Talk:Leo McGarry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Wanna see Leo as a VP.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Something about Leo and Josh's relationship

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)