Talk:Vincent Leibell

Weasel Words
I think this article is very poorly written. The first example is:

''In 2002, Senator Leibell voted against the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA), which prohibited discrimination due to sexual orientation in employment and education. Despite Senator Leibell's vote, SONDA passed the Senate on a 34-26 vote and became law in New York. ''

Is the phrase "Despite Senator Leibell's vote really necessary? Also, the reference for this statement comes from an advocacy website called "prideagenda.org" which would obviously have an agenda and does not meet several Wiki criteria. Furthermore, if 26 Senators voted against this bill, I'm sure there is more to it then the phrase would have us believe.

MrPrada 17:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Vincent L. Leibell was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Copies and Paste
Much of the article seems copied and pasted from his official Senate biography.

I added a couple of new sections based on recent articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronxpolwatcher (talk • contribs) 00:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing references
The recently added sections were removed, based on the lack of neutrality in the way they were written and the speculation and ongoing events they were based on. --Kbun (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove references without seeking consensus here first. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Leibell has announced his retirement from the Senate and is running for Putnam County Executive. How are these facts "speculation" and reflect a lack of neutrality? 2) He is being investigated by the FBI. I added his denial of wrong-doing. For Sen. Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat, I added a section that he is also being investigated by the FBI. I think I have shown myself to be even-handed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Kruger#Federal_Corruption_Investigation

Instead of removing the sections, you could have rewritten them or added other links to articles.Bronxpolwatcher (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was only here to remove the miscommunication...which apparently isn't, it's just a clear attempt to disseminate non-factual information. The sections were far too skewed (and still are) to correctly fix without starting from scratch. And how about asking for a consensus before putting clearly skewed nonsense up? It still is... "Facing an unexpected challenge"...neither article referenced states that as the reason why he had chosen not to run for senate again. It should be removed or entirely reworded. It's not a political issue- it's a factual one. Referencing that you added a similar section on the page of another political figure doesn't justify the mistake. Comment added by Kbun

1) Is the FBI investigating Leibell? Yes or no? Was a source provided? Was his denial of wrongdoing included? I fail to see your reasons for completely deleting this section. You have failed to explain why it's a "mistake" or "miscommunication."

2) Ball was planning to run against Congressman Hall and then decided to challenge Leibell, who then opted not to run for re-election. How often did he get challenged in a primary? You could have deleted those words instead of deleting the whole thing. Is he no longer running for the Senate? Is he now running for Putnam County Exec? Aren't these facts?Bronxpolwatcher (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)