Talk:Harry Reid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harry Reid is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.


This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Misc.

We need some information about the 2004 vote against Roe V. Wade. I feel like I follow politics about as closely as anyone who has a 'normal' job, and I never heard about any vote that was simply against Roe V. Wade.

Is this perhaps referring to the Partial-Birth Abortion ban?

--


No. Tom Harkin introduced an amendment to the PBA ban that endorsed the ruling in Roe v. Wade. It narrowly passed, with the help of many moderate Republicans, but Reid voted against it.


--

This may be a reference to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which Reid voted in favor of in 2004. The act was viewed in some quarters as hostile to Roe v. Wade because of language in the bill that defined life as beginning at conception.

" Reid is currently also the only Democratic Mormon Senator. Four other members in the Senate are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but they are all Republican."

Is the fact that the others are Republican relevant?

Yes! Or more to the point, that Reid is a Morman and Democrat! Khirad 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


--

Under the "Opinions, beliefs and personal traits" section, it says "Reid... is the leading opponent of a national asbestos liability trust fund." To me, that's implying that he's against compensating asbestos victims. According to his site, he opposes the legislation because it "does not do enough to adequately provide for asbestos victims. The amount of money set aside to pay off claims is insufficient, the means of its funding are ill defined, and which companies will pay to fund the program is unclear." I think that since according to his website, he actually supports compensating asbestos victims, just not this particular way of doing so, and since the bill isn't even that big or important of an issue relative to national politics as a whole, I'm just going to delete the bit 'is the leading opponent of a national asbestos liability trust fund'. --Adoubleplusgood 04:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Walter Olson quote

I returned the Walter Olson quote; it doesn't strike me as that speculative in terms of a hypothesis of what was motivating Reid's highly unusual endorsement of Martinez while simultaneously rejecting Cornyn. The fact that Reid was willing to propose several anti-Roe justices to the Court is relevant to his view on Roe, and it was printed in the Wall Street Journal, so it's not like it's an out-of-left-field suggestion by an anonymous blogger on Daily Kos or Freep. It's NPOV, because it's stated as Walter Olson's opinion and links to the op-ed. -- FRCP11 08:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how it being from the WSJ (out of right field, so to speak) gives it any more encyclopedic notability than if it came from somewhere else. You've sourced it correctly and neutrally, of course, but the statement itself is still fundamentally the unfounded speculation of one person regarding a relatively minor incident in Reid's career. I don't think that this meets the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. Gamaliel 18:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing the Senate

I hope others are following the closure of the senate on Nov. 1, 2005 by Reid by invoking Rule XXI. I'm deciding not to add anything at this point in time as we do not know what, if anything is, happening behind doors. But I do think it is a significant point, - though posterity may not later agree; certainly something to mention in a living encyclopædia nontheless. Khirad 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reid's Relationship to Abramoff

Why is that several Republicans have Jack Abramoff mentioned but no one bothered to mention Harry Reid's ties?

"On the Senate side, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), now the Senate minority leader, also wrote Ms. Norton in opposition to the casino. The letter was dated March 5, 2002. On March 6, 2002, one of Mr. Abramoff's tribal clients wrote a $5,000 check to Mr. Reid's Searchlight Leadership Fund. "There is absolutely no connection between the letter and the fundraising," said Mr. Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley. Another coincidence! Mr. Reid's Abramoff-related total: $66,000 between 2001 and 2004." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701469.html

Could someone add this? I don't know how to word it.

I was going to, Reid is going to go down with Abramoff, but I'm not a regular Reid writer so I didn't want to step on anyone's toes --M4bwav 17:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference between Reid and the Republican congressmen who received money from Jack Abramoff is that Reid received no money directly from Abramoff. Like some other members of congress, Reid received money from an entity that also gave money to Abramoff. In fact, Reid may not even have received did not receive any money indirectly from Abramoff. There's a big difference between the two. NatusRoma 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
While I am antirepublican, I don't think Reid is out from under the cloud of suspicion. Check this little gem out "A former top aide to Reid, Edward Ayoob, held fundraisers for the senator while working under Abramoff. Abramoff’s clients gave Reid’s campaigns more than $60,000." [1], January 26, 2006. If I can pull some sources together it will make a strong case that it should at least be mentioned.--M4bwav 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
That quotation doesn't make it clear whether these fundraisers were in the course of Ayoob's work under Abramoff, or happened independently but simultaneously. What Ayoob did on his own time was his own business. I doubt that you'll find much that will merit a mention in the article, but I would be interested to see what you find just the same. NatusRoma 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the popular ones
"Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002, also signed by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev). The next day, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second Abramoff tribe also sent $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations from 2001 to 2004". Abramoff Witness Frustrates Panel E-Mails Suggest She Was Lobbyist's Connection to Interior Officialwashingtonpost.comNovember 18, 2005 Gale Norton is about as corrupt as they come.--M4bwav 00:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's cold as ice, more on same
"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) sent a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on March 5, 2002, asking her to veto an agreement between the state of Louisiana and the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians that would have allowed the tribe to open a casino in Louisiana.
The day after Reid sent the letter, according to the Associated Press, Louisiana’s Coushatta tribe, which already operated a casino, and which was a client of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but which did not want competition from the Jena tribe, sent a $5,000 contribution to Reid’s tax-exempt Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff, the AP reported, also sent Reid’s group a $5,000 contribution. Ultimately, according to the AP, Reid collected more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related contributions." Harry Reid Takes Gambling Money, Protects Gambling Interests Human Events, January 17, 2006--M4bwav 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This article sums it up Reid says his 'conscience is clear' despite GOP Abramoff attacks ASSOCIATED PRESS, January 18, 2006
Basically there are two indirect connections between Abramoff and Reid, Gale Norton, and Edward Ayoob. While it may not mean there is definitely a bribery connection between Abramoff and Reid, when he was confronted on the floor of the senate about it, it does make it relevant and as such I will make a small note of it (including his defense).--M4bwav 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

THere is now a detailed article describing Reids ties to Abramoff. I have added it along with the citation. Tbeatty 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, sorry if my tone was slightly annoying.--M4bwav 03:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Most of the wording is from the article. It is as neutral as possible. No accusations. Just facts. Tbeatty 04:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, as it should be, like I said I have no anti-Reid agenda, I've just studied almost every aspect of Abramoff. --M4bwav 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually now that I read the changes you made, I kind of get the feeling that you may not be acting in good faith, some of the accusations are relevant because they create the impression of corruption. The fact that he acting in ways favorable to the tribes after receiving money should probably be mentioned. --M4bwav 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the accusation, now that i reread it again is seems allright. Could use a slight rewording.--M4bwav 04:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I added the defense. Tbeatty 04:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You were right to take away the "Republicans" part. Though Republicans have in recent weeks suggested ties between Reid and Abramoff, on another reading, this new story is clearly based entirely on the AP's reporting. I've restored some of the details I had, and I didn't appreciate being reverted. I also removed the scandals category, because this alleged minor involvement is not big enough to warrant the moniker of "scandal". NatusRoma 06:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the Abramoff scandal is current enough and generates enough interest to be called out for easy access. I think it should be a subheading at least. Also, the AP was documenting, not accusing. There is no need for "allegedly" to be used. It creates the appearance that either a) a crime was committed or b) the facts might somehow be false. In this case, since AP hasn't used the term, putting it in the article creates an appearance of guilt either on the actions of Reid or impropriety by AP. IF the statement was "Reid took bribes", allegedely would be appropriate. But AP just outlined persons, places, dates and dollars Tbeatty 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC).
One might ask what this news story does other than create the appearance of guilt. The story has hardly broken, and it's not yet significant enough to merit a subheading. If there's more to the story, a subheading might be in order. NatusRoma 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a heading or a sub-heading in other politician pages. Also, the line starts "According to AP" but then you proceed to change the wording. He helped Abramoffs clients, not just constituents. For example, the article clearly says he opposed a Casino because it conflicted with an Abramoff client but you could argue that his constituents who wanted the Casiono were not helped at all. Why do you change to less accurate verions. Other politicians ties to Abramoff have the "American poltical scandals" category. To be neutral, either all the other politicians need to be dropped or Reid has to be added. Tbeatty 16:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Abramoff is the biggest thing to happen in Washington in over a decade, whether in his defense or not there is a unbiased news item about their relationship every week now. It's got to be put in there.--M4bwav 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Such hyperbole is risible. Have you ever heard of Monica Lewinsky? Other politicians have received money directly from Abramoff, while Reid received money from Abramoff's clients. No one is suggesting wrongdoing here. We're documenting, not accusing, so why should this be called a scandal? NatusRoma 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Because Abramoff plead guilty to a felony relating to how he rewarded politicians, not with direct contributions, but with contributions of clients. It is generally regarded as a scandal in Washington when someone close the political establishment commits a felony. Direct contributions are not the scandal. The scandal is the use of Native American money to pay politicians. We are documenting that Reid received money from Abramoff clients. We are documenting that Reid helped Abramoff clients. Abramoff plead guilty to defrauding his Native American clients. The charge is that Abramoff lobbied for competing Native American interests (i.e. urging a politician to thwart one casino so that it wouldn't compete with another while representing himself as serving each interest). Abramoff represented multiple tribes and used money and influence to drive up his fees. That's the scandal. The fact that Reid, perhaps unwittingly, helped Abramoff accomplish this fraud is relevant, a scandal, and worthy of documentation. What is really irrelevant to the scandal is Abramoff's personal contributions. Tbeatty 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you don't understand the extent of Abramoff's connections, and the implications of receiving money from Abramoff. This scandal has barely begun to unfold, it's going to take down probably more elected officials since McCarthy, and maybe even before that. The situation is clearly considered a scandal by the American media, and to be connect to it, is to be part of the scandal, regardless of guilt or innocence.--M4bwav 00:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Restarting the indentation: this section should be a level three heading. A single AP story does not justify a level two heading. NatusRoma 00:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have removed this article from Category:American political scandals. No accusation of corruption has been leveled against him. Except for crystal ball predictions, there is nothing to justify placing Reid in that category. NatusRoma 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Why don't you try reading before you change things? We've already had a long discussion about this and whether you like it or not, Abramoff IS a scandal. Harry Reid is connected to that. Therefore, he is connected to a scandal. It's a very simple concept.--Hbutterfly 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen I know you like Reid NatusRoma, but he's involved, and it's relevant and documented. I'm as big a Bush hater as they come, but Reid is clearly involved in the scandal. I could find a dozen articles on it, you got no case. Republicans have constantly leveled accusations at him about it, the RNC chairmen just did so on C-SPAN, you can see and hear it with your own eyes. I'm adding a reference to it, as well and changing it back.--M4bwav 01:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
NatusRoma you are clearly in the wrong on this one, there is a relationship between Jack Abramoff, the man, and Harry Reid, the man. All relationships are not direct, I think that you are more interested in winning some kind of petty spat, then looking at this NPOV. Their is a relationship between abramoff's activities and Reid's, and it goes beyond simple donations. You are clearly acting in a POV fashion, take a step back and read the articles, and realize that there is relationship. --M4bwav 07:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Please make an argument, and don't just say, "your edits are POV". The notion that the connection between Abramoff's clients and Sen. Reid goes beyond donations is not supported by any news article, but by opinion.
On the subject of the minimum wage, neither AP article makes no mention of Reid ever supporting Kennedy's compromise. In fact, even the blogger who accused Reid of hypocrisy in this matter did not accuse him of being both publicly for and privately against the minimum wage increase in the Marianas. I reproduce a quotation from the site:

While Reid and other Democrats were fighting to increase the minimum hourly wage for Americans, he was secretly working with Abramoff's firm to stagnate the minimum wage for those working on the islands.

As you can no doubt see, there is nothing to support the contention that Reid was making false statements about his position regarding the minimum wage in the Marianas. NatusRoma 08:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the minimum wage statement... the 'reference' listed no longer works. Finding another copy of the AP article (http://www.cqservices.com/MyCQ/News/Default.asp?V=25032), it in no way talks about Reid 'privately working against it'. I'm going to edit out that part, and delete that reference (although maybe it's still relevant to the article as a whole? I dunno, I'm gonna let someone more experienced make that call). --Adoubleplusgood 04:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

An addendum: By my count, each one of us has now made three reversions of greater or lesser amounts of text in the past 24 hours. Can we let this sit for a bit, and not break the 3RR policy? NatusRoma 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are adding information and sources, it's not a revert. I've added both the accusation and defense for the islands-wage bill, that didn't pass by the way.--M4bwav 08:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
By my count, I have only done two reverts, but if you are dead set, I won't edit war for a third revert.--M4bwav 08:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice Edit Tbeatty - it added good clarity Bachs 05:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a lot of the Abramoff stuff, and rightly so since it's important information, but it's likely that Reid would have voted the same way regardless of the donations. Does writing letters to the president constitute official action for donations, quid pro quo? Probably not, unless Abramoff is talking to prosecutors about something that hasn't been revealed yet, it's likely no charges will be filed. That said he was a little to close for comfort with lobbyists, then again the vast majority of politicans in Washington are probably to close for comfort with lobbyists, they just happened to be lobbyists who aren't Jack Abramoff. I wonder what will happen.--M4bwav 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it is no crime to take donations from a lobbiest. Even though Abramoff gave donations to hundreds of congressman either by himself or through clients it is likely that there was a quid pro quo in only a handfull of circumstances. Bachs 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Uh, no offense Amgine , but you just removed a lot of factual referenced information, unless there is objection, I'm going to put some of it back, since it's better to error on the side of not deleting--M4bwav 21:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senate committees, legislation authored

I'm completely unable to locate the senate resolutions for committees for the 107th congress.

Could someone please work on a list of the legislation Senator Reid authored/co-authored? - Amgine 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing References

Hey I don't mind if you remove references, but I think most of those references are being used, and have some factual data, I know the guy at talking points memo interviewed several prominent people, and thus is not specualation.--M4bwav 20:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As you will. I was asked to review the article, not to edit war with you. - Amgine 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you believe "reviewing" means removing NPOV sourced content that enlightens readers about the subjects involvement in an important current event? I "reviewed" it as well and we had consensus on a NPOV description.
At least read the references before you make edits, you will find all the comments that you removed, are based on accepted fact. I would revert again, but you have gotten someone else to join in and protect and now I am over the 3RR. Frankly what you did is very disturbing.--M4bwav 21:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did all the sourced material get removed? The Abramoff section looks like it has been "sanitized" to minimize it. THis is not the way Abramoff is treated on other bio's that have had contact with him. Pleaes put the referenced material back. It was a neutral account of the facts. Tbeatty 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Are any disputes going to be resolved here, or is this page just going to be locked until Reid's people stop threatening legal action? NatusRoma 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reid's people threatened legal action? About what? Tbeatty 03:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that was my conjecture for the reason why Danny stepped in to protect the page, citing the authority that Jimbo has given him as part of WP:OFFICE. NatusRoma 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The page is protected again. Reid's people did not threaten legal action. I will not go into the reasons here. Danny 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask again, what could the objection to AP reports be that it isn't an AP problem as opposed to a Wikipedia problem? This smells of Big Brother. Tbeatty 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How can we address the problems they had with this page when it is unprotected if you don't tell us what they are? Gamaliel 17:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please relax, ok? Temporary protection to work on a problem is not intended to shortcut or remove the normal processes. Danny has been travelling and there has been no time just yet to have a big discussion about this. Geez, the level of paranoia in this discussion is really disappointing to me. Have you no respect at all? --Jimbo Wales 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

More openness would help with the paranoia problem. Did we learn nothing from the attempt to hush up the Cheney shooting incident? It just led to more speculation. Just tell us what your reasons are, protecting a page with no explanation is anti-Wikipedian. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Although I do not agree with the actions that have occurred in this matter, please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. NatusRoma 08:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It does seem a little ridiculous. I don't think people are demanding "a big discussion" right away, they just want some basic reason. People were assuming it was a legal issue, but now Danny seems to be saying it's not. Can't the basic reason be identified without getting into details? Such as: "there is a legal reason". You don't even necessarily need to say who it involves. Everyking 10:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute about Harry Reid. Someone external to Wikipedia (Harry Reid's staff?) has complained to Wikipedia about this page. Apparently those people do not like the AP articles that were cited about Reid's involvement with Abramoff. There is nothing to resolve on this page and there is no information about the complaint. There is no time given as to when the lock will be remove. Big Brother is alive and well. --Tbeatty 16:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You know the irony is I would have expected this from the republican party with their emphasis on propaganda, but this is kind of outrageous. There isn't even a debate here (not that I'm not open to debate here), I guess Jimbo doesn't like seeing Harry Reid cast in a negative light. It kind of discourages me from particpating in wikipedia, due the fact that articles can be whitewashed and then protected by people who don't even know the issue.--M4bwav 16:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"I guess Jimbo doesn't like seeing Harry Reid cast in a negative light"??? You owe me an apology, that's an absurd accusation. I never heard of this article until today.--Jimbo Wales 00:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't agree with the accusation but I think it's important to know the reason for the lock. Why is it locked? Who requested the lock? When will it be unlocked? Accusations distract from the substance. The reality is that a page that is linked to current events is not able to have factual data added to it. Tbeatty 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, why exactly do I owe you an apology everyone here was acting in good faith, then out of nowhere we are told to quit writing about Harry Reid with no explanation of why we cannot write about him. The little we are told is that Jimbo has said that he has given one of his lieutenant's power to prevent any criticism of his involvment with Jack Abramoff. Why should your inaccurate opinion be held above those who know more about the subject matter?--M4bwav 05:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You accused him of trying to whitewash a politican's article when you have no idea what is going on and no evidence to back up your accusation. Now Jimbo and/or Danny should provide an explaination of what's going on, but their faltering in this matter should not mean you should immediately leap to the most improbable and outrageous conclusion. Gamaliel 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Given the nature of the editing and locking, and vague explanation, I would hardly call the accusation improbable.--M4bwav 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
So if it isn't improbable, where is your evidence? Let's see it. Gamaliel 03:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I just think it's highly irresponsible. Look at what Jimbo wrote above. It would have taken considerably fewer words to tell us there was a legal situation pertaining to the article. But no, he tells us there isn't time to get into a "big discussion" yet, when in fact people aren't calling for a big discussion, just a succinct explanation. Everyking 05:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is no legal issue at stake here. Yes, we have been contacted by Harry Reid's office. They have raised certain issues, which we are investigating. Both Jimbo and I were away for a few days on Wikipedia business. It is now the weekend. I will be contacting Reid's office on Tuesday (Monday being a holiday). WP:OFFICE protection is intended as a temporary measure until things can be settled. Settled means to the satisfaction of all parties involved, and not just to the satisfaction of certain editors. As a reminder to everyone, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a political blog. It is an encyclopedia. Editing does not mean dumping information but presenting the information in a suitable manner too. The Abramoff issue, which seems to be the prevalent concern here, is just one aspect of Reid's career. It will be included in the article, but it will be included with the proper perspective, so that someone reading the article about Harry Reid 100 years from now will get a comprehensive overview of the man's life and career, and not just speculation or the headlines of February 2006. For what its worth, I have asked a small number of highly trusted neutral (i.e., non-American) editors of Wikipedia to look at the article, and they also felt that the quality of the article was questionable. Let's use this time constructively to figure out ways to make the article as comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased as possible, so that is acceptable to everyone involved, including the editors and even including Harry Reid himself. That is what an NPOV article should be. Danny 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Why should there be such an extreme measure if there isn't a legal issue? Just let things get worked out through normal editing and discussion. Normally that works well. Don't worry about one thing getting disproportionate coverage right now; it will all be balanced out and turned into a much better product over time. That's the kind of thinking we rely on to build articles, isn't it? If you're going to take a measure here, I think you should just remove the offending info and let a consensus on it be reached here on talk. That way the whole article doesn't need to be off-limits, even if one aspect is too sensitive to work on right now. Everyking 07:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Protecting it for half-a-week (until such time as we can get back in contact with the complianants and get their opinion of the changes made) is not an "extreme measure"; nor is saying "it'll get better with time" a good way to go about responding to specific complaints. Raul654 07:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see how protection is supposed to achieve anything, and besides, what I'm seeing here suggests to me that article content is going to be decided through phone calls between offices and such, which definitely isn't something we are used to having. Why can't the specific complaints be dealt with here? Harry Reid's office doesn't have any particular say in the content of this article, the way I see it; we operate on the basis of editorial consensus guided by our policies, and someone from his office can edit here or we can have someone who knows their viewpoint represent their perspective. And you took my "it'll get better with time" argument out of context completely; it was a reply to Danny's argument about what the article content will look like in 100 years. Everyking 07:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's an admirable goal. But it certainly isn't the case with other people currently associated with Abramoff or other current event figures. The reality is that current events get disproportionate coverage across this entire encyclopedia. Rather than push down the current event, I think that sections need to be maintained over the life of the project. In 6 months it might be appropriate to scale down this section, but today it is a raging current event. Tbeatty 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a "raging" current event. A LexisNexis search for {"Harry Reid" Abramoff} yields no results since February 13, and Yahoo! News yields no meaningful results since February 11, two days after the story originally broke. The only result since then is a February 15 story in which Reid and Abramoff are mentioned separately in the same article. NatusRoma 02:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There are no meaningful results when you search for Tom DeLay and Abramoff (or anyone else). Nothing has recently happened in the Plame affair either. But both of those are ongoing scandals that deserve mention in their respective biographical entries. Unless we are willing to remove all current events, Harry Reid shouldn't be getting a pass. After the scandal is over, it can be reviewed and scaled to it's appropriate place. In time it will fade to a proper perspective, whether that's a defining moment in his career, the lynchpin on a felony conviction or a sidenote in an illustrious career is for posterity to decide. Meanwhile, this is a current event and Harry Reid should be treated as fair as everyone else is treated. As for "raging", the press can only overcover one story at a time. Last week it was the Cheney shooting and you will notice that Cheney had his opening paragraph updated because of it. Who knows what next week will bring, but Abramoff is not going away anytime soon. Tbeatty 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Danny and Jimbo, you guys are clearly folding under political pressure, shouldn't you recuse yourselfs due to your POV involvement with Harry Reid. I mean your taking a stance that is entirely colored by your invovlement with the subject, you two are probably the last two that should be deciding what is fair or not, seeing as how you have an alterior motive in editing and controlling the article.--M4bwav 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
If you had read Danny's statement, you'd see that he isn't doing any of the editing himself, but getting "a small number of highly trusted neutral (i.e., non-American) editors of Wikipedia" to do the editing instead. Raul654 18:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
They are POV, and they are controlling the editing. Before Danny locked it, he set someone to edit out the Abramoff stuff, when he saw people reverting the lost content, he locked the new deletions in. Simply because the bias is being orchestrated rather than directly typed, just makes it a more organized meat-puppetry. The information that was removed before the lock, was crossreferenced and fair-game, by that act of removing that information and locking is proof enough of a lack of 'good faith'.--M4bwav 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Being contacted by someone from Harry Reid's office does not in itself make Danny or Jimbo's edits biased, nor is there any evidence to suggest that there is political pressure here. Saying that Danny and Jimbo are caving to political pressure just because Harry Reid is a politician is akin to saying that protecting the Earl of Shrewsbury's page during a dispute means caving to peer pressure. NatusRoma 02:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
One does not have to be a politican to be controlled by strong political pressure. As can we seen by the Bush administration, many politicans will seek to hurt or damage opponents in anyway possible. Harry Reid votes on legislation that can effect the very future of the internet, and thus wikipedia, he is an extremely powerful. On the flip side, courting Reid by whitewashing his article provides it's own motive, a powerful politican can make things happen for a relatively unpowerful citizen, funding, legislation. Furthermore, there is the political motivation, may one have a desire to do Reid's will merely in an effort to further ones own agenda. Finally there is an ego motive, to be on Reid's good side, would make one feel as if they wheel and deal with the most powerful in Washington. Probably some combination of these reasons is why Jimbo and Danny are betraying the spirit if not the letter of wikipedia (POV).--M4bwav 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting that your accusations against Danny and Jimbo are based entirely on conjecture. NatusRoma 06:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That's only if you ignore the evidence of the removal of information immediately before a protect. After a variety of editors reverted, edits made by people other than those made on behalf of Jimbo and Danny were reverted. Since the edits they were removed we crossed referenced by reputable sources and relevant to the topic, can one really call that conjecture? Perhaps since it is easy to call any interpration of any events conjecture, but there is a clear link between the phone calls, the lack of Good Faith POV edits made, and the protection of the articles. Jimbo has edited his own article in the past removing various information, so there is a prior history. Wikipedia seems based on "Do as I say, not as I do"--M4bwav 13:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I saw Danny on the grassy knoll. Gamaliel 18:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't a statement like that fall under baiting, aren't admins supposed to explemify the wikipedia philosophies rather than violating them openly. I guess all but a few humans fall short of lofty goals.--M4bwav 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It's funny you should complain about Wikipedia philosophies when you have completely abandoned a key one, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, based on nothing except your imagination. Your "evidence" is nothing but conjecture and your personal interpretation of Danny and Jimbo's actions. As has been pointed out to you, what matters is what the article looks like at the end of this process, not what it looks like right now. While Danny and Jimbo have temporarily locked articles like this before in response to complaints, they have never interfered with content in a permanent way. Your "evidence" takes no notice of that and your paranoia makes everyone who has a legitimate complaint about what happened here look like a crank. Gamaliel 18:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strongly oppose page protection

Having this page protected for anything other than heavy vandalism is highly damaging to Wikipedia. Harry Reid is one of the most important political figures in the United States (Senate Minority Leader isn't an insignificant post). For what it's worth, I think most of the Abramoff allegations regarding Reid are overblown, but that's beside the point. We have POV pushing on hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. Why do we believe that the normal Wiki editing process won't work here? I'm also disturbed by the implication that the normal editors can't be trusted, and that it's necessary to restrict editing to an elite at this time. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You only have to look at Bill Frist or Dick Cheney to see the overblown nature of current events. Why Reid would get a pass is unknown. Bill Frist has a whole section on the SEC investigation. Dick Cheney mentions the shooting in his introduction. The editors should be able to come to consensus without interference from the staff of Senators. There is a reason why Wikipedia banned congressional IPs. Tbeatty 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with both of the above. Protection is inappropriate, especially when there is no explanation and people just walking away and leaving it like that. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
What excludes staff of Senators from being Wikipedians? That seems to be a pretty closedminded attitude. As long as they participate like everyone else, there should be no reason to exclude their voices. It's certainly not a scalable policy. Much better for us to figure out how to deal with interested parties editing Wikipedia reasonably than by trying to block every such party. --The Cunctator 23:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems it would be fine for a staff member to edit wikipedia, but to edit an article of someone they were involved, would probably be too POV to be trustworthy, at the least their edits should be regarded with higher level of suspicion.--M4bwav 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing a priori wrong with a staff member editing his or her Member's article. However, you're right that we should be very careful about not allowing such staff members to due things like give undue weight to successes or failures. NatusRoma 05:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It's polite to listen to the concerns of those featured in an article. Being polite isn't a problem - it helps us all to work together more productively. Even if it means that we have the usual slow progress of improvement taking an extra few days of slowness. Jamesday 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
What concerns? Where were they voiced? What did they say? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I have little idea. The people they have been talking to have not yet told us. Like yu, I do wish they would, as quickly as practical. Jamesday 04:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be ideal if they did so in a public manner. Behind-the-scenes dealing is not the way Wikipedia got to be the resource it is. --Delirium 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remember that protection is temporary

Please remember that page protecton is temporary while the people at the Foundation find out what is bothersome to the party involved and attempt to explain our process to them. I fully expect that the clarifications being sought will then be discussed here, so lets givee them a little time to get that done. Plenty of time to object once we know what the problem they see are. Jamesday 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone expects that. But before this, I think everyone would have expected the page to stay unlocked while this unfolded. Certainly, no one expects a thrid party edit and immediate locking outside of the normal editing process. Finally, I think this typ of pressure being wielded by Reid should be a part of his Wiki entry. If nothing else, it should a disclaimed. "This page was protested by Reid's staff and as a result it was rewritten to satisfy their concerns." Imagine that tag on every entry. Tbeatty 05:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Temporary or not, some minor explanation as to why is warranted. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zoe that some explanation should be given. In response to Danny's comments above; the nature of Wikipedia is that people write about what interests them at the moment. Things get blown out of proportion when they are on the top of peoples minds, then get pruned back when calmer heads prevail, and when it's easier to see the issue in context. Surely the Pokemon universe is far less important than the Culture of Italy, but since a bunch of prepubescent kids choose to use their time and energy to write about every aspect of Pokemon, we have far more about it than the culture of Italy. This is one of the inherent differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias, where size of article is relative to its importance, as decided by professional overseer editors. This disparity is present in every area of Wikipedia, and will continue to be so unless deletion criteria become far far far far more strict. So yes, probably the whole Abramoff thing was disproportionately represented. That's wikipedia. If it's sourced, neutral POV,and a number of respected regular old editors agree that it is so, the material should stay. I find it very troubling that it was locked with very little effort at other routes of mediation. Remember, Jimbo, There is no cabal, and there shouldn't be one, whether it be Jimbo and Danny, or a group of deletion happy-admins. Also, in the world of current events, five days is a very long time. Respectfully, Makemi 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh, hold your horses people. If this isn't sorted out over the next few weeks, more people will start to get itchy for answers. But a couple days? Here are a few helpful suggestions. I suspect, by the way, that the subject of an article, who happens to be a sitting congressman, complains about his article, and the Foundation doesn't have time to look at it and sort it out right then, that a temporary protection is a way of getting enough breathing room to make a good decision. That's all. No, powerful people don't get to dictate Wikipedia policy. But yes, the subject of an article can ask questions and complain, and if the complaints are serious, the Foundation will want to look at it to see if everythings libel-free. If they protect the page for a few days while they look over it, how are you hurt? If the inability to edit the Harry Reid article on Wikipedia for a few days is the worst of your problems, then I really envy your life. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The protection was frivilious, but it's over, this is old news. It wouldn't have been a big deal if they hadn't tried to whitewash the article of information that was cross-referenced from reputable sources, but I guess they figured that out. Oh well, 'alls well that ends well'.--M4bwav 18:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You a) are very late to the chorus and b) totally missed the point. What was missing was the complaint itself. Harry Reid, a Senator, reached out to Wikipedia and had his page sanitized and locked. I don't dispute that it was the proper action. What should have happened, though, in an open environment is to have Reid's complaint noted and posted. Locking the page was the least of the concerns. What did Reid say that locked the page? What was his concern? We still don't know. I for one, think it's important that when people flex political power, that it be open to scrutiny. It might even deserve a subsection on his page. --Tbeatty 23:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Not so much this article, but the precedent is troubling - there are 72,000 bios of living people I hear, and many more people with touchy heirs, not to mention lots of companies and governments who would like certain "improvements". Won't be good for our reputation if everybody thinks they just have to make an accusatory phone call; WMF doesn't have enough staff to answer the phone once the word on this gets around. Stan 05:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIA

There was some controversy as to the delay in reporting the TSA. It's why the question about the delay occured. --Tbeatty 05:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It deserves mention. One sentence is not excessive. Considering the amount of attention that has been spent on an 18 hour delay on the Cheney shooting, it seems warranted to have one sentence here. --Tbeatty 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur that it does deserve mention, perhaps there is a way to reword it for mutual satisfaction?--M4bwav 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The main difference between the delay in reporting Cheney's hunting incident and the delay in reporting Reid's TIA is that there was a lot of controversy over the former, while there was next to zero controversy over the latter. From the source in the article, it seems that the closest Reid's delay came to controversy was the reporter asking the question. NatusRoma | Talk 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a source for the "controversy". The provided source indicates that a reporter asked him a question. It doesn't document a controversy. Anyone got a reference for that? Derex 02:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is implied by the question but it was temporally an issue. [2]. But I think I will change the wording to "questions". --Tbeatty 06:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is his church affiliation his biggest characteristic?

Why is that mentioned first? Do we mention the religion of other politicians? This guy is a Jew, this guy is a Catholic? Why don't we look at them for who they are personally?

This is so lame, that I shouldn't have to be pointing it out. Wikipedia is not a very good source of information, if this is the best we can do. We might as well all work for the National Enquirer.

A politician's religious and/or personal world belief system is definitely an important characteristic that should be openly discussed. To hide this information is to be less that truthful about a political figure because it often does say a great deal about their character and positions on political issues.


[edit] Boxing Tickets

Regardless of whether Redi voted for or against a particular interest, he accepted gifts from a party that had legislation pending. Other senators saw it as a conflict of interest and ethics experts say he should have repaid the money. He chose not to. If he voted against the legislation, that is what the gaming commission wanted. --Tbeatty 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Commission did not have "legislation pending"; they took a position opposing a bill which Reid was advocating. He then voted for the legislation, against the wishes of the Commission, as did every other Senator. McCain didn't necessarily see it as a conflict; maybe he's just wary of hit pieces like this, since he's running for President. The Commission also offered tickets to Nevada's other Senator, who had already stated he wasn't going to vote, because of a family tie. He also accepted them. Teapot, meet tempest. Derex 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No source states that other Senators did not see Reid's action as a conflict of interest; the WaPo AP article only says that McCain thought that if he himself had accepted the tickets, it would have been a conflict of interest. In fact, Reid did the opposite of what the Nevada State Boxing Commission wanted. NatusRoma | Talk 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the highlights of this ammendment was to allow tribal lands to conduct boxing matches. This is why it was opposed by Nevada State commission and this is why Abramoff stuff is mentioned in the article (although they have muddled up the whole thing so it isn't clear). Reid's whole problem is that he is trying to represent Nevada tribes AND Nevada gaming industry. Abramoff's clients who had already given money to Reid wanted this ammendment. Reid took both tribal donations and commission donations. This is the shakedown scheme that Abramoff himself used and was convicted. Since Reid isn't a lobbyist, he isn't held to the "high" lobbyist ethical standards that would prevent him from accepting free gifts from both sides of the aisle. Or rather, Reids constituents are diametrically opposed and he is using this to garner campaign contributions and freebies. It's a little smelly. --Tbeatty 06:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005 - (Sec. 3) Amends the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to: (1) authorize a tribal organization to establish a boxing commission to regulate professional boxing matches held on Indian land; and (2) provide that its provisions shall apply to professional boxing matches held on tribal lands to the same extent and in the same way as they apply to such matches held in any State. Requires health and safety standards and licensing requirements for matches to be at least as restrictive as: (1) standards and requirements in the State in which the Indian land is located; or (2) the guidelines established by the United States Boxing Commission (USBC) (established in this Act) .--Tbeatty 06:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


This whole section needs a re-write. They weren't even tickets. They had no face value. They were credentials, which by law cannot be sold. Section is, as such, totally screwed up. Derex 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I submit that John Solomon's writing for the Associated Press can no longer be considered a reliable source for this article. This series of articles, like the series of articles about donations from clients of Jack Abramoff, contains numerous factual errors and consists of nothing but poorly reasoned innuendo.
After reading [3], I'm going to rewrite that section and cut a lot of it.NatusRoma | Talk 05:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Amen. Derex 05:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The latest article I read had Reid admintting it was an ethical misinterpretation and he should have not accepted the tickets. AP is a reliable source and I think his reporting was factual. Rewriting it because a reliable source doesn't fit your POV is not acceptable. You may add other sources that have alternate interpretations. But AP is one of the most reliable sources in the news.--143.182.124.4 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really? Derex 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I took it out, not because it didn't fit my POV, or was POV. But because it was confusingly written, if you are going to quote somebody, quote that person. But to attribute a quote to the set of all news agencies doesn't work, I thought about rewriting it myself, but I didn't want to step on anyones toes in that regard.--M4bwav 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The second article pretty much demonstrates a clear bias on the part of Solomon. Apparently the AP are now seeing that Solomon's lede gives a totally misleading impression that Reid agrees that he broke the rules when in fact his error was the other way. I don't think it is appropriate to cite TPM on this at this stage, better to see how things pan out over the next few days. Yep this is a stinky story but the stink seems to come from the reporter not the subject of the report. --Gorgonzilla 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I read that McCain also attended boxing, but donated the value of the credentials/tickets to charity. Neutral arbiter 06:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Not quite right. McCain sent a check for the tickets to the commission, and they didn't know what to do with it — couldn't legally accept it. So, they sent it on to a charity. Derex 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

New York Times (web safe URL) - Here is an interesting article from NYT: "Senator Reid Admits Erring on Ethics Rule". - Neutral arbiter 06:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't its the same Solomon/AP story that is already cited and has been dismissed as misdirection. -- 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Las Vegas Land Deal

A recent revert to remove information about Reid's Las Vegas land deal was said to be based on the need for a source, though the source was already provided and referenced at the end of the paragraph. If the AP is not a credible source, then there is an enormous amount of editing work pending to remove such citations. Before removing the relevant and credibly sourced information about who sold the land to Reid, please discuss here.

[edit] According to WAPO, there is NO PROOF that Harty Reid "owned" any stake in the LLC

Please read this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101200129_pf.html

It says: "They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends."

However, our Wiki article says: "Reid continued to report to Congress that he still owned the land for 3 years after he sold it to the LLC he partially owned."

This is WRONG - there is NO PROOF that Reid "owned" any of the LLC.

216.32.81.2 06:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


I think you need to read it again. It is Reid;s aides (i.e. Reid) who is claiming he has ownership in the company but no money changed hands. It is a matter of public record that the land was sold to the LLC. --Tbeatty 07:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
216 - It's a matter of public record that Reid paid $400,000 for the land. If he didn't own any of the LLC, how exactly did the LLC get the land from Reid (the land that the LLC sold) - as a donation? Because clearly he never got any cash until the LLC sold the land. John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless the public records for the LLC clearly show a Reid ownership interest, the Reid staffer's statement of "have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company" is determinative. The simple fact is that there is NO PROOF that Reid "owned" part of the LLC. Also the news reports say Reid "sold" his land to the LLC. They DO NOT say that Reid "exchanged" his land for an ownership interest in the LLC. Boy, some people are really missing the point here. Based on the KNOWN ADMITTED FACTS, here's what happened: 1) Reid owned land with less than optimal zoning 2) Reid sold that land to an LLC for the same $400,000 he paid for it. 3) It's been reported that one party with a stake in the LLC is a businessman (and friend of Reid's) with a shady background 4) AFTER the sale to the LLC, Reid's name was used at an appeals hearing to get the land rezoned - thereby increasing it's value. 5) After the land was sold, Reid got paid $1.1 million. These facts are not in dispute.

Now then, why is this bad? Because Reid shifted all the risk of the potential failure to re-zone onto the LLC. At the time of the rezoning battle Reid ALREADY HAD is $400,000 back! This also means that Reid's $1.1 million was PURE PROFIT - a "bribe" if you will. What did Reid actually DO for that $1.1 million? Nothing - other than let the developers representatives DROP HIS NAME during the rezoning hearing, so as to PRESSURE local officials into rezoning.

Reid DID NOT have an ownership interest in the LLC - Reid's $1.1 million is pure profit. Reid DID NOT have any money at risk in the LLC. If that $1.1 is not a "bribe", then what is it? Reid had NO MONEY AT RISK and the LLC rep's USED REID's NAME to PRESSURE LOCAL OFFICIALS!

This entire transaction SMELLS to high heavens! Also, if the LLC borrowed any $ from a bank, while failing to disclose to that bank it's obligations to Reid, the LLC (which Reid claims to partial "own") COMMITTED FRAUD on the bank.

Here's what we have:

1) Reid hid this arrangement from the public eye - Reid failed to properly disclose
2) Reid's LLC pal has a shady past
3) The LLC committed FRAUD against its lenders
4) Reid had NO $$$ at risk - the $1.1 million is an unethical gratuity
5) Reid's name was used by the LLC (and as a so-called owner, Reid should have known this) to pressure local officials - so as to unjustly enrich Reid.

$1.1 Million for ZERO financial risk - where can the rest of us get a deal like that?

216.32.81.2 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question. Let me rephrase: you said Reid sold that land to an LLC for the same $400,000 he paid for it. When exactly did he sell it and GET HIS $400,000 back in cash? (Please provide a newspaper cite and the exact words in the newspaper article to support your answer.) Or are you saying he "sold" it but was not paid by the LLC? (If he didn't get paid, in what way was this a "sale"?) John Broughton | Talk 19:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not getting answers, because your premise is erroneous. You are presuming that the scuttlebutt you rely on is accurate. Reid is a LAWYER. He KNOWS the difference between a "sale" and an "investment" into an LLC. If Reid did in fact deed over the land to the LLC as he says he did, then the records he filed a the Clark County Deed Recorders Office are FRAUDULENT.

Please see this link: http://recorder.co.clark.nv.us/extreal/Navigate.asp?AdvancedSearch.x=105&AdvancedSearch.y=4

Do a search for Reid, Harry and check all the Harry Reid's which have no middle initial or M for middle initial. This will bring up all pertinant records. On the results page, you will see one of the records which says this:

Instrument: 20010720-02259 Book/Instr: 20010720 / 2259
Document Type: Deed Recorded: 07/20/2001 14:57:36 Pgs: 2
ReRecorded: Y Remarks: rerecord
Requestor: PATRICK LANE LLC
1st Party: REID, HARRY M - EE
REID, LANDRA J - EE
REID FAMILY TRUST AGREEMENT
BROWN, SHARYN
2nd Party: PATRICK LANE LLC
Legal Description: ParcelNum: 16331601015
References:
Tot Value: $0.00 Encumbrance: $0.00
RPTT: $0.00 Exmpt Code: 003 Percent: 100% ATag:

This is the 2001 "sale" in question. It's pretty clear that Reid is LYING somewhere. Who is "BROWN, SHARYN"? Doesn't sound to me like Reid even fully owned the property. Also, why does it say "Tot Value: $0.00"? Look at some of the other records - they show values. Where's the public record of the supposed $400,000 "sale" price?

Reid is pulling a scam here and if you don't see it, that's your issue - not mine.

216.32.81.2 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the Nevada Secretary of State's Office and look up the "Patrick Lane LLC" here:
https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpSearch.aspx
The only name which shows up is "JAY H. BROWN". Where is Harry Reid's Name? When did he resign from the LLC? Where is the proof he was ever a member of the LLC? And if he was never a member, where is the proof he was an owner? Was he ever a manager of the LLC? I'd like to see a copy of the "Articles of Organization". Interestingly enough, unlike many other states, the Nevada web site does not seem to have those on line. Also, according the Nevada Sec. State web site "JAY H. BROWN" is the resident agent for a total of 124 companies. How many of those would Harry Reid prefer we not know that his business partner is involved in? Is this why Reid failed to disclose the Patrick Lane LLC? To hide that he's in bed with the many tentacled Brown? 216.32.81.2 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's good to see this form of discussion here; it's a textbook case of the use of innuendo, and exacty the sort of thing the AP article was designed to promote. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minority/Majority

I presume Reid is still technically Senate Minority Leader. At what point does he officially become Majority leader?

  • Well, the new Senate term starts in January; I don't know if the new members will caucus with the old ones before that to select the new leader, or if it's the first order of business when the Senate reconvenes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Talk%7EHarry_Reid_c9bc.html"