mean a person or this particular person cannot be a primary topic. --В²C ☎ 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , now that the meaning of that part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been clarified, do you wish to amend your !vote and/or comment? --В²C ☎ 21:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an outrageous attempt to move the goal posts mid game. The guidance has not been revoked. The "interpretation" linked above has no force. The case is as stated above in plain language: natural persons are not covered by Primary. Disambiguation is desirable and necessary in this case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Natural persons are not covered by Primary.". Do you expect us to just take your word for that? Because it's contrary to the evidence (countless natural persons are primary topics) and to how everyone else understands those same words. --В²C ☎ 15:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't take my word for. When the policy is reversed per your desire, then I'll change my vote. Until then, the clear, literal policy remains in force. Not up to you or to me to change it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No change is necessary (though it is helpful for clarity). "Principal relevance only to certain people or groups" literally means when the "Principal relevance [is] only to certain people or groups" then primary relevance of the topic in question is not established. It has no more to do with articles about people than any other articles. --В²C ☎ 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I see no reason to move this page. I also see no evidence that the above oppose !votes are in any way in violation of policy. Lepricavark (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, clearly the primary topic. Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 20:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the move. The US Senator is unquestionably the primary topic by any of the logical metrics, and the arguments based on narrow interpretation of suggestions at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are unpersuasive. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are only three other men named "Patrick Leahy". All or a majority of their activity was more than a hundred years ago and their brief entries are barely above stubs. There are also five men named Pat Leahy whose entries are also either stubs or short articles. As a comparison, a retired political figure, Bob Brown, known only in his native Australia, has for a number of years been the primary topic over 21 men, all of whom are also named "Bob Brown". &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Personal Life
I will remove the sentence about Leahy going to the hospital during the Thomas hearings. If it was last year it would be relevant, but twenty nine years later makes it trivial.Argentine84 (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

President pro temp, again
FWIW, Leahy doesn't become president pro temp of the US Senate, until he's elected as such, by the Senate. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Term of emeritus
Please change the year from 2020 to 2021, this is an error for the end of term as president pro temp emeritus Bigfoot7822 (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently, somebody deleted the honorary title from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021
He is the appropriations committee chairman, not ranking member 73.36.19.33 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing title
Someone please add the President pro tempore emeritus of the United States Senate other former presidents of the senate have it someone has deleted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs) 03:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

IMDB
It's minutia so I'm not adding it to the article, but the Internet Movie Database page for Leahy is. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  00:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Senator Leahy is not Vermont's only Democratic Senator, as Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat. TXthm (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
TXthm (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Bernie is indep but caucus with the Dems. Im The IP  (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Senate seniority
The current article states: "Should he complete his current term of office, he would surpass Robert Byrd as the longest-serving U.S. senator in history."

Sen. Leahy is next up for re-election in 2022. He has currently served 46-plus years (starting in 1975). If he runs and is re-elected, he would pass Byrd in 2026.

Pressman (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

New lead image
Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from a decade ago should be replaced with recent images. Here's some potential replacements and let's vote as to whether we should change the image. I personally prefer C. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Acting career
Mr. Leahy has performed above and beyond cameos. He has played fictional characters as well. I think it is unfair to say he is not an actor. -Splinemath (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Leahy has seven IMDb acting credits, all for cameos, including one for a scene which didn't even make the final cut. He's not an actor anymore than me running two miles for an Army Physical Fitness Test makes me a marathoner, or a fan attending a fantasy camp is a professional baseball player.


 * Billmckern (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * He played a territorial governor, a Wayne Industries board member, and Senator Purrington. Simply repeating that he only does cameos doesn't make it the truth.-Splinemath (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He's a politician who has made a few cameos, and made the Batman cameos because of how big a fan he has been noted to be. The question to ask is: if you take away what makes Leahy notable (US Senate career) and judge him based only on his acting roles, would he be notable? The answer is no. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thank you for your input.-Splinemath (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"The Batman"
does anyone know if he has a cameo in the new movie "The Batman"? --Qwertzu111111 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)