Talk:Leo McGarry

Untitled

Wanna see Leo as a VP.

One or two empty lines above and under spoiler template

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)

Hometown

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)

• Ah HA! Proof! In the Season 6 episode where CJ is eventually promoted to Chief of Staff, when asked by Greg Brock who's the CoS, she responds "A cool cat name Leo McGarry, you may know him, comes outta' Chicago." Putting Chicago, Illinois as Leo's hometown. Staxringold 15:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, actually I think what CJ meant was that he graduated from University of Chicago. It was mentioned in the episode where he was accepting award on behalf of Chicago Humanitarian.

• I do think this settled. I think the comment about Boston was an attempt to stereotype him.

(JJGlendenning 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

• I think it is settled, too: He comes from Chicago. But I would not say the Boston comment is stereotyping, per se, but probably just a writing mistake. The Boston comment was the first reference to where is he is from -- later references are all Chicago. We don't know how the writers would attempt to correct the Boston reference, so let's not speculate. Rlove 04:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can say with certainty that Leo has at least spent a substantial amount of time in Chicago. The poor bastard. Phil Sandifer 04:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Regarding John Spencer's Death

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)

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)

Done, unhappily.Jm307 00:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Something about Leo and Josh's relationship

Considering the father/son thing they had going on....idk... seems like it warrants some mention.

Leo's Funeral Wasn't at National Cathedral

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)

Leo's funeral wouldn't be at the National Cathedral because the National Cathedral is Episcopalian and Leo was Catholic.

However the reference made just after the service to his being buried at Arlington National Cemetery in a few minutes (I thnk by C.J.) rules out the fictional use of the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen being used as the funeral venue since CMQ is in Baltimore - a good strong hour's drive even in little traffic from Arlington. As a result may I suggest that the statement about his funeral being at CMQ be amended to his funeral was filmed at CMQ?

It's my guess that given their druthers the writers/fictional "powers that be" would have probably chosen either the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception or the Cathedral of St. Matthew as local D.C. Catholic churches of impressive size and appropriate stateliness for a funeral of such magnitude. It would not have been without precedent to choose the Shrine as it has been used for a First Family wedding - as one of President Johnson's daughters was married there and Pope John Paul II visited. The argument to be made in favor of the Cathedral of St. Matthew is that it is where President Kennedy's funeral mass was and where Pope John Paul II said mass.

However, actually getting permission to film and having the place all to themselves which was possible at CMQ and highly unlikely at either the Shrine or St. Matthew's was, I suspect the deciding factor in the end. This is one occasion that we are supposed to suspend our knowledge of the real world and pretend! By the way - the interior shots are of a church in suburban L.A. - not CMQ. Makalaka 03:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag?

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)

I agree and have adjusted the article accordingly. --Hnsampat 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people are spoiler crazy, front loading an article with the very last event and putting the biggest spoiler possible front and centre, what where they thinking? This spoils things for anyone new to the series or who has not watched the entire series yet. I have reordered the article to keep it chronological, that makes it easier for people to only spoil as far as they have watched in the series. Horkana 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Leo's death didn't really "fundamentally reshape" the series. Sure, the show's creators may have had to rewrite some season 7 plot points and that is significant information, but it is not significant enough to merit being placed in the lead. I mean, the deaths of any main characters on any shows lead to significant changes, but that doesn't mean we have to put the details of that information front and center. --Hnsampat 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I am aware of that and, like I said, Spencer's death resulted in rewriting of season 7. However, the intro to the article is about his and Leo's role throughout the series. So, it is important information to have in the article, but we shouldn't have it up front. To use a different example, the death of actor John Ritter had a huge effect on 8 Simple Rules. (In fact, you could argue that it effectively ended the show.) But, the article for the show doesn't have Ritter's death in the intro; it has a separate section for it. Likewise, if a separate article were to exist for Ritter's character, Paul Hennesy, it would not have "The death of actor John Ritter had a huge impact on the show" in the introduction; it would have a separate section for it. Likewise, John Spencer's death is a significant event and must be mentioned in the article, but it does not belong in the introduction to the article. --Hnsampat 04:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have to disagree with that last point. A lead is an introduction and, while it does some summarizing, it is not meant to be a summary per se. For example, the Josiah Bartlet article does do some summarizing of his character (i.e. he's an idealized liberal president, etc.) but it doesn't summarize all the major events in his life (the assassination attempt, Zoey's kidnapping, etc.) Leo's death affected the last seven episodes of season 7, not the 154-episode series as a whole. Right now, with the event relatively fresh in our minds, we give his death undue weight. When you look at the series as a whole, it wasn't nearly as significant. Even if John Spencer's death resulted in the writers changing the winner of the election, this isn't an event so significant that we have to mention it up front. I mean, the entire 3rd season of The West Wing was about the fallout from Bartlet's MS, and yet we don't mention his MS in the lead of the Josiah Bartlet article. Bottom line: we don't need to introduce Leo by saying "Leo McGarry is the White House Chief of Staff to Josiah Bartlet on The West Wing....He died of a heart attack near the end of the last season of the show." --Hnsampat 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

His Father's suicide

I added a line regarding the suicide of Leo's father. I shoudl think that tis would be a somewhat important event in the guys life. Anyway, the line was removed. If it was done because someone doubted it happening... Leo talks about it directly in the "Taking Out the Trash Day" (1.13)

Eric Baker

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)

Leo's USAF Rank

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)

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)

I'm positve that the President once introduced Leo as 'Lieutenant Colonel, United States Air Froce'. levret (talk) 19.28, 30 March 2009

Which episode? --Hnsampat (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Vice President-elect

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)

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)

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)

Age

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)

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here...

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Leomcgarryfuneral.jpg

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)

Leopold Thomas McGarry

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)

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)

1997?

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)

Leo's appearance

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)

I don't think it's relevant, and I do agree it's all fairly subjective. Shoemoney2night (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ({{subst:uw-3rr}}) 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)

Edit-War continues, I've listed the article at WP:RFP. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Acting choices

I was listening to a DVD commentary the other day in which Aaron Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme were discussing John Spencer's attention to detail in his acting choices - for instance, that Leo would never wear his jacket unbuttoned in front of the president, which is why he'll often buttoning his jacket while he's walking into the Oval Office. Would this count as relevant, or is it a little too trivial? - Shoemoney2night (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My gut instinct is that it's too trivial. However, we could possibly include it if we find other commentary about Spencer's acting choices when it comes to Leo. Usually, though, my instinct is that acting choices are generally non-notable unless an acting choice leads to something significant and memorable (e.g., Robert De Niro ad-libbing "You talkin' to me?" while filming Taxi Driver). --Hnsampat (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on it but I think I disagree with you Hnsampat :) - something thats rare because given what you've said on most of this disucssion, u know ur stuff. But I think this might be combined with some of that edit-war stuff that happened (it wasn't me!) when you argued over his appearance. Can I refer you to the episode in Season 7 called Requiem. The funeral of Leo's death and when the staff members went up to the residence with the President to talk about his life. And they laughed about his suits. How he had probably never worn the same suit twice. Then someone said they were Italian when another staffer (can't remember now) corrected that person and said they were British. Then Annabeth Schott said he wore pink shirts and peach shirts that CJ laughed he couldn't pull off. Bartlet mentioned Leo was a heavy smoker. That isn't mentioned here either. The edit war wager said Leo was conservative in his appearance. That was a stupid remark. But certainly there merit behind the idea of the article. We never see Leo out of a suit unless he is wearing PJs. We can make an article about how Leo was very particular about his appearance. So we can talk about his extensive suit collection and how he chose to appear in front of the President (buttoning the jacket) - he even admitted himself he pays attention to appearance when he told the nurse who was looking after him that he will take medical and dietary advice but when she tries to tell him not to wear a suit he replies he aint taking fashion advice. The President noticed it when Leo came in the middle of a night wearing a suit. President was very casual and said to Leo, why are you in a suit, its the middle of the night. Leo said i didnt wear a neck tie. This is a hell of a lot of information we could include in an article about Leo. It's another side to him that viewers and the actual dialog picks up about him. Let's see where this disucssion goes :) But it's paramount we include the fact he was a heavy smoker. We should do the same on the Josiah Bartlet article (except he no longer a heavy smoker, just the occassional). Sorry for the long entry just trying to make my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.37.66 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem. We're engaging in original research here. We've come up with our own conclusion (i.e., Leo is particular about his dress) and are now looking for evidence to support that conclusion. But, in Wikipedia, we can only include what has been reported on in multiple reliable independent third-party sources. If there are reliable third-party sources out there somewhere that have commented this extensively on Leo's appearance, then we can regroup for discussion. However, as it stands it's just our observations, which we can't use as the basis of a Wikipedia article. Also, despite any mention by Bartlet, I don't think I've ever seen Leo smoke even once. Thanks for your comments! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay I totally understand about the appearance stuff. I guess the only third party stuff is the stuff someone said about Leo buttoning his jacket. Anyway, on the smoking stuff, I remember seeing Leo smoke outside the Oval Office once but cant remember the name. That doesnt matter, Leo was a very heavy smoker. Bartlet told the story about how he took Leo camping / fishing (in the episode Requiem, Season 7) took help him get over his addiction to cigarettes. Then when they're out in the middle of a lake fishing he has a nicotine fit and demands Bartlet take the boat back to shore. Bartlet tells him they aren't going until they fill their bucket up with fish. Leo takes the shot gun and starts shooting into the water, soon fishing start floating to the surface, he turns to Bartlet and says "now give me the damn bucket". This should DEFINITELY be included. So funny now I think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.130.126 (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The episode you're thinking of featured Bartlet smoking outside the White House, not Leo. As far as Leo being a heavy smoker, what you're talking about sounds like something that the writers made up in one episode that was totally unsupported by anything we've seen in the rest of the series (the writers had a tendency to do that in the post-Sorkin years). I argue that it should not be included, because it seems like a trivial detail that is only mentioned in one episode. This isn't like Leo's heavy drinking, which formed the basis of several story arcs throughout the series. This is simply trivia. Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not mistaken, I've seen Bartlet smoke in the series many times. In this episode I remember seeing Leo smoke outside the White House. And though you might not respect the work of the writers in the post-Sorkin years, you haven't got the right to ignore what they have written about the character. They have written into the character that he was a heavy smoker and so therefore, unless you suddenly have the authority to overrule the series' own dialog, I don't think you can dismiss it as a trivial detail. This is something apart of the character's history and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.85.191 (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't letting my opinion of the post-Sorkin writers obscure my objectivity. Rather, what I was pointing out was that the references to Leo's smoking are few and far between. My understanding from what you're telling me is that it was mentioned in one short piece of dialogue in one episode and he was supposedly seen smoking in another one (I'd appreciate an exact episode reference for both, if you could). This doesn't necessarily make it notable enough to mention in the article. Remember, the article is not supposed to be a collection of random facts or trivia about the character. The only characteristics we really should include are the ones that have received significant attention. For instance, Leo's alcoholism has received significant attention, both in the series and outside of the series. Up until you mentioned it, I never even noticed any reference to Leo smoking (not that my knowledge is the be-all, end-all when it comes to The West Wing). If you can find more evidence of Leo smoking having any kind of notability (such as it being reported on in reliable third-party sources), then we can talk about inclusion. But, as it stands, it's just a random fact grounded in very little. Remember, just because it's true doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. The article should only include notable information. The lone mention of Leo smoking is "interesting, but not notable" which is Wikipedia's exact definition of trivia. Thanks for understanding! --Hnsampat (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hnsampat, this seems like a fairly trivial detail which probably doesn't warrant inclusion. I haven't seen the episode in which Jed tells the anecdote about Leo's smoking, but his smoking doesn't play a particularly notable role in the series. To my knowledge, there are only two scenes in which he's smoking - one is a flashback in "Bartlet for America" when he relapses into drinking, and the other is in "Angel Maintenance" when the President's life is potentially in danger when something goes wrong with Air Force One (and Sorkin does like to use cigarettes as dramatic tools - ie. the symbolic cigarette butt in the church in "Two Cathedrals"). I don't think that's as notable as Jed's smoking, which we not only see often but which is also referred to by other characters in several episodes.

(Also, I haven't seen many of the post-season 4 episodes so maybe I've missed some plot development, but is it accurate to call Jed a "reformed smoker"? As I remember it he smokes fairly regularly. Or did he quit during the post-Sorkin years?) -Shoemoney2night (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the website but I read that the production team described him as a "reformed smoker who snuck a few now and again". I strongly believe though, given that Leo did die of a heart attack, we include some of his previous habits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.146.93 (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But we should only include notable habits. Leo's alcoholism and drug abuse were discussed extensively on the show. Supposedly, Leo's smoking was only mentioned once. His wardrobe was given more attention than his smoking, and we already decided that not even his wardrobe is notable enough to be mentioned. So, his smoking shouldn't be included, either. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit protection - edit request

{{editprotected}}

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 ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). 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)

 Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it's appreciated!  This flag once was red  04:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion?

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)

In "The Short List" (season 1, episode 9), Josh describes Leo as "Boston Irish Catholic." --Hnsampat (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, as some have discounted that line, he has a Catholic funeral in "Requiem."--Tim Thomason 10:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Secretary of Labor?

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)

It was definitely Secretary of Labor. --Hnsampat (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned several times throughout the series as Labour. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

manner as CoS

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)