Talk:Leo McGarry

message: BCV, I can't seem to understand why the spoiler template should have two empty lines above and under it instead of just one. If extra spacing is wanted, shouldn't it be changed in the template instead? -Fred Bradstadt 12:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:You are right, I needed to find a new template and picture code.  I think it is fixed now. BCV 16:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One or two empty lines above and under spoiler template 

message: How is there any question on where Leo is from? The only statement about Leo being from Boston was "You're Boston Irish-Catholic, Leo..." by Josh when Leo's pill addiction was revealed, but the "We're both men of Chicago" statement is a much clearer statement on where he's from. Boston Irish-Catholic could just mean his family was Boston Irish-Catholic, he couldn't be a 'man of Chicago' if he wasn't born there. Staxringold 13:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is an old debate, but I think we could infer that his family might have moved from Boston before Leo was born, which would prompt Josh's comment about his Bostonian roots?  It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that Leo's mom and dad moved from Boston to Chicago, as a lot did, joining the Irish community in Chicago. --NCC-1701 (USS Enterprise) 11:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me to be a debate that A) Leans towards original research, since it's not explicitly stated anywhere, and B) Leans towards an in-universe perspective on the character instead of an encyclopedic one. Phil Sandifer 14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hometown 

message: I'd like to change to pastense, it's extremely unlikely that NBC/Warner Bros. would try to swap another actor in the same role. Any objections to pastense?  -66.191.144.82 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's unlikely that another actor would be put in the role, the character hasn't died yet - it's in limbo. Once the episode of his death screens, then the pronouns should be changed. Ambi 07:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, unhappily.Jm307 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted these changes because of literary present tense.  Fictional works are always discussed in the present tense, even if the character dies. — Scm83x hook 'em 01:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding John Spencer's Death

message: I went ahead and changed the location of his funeral to the Cathedral of Mary our Queen in Baltimore, where the scene was filmed. As far as I know, there was no effort to pass it off as the National Cathedral -- it's clearly a different venue than in 2x22 ("Two Cathedrals.")
Incidentally, they filmed a scene at CMQ for 7x20 ("The Last Hurrah.") The private school that Santos and his wife are seen walking away from is the cathedral's primary school.--68.55.31.179 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo's Funeral Wasn't at National Cathedral 

message: I question the value of the spoiler tag, which I for now have removed. If you're going to mention his changing jobs, and running for VP, and his death upon being elected, all in the intro paragraph, a spoiler warning after that is somewhat pointless. The only way to rectify this is to spoiler the entire article, or only mention that he begins the series as Chief of Staff in the intro, and explain his changes of position under the spoiler tag. TheHYPO 07:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have adjusted the article accordingly. --Hnsampat 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Spoilers are not a good reason to re-order an article. One of the most significant things about the character is the way his death fundamentally reshaped the end of the series. This information belongs in the lead. Spoiler warnings are nice, but spoiler concerns cannot be allowed to cause us to rearrange information unsatisfyingly or counter-intuitively. Phil Sandifer 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If I recall correctly, interviews suggest that prior to Leo's death they were leaning towards a Vinick victory. And the final episodes refocused it so that the show was very, very much about Leo's legacy - the memorial service and the "Bartlet for America" napkin. And the lead should serve as a one-paragraph intro to the major stuff you need to know. Any lead for the article should end with something like "John Spencer's unexpected death in early 2006 led to the character having to be written out of the show and to the final episodes having to be rewritten heavily," as this is some of the most important out-of-universe information regarding the character. Phil Sandifer 02:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article.  If, as you say, it is a significant event, it belongs in the intro.  Morwen - Talk 13:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tag? 

message: At the end of the show, we know that Santos is planning on nominating Eric Baker as his VP. However, we do not actually see Baker get confirmed, so we don't know if he actually ever becomes VP. Likewise, we don't know that Baker is then nominated as the Democratic nominee for VP in the next election. Assuming that Baker did become Santos' VP, it could happen that Santos decides not to have Baker on the ticket with him when he runs for re-election. Therefore, it is improper to list Eric Baker as the next Democratic VP nominee. --Hnsampat 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Baker 

message: I added a reference to Leo's rank, which is the only time it's mentioned in the series.  In the episode "Process Stories", Leo and Jordon are dancing, all the while flirting with each other.  During this time, Jordon says "Colonel", referring to a colonel standing at the door behind Leo -- which he doesn't see -- and Leo says "yes ma'am", which implies that his rank was also Colonel.  If I got the reference format wrong, feel free to correct it :) -- 64.164.69.221 09:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehhhh, I think that's fairly debatable as a reference.  In the context of the scene it's very likely that Leo simply assumed Jordan was still flirting with him and was flirting back.  Unless anybody knows of some more solid evidence, I think it's fair to remove this reference. Shoemoney2night (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Which episode? --Hnsampat (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo's USAF Rank 

message: I have removed "Vice President-elect" from Leo's list of job titles. The reason for this is that he died several hours before being elected Vice President. Hence, Leo never was Vice President-elect, just as he never went on to become Vice President, either. At the time he died, he was nothing more than the Vice Presidential candidate. --Hnsampat 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RNC in conference with/approval of Santos, would've chosen Santos' new running-mate. That 'new vice presidential candidate' would've received the vice presidential electoral votes in December 2006, and thus become vp-elect. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe this to be incorrect.  Santos had the opportunity to hastily name another running mate before the election polls were closed and did not as he stated..... "Leo was on the ticket, if I win he wins".  Therefore Leo McGarry's name remained on the ticket til thee election concluded.  Even as the show progressed the Vice President position was OFFERED to Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) but he ultimately never accepted the role and instead assumedly accepted the role of Secretary of State.  No one ever officially replaced Leo McGarry and Santos never named a V.P even after Santos was sworn in which ultimately means the ticket of Santos/McGarry won thee election and would therefore mean McGarry would have to be the Vice President-elect albeit post mortem.  Senator Baker's name was mentioned multiple times but there was never any action taken on that before the conclusion of the show.  So I submit to you that Leo McGarry would remain in place until such replacement is named AND confirmed by Congress!! BigMacOle1 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vice President-elect 

message: In the episode "Requiem", set just after the presidential election in 2006, Vice President Russell comments that Leo was 58 at his death. This places his birthdate in either 1948 or very late in 1947. This should, in my view, be included in the article, if only because it's one of the few times a leading character's age is mentioned on the show (the other is Toby, who is canonically established as born in 1954). Cprhodesact 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: But technically, Leo wasn't divorced until the second season.  He and his wife were separated as of season one's Five Votes Down, but the divorce papers weren't finalised until The Portland Trip.  Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe I'm splitting hairs here... 

message: :Image:Leomcgarryfuneral.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Leomcgarryfuneral.jpg

message: In the season 2 episode 3 pre-title sequence, CJ calls McGarry "Leopold" so I'm guessing Leo is short for that name and not Leonard or something else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.222.140 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She's joking. Also, in the 3rd season episode "Bartlet for America" and in the 6th season finale "2162 Votes," Leo's full name is given as "Leo Thomas McGarry." --Hnsampat (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leopold Thomas McGarry 

message: Currently, the article reads "In 1997, he travels to New Hampshire in an attempt to persuade his old friend Governor Josiah Bartlet to run for the Democratic presidential nomination".  This is probably nitpicking, but it was never explicitly stated the year Leo first pitched Bartlet the idea of running for President.  In fact, the producers seemed to go out of their way to never nail down the time frame in which the series was set.  Granted, in late 1999 when the show premiered, it was strongly implied the President was inaugurated less than a year earlier, which would have put the election in late 1998, meaning the campaign would likely have started in real-world 1997.  But it was never stated whether the series was set in the same time in which it aired.  The fact at the elections in which Bartlet was elected occurred 2 years removed from real-world presidential elections--not to mention the Santos/Vinick campaign having began a year early and concluding with an election in real-world April, would suggest references to years are inaccurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoystreck (talk • contribs) 03:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997? 

message: Is information about the way Leo dresses notable? Seems to me that it's trivia and somewhat speculative, no? Plus, aren't we also injecting our own opinions into the article by including a section based on the premise that Leo's style of dress is "unusually conservative"? I've removed the section in question (see the diff here), but what are the thoughts of the community on this? --Hnsampat (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's relevant, and I do agree it's all fairly subjective. Shoemoney2night (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, based on our mini-discussion here, I had removed the section in question. However, an IP user (who I suspect is the same person who added it to begin with) has reverted my removal, without explanation and without contributing to the discussion here, despite my requests to contribute here before reverting. The only communication with the user who added the section has been through edit summaries and on my talk page, where the user has been rather hostile, accusing me in no uncertain terms of claiming ownership of this article, suggesting that I "consider jumping into a lake," and calling me "pathetic" on multiple occasions. I don't want to set off any kind of revert war here (enough reverting has gone on for a while) and so I would like to please build some consensus here. I argue that the section is completely non-notable and based strictly on an opinion (i.e., that Leo dresses "conservatively"). What are the thoughts of the community? --Hnsampat (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It's not at all notable enough to warrant its own section and is very subjective, with no secondary sources to back it up. - Shoemoney2night (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree.  Unless a source is found that discusses the appearance of the character in a way that is consistent with that editor's contributions, I don't think that it really asserts itself as something deserving of its own section.  At this point, it's somewhere between not being notable, original research and synthesis.  Celarnor Talk to me 23:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In addition to all of this, I am quite frustrated that the user who keeps adding this refuses to participate in this duscussion. I have done my best to assume good faith, but it seems clear from this article's edit history and from the many messages I have left on the talk pages of this user's various IP addresses that this anonymous user doesn't merely neglect to participate or abstain from participating but has instead consciously refused to participate. I have raised the matter at WP:ANI and am seeking guidance on how to deal with this. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that if an editor refuses to discuss their edits - either on the article's talk page or on their talk page - good faith becomes moot.  One anon IP hit 4 reverts yesterday; I warned them at 4 and they stopped.  If they had been warned at 3 they could have been reported at 4.  While it is frustrating dealing with editors who ignore any attempt at consensus-building, I'd urge restraint and calm - avoid edit-warring, warn the editor () when they hit 3 reverts, and  report them when they hit 4 reverts.  Hopefully they'll either get bored or realise they need to discuss changes that don't - yet - have consensus. FWIW, with a decent cite I believe there could be a reference to Leo's appearance in the article, but without a decent cite it's purely subjective.  I'm inclined to assume good faith in as much as it's possible the anon simply doesn't understand the need for citing external sources rather than inserting our own views.  This flag once was red  01:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo's appearance 

message: Would it be possible to remove the section "Appearance and Taste", per the discussion above? All editors except one seem to agree that this is uncited, subjective and not relevant to the article; the only editor who disagrees is a dynamic IP (I'm assuming all the opposition anons are the same since they're all Telstra Internet IPs from Canberra) who refuses to discuss the matter either here, on their numerous talk pages (User talk:121.222.234.76, User talk:124.177.105.158) and who seems to have civility problems with editors who disagree with them (, , , , , ).  This has been discussed at WP:ANI, but it's a difficult situation to resolve as the editor's IP address changes regularly and the editor won't discuss.
Cheers!
 This flag once was red  08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, it's appreciated!  This flag once was red  04:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protection - edit request 

message: Why is Leo's religion listed as Catholic? In the whole of the West Wing, I don't recall there ever being any mention of his religious beliefs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.178.216 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In "The Short List" (season 1, episode 9), Josh describes Leo as "Boston Irish Catholic." --Hnsampat (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, as some have discounted that line, he has a Catholic funeral in "Requiem."--Tim Thomason 10:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion? 

message: Is it certain that Leo McGary was supposed to have been "Secretary of Labor?"  I seem to recall that it was "Secretary of Defense."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.212.149 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was definitely Secretary of Labor. --Hnsampat (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned several times throughout the series as Labour. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secretary of Labor? 

message: I think a note on his style as Chief of Staff is appropriate. I would call it self-righteous, dictatorial and verging on always being the smartest person in the room. Thoughts? 66.67.32.161 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  manner as CoS