Talk:Mary Landrieu

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mary Landrieu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016231041/http://www.landrieu.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=15 to http://www.landrieu.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=15
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151027055830/http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281?ref=politics to http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281?ref=politics
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123143806/http://landrieu.senate.gov/2009/index.cfm to http://landrieu.senate.gov/2009/index.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325005228/http://landrieu.senate.gov/hurricanes/s.1765.pdf to http://landrieu.senate.gov/hurricanes/s.1765.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829201552/http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002 to http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209095930/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Landrieu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016220802/http://theadvocate.com/home/6547447-125/la-senators-split-on-presidential to http://theadvocate.com/home/6547447-125/la-senators-split-on-presidential

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Landrieu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016184632/http://www.kplctv.com/story/9527784/sen-landrieu-to-chair-senate-small-gfbusiness-committee to http://www.kplctv.com/story/9527784/sen-landrieu-to-chair-senate-small-gfbusiness-committee

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Phone system incident

Hello, I work for Project Veritas and would like to request three corrections to the section "Plot to compromise Landrieu's phone system."

1. The title of the section should be changed to "Phone system incident," since it was found that no plot to tamper with Landrieu's phone system ever existed. Although the four men were initially accused of this, the charges were soon reduced when it became clear that there was never any phone tampering plot, but rather they had just planned to pretend to test the phone system. (Source)
2. The first sentence of the paragraph should be changed from "... were arrested by US Marshals for their role in a plot to hack the phone system of Landrieu's New Orleans office to record her and her staff's conversations" to "... were arrested and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony by tampering with the phone system." The new wording avoids the incorrect implication that "a plot to hack the phone system" existed, by clarifying that these were merely the initial federal charges (which were later dropped when the facts of the incident became clear).
3. The second sentence of the paragraph should be changed from "Two of the alleged co-conspirators posed as telephone repair technicians in order to gain access to the telephone system" to "Two of the alleged co-conspirators were dressed as telephone repair technicians when apprehended." The new wording avoids the incorrect statement that the intent of the two men was "to gain access to the phone system," as this accusation was made only in the original federal charges, but was soon dropped when it was found to be untrue.

Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Be careful with your wording. The source you presented doesn't say that it was found to be untrue, merely that they reduced the charges in what the article says was probably a plea deal. Pleading guilty to a lesser charge doesn't change or negate other coverage. Many later sources continue to cover it as an effort to tamper with the phones, eg. here. More importantly (as I'm sure you're aware, working for Project Veritas), O'Keefe lost a libel suit that made the exact argument you are making here, with the judge stating that "Therefore, the words “trying to tamper with,” understood in the colloquial sense, convey the substantial truth of the Landrieu incident". Given that the current wording we use has been supported as substantially true in a court of law, I don't see how you can argue that it is inaccurate; furthermore, the current version does cover the sequence of events (what they were arrested for, what they were ultimately charged with and plead guilty to, etc.) But I don't see how you can argue that the summary is wrong when it's been determined in a court of law that it is broadly accurate. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Phone system incident (2)

I am reopening this request now that the Business Insider article mentioned above, which erroneously referred to an actual phone tampering plot, has been corrected. After we brought the error to the attention of Business Insider, they removed all language from the article suggesting there was ever an actual plot to tamper with Landrieu's phone system.

As for the libel suit cited in response to my earlier request, the legal ruling (which is, in any case, a primary source) only concluded that the article that used the word "tamper" in that case did not meet the legal definition of defamation because the "fundamental gist of the paragraph" was still true despite the inaccuracy. This certainly does not change the widely reported fact that there was no actual tampering plot.

So once more, here are my requested corrections:

1. The title of the section should be changed to "Phone system incident," since it was found that no plot to tamper with Landrieu's phone system ever existed. Although the four men were initially accused of this, the charges were soon reduced when it became clear that there was never any phone tampering plot, but rather they had just planned to pretend to test the phone system. (Source)
2. The first sentence of the paragraph should be changed from "... were arrested by US Marshals for their role in a plot to hack the phone system of Landrieu's New Orleans office to record her and her staff's conversations" to "... were arrested and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony by tampering with the phone system." The new wording avoids the incorrect implication that "a plot to hack the phone system" existed, by clarifying that these were merely the initial federal charges (which were later dropped when the facts of the incident became clear).
3. The second sentence of the paragraph should be changed from "Two of the alleged co-conspirators posed as telephone repair technicians in order to gain access to the telephone system" to "Two of the alleged co-conspirators were dressed as telephone repair technicians when apprehended." The new wording avoids the incorrect statement that the intent of the two men was "to gain access to the phone system," as this accusation was made only in the original federal charges, but was soon dropped when it was found to be untrue.

Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Each requested change should have a source appended to it for verification. Your list has 3 items, but I see only one source. If all the information comes from one source, the verbatim text from that source should be provided here. Regards,  Spintendo  15:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks for responding. All three parts of my request are supported by the same source and by the same rationale: that while the four men were initially charged with a felony for attempting to tamper with Landrieu's phone system, it was soon found that they were actually only planning to pretend to do so, and because of that the federal charges were reduced "entering a federal building under false pretenses." So it makes no sense to write about a "plot" to hack the phone system in any way that suggests that such a plot actually ever existed. The verbatim text from the source is: "Federal authorities initially accused the four of trying to tamper with Landrieu's phones, but the new filing merely says they planned to pretend to test the phone system." (The original link to the source at wsj.com appears to no longer be functional, so here is a link to the same article on the website of The Oklahoman.) Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It would help if you would represent your sources correctly. The article you linked indicates that they were allowed a plea bargain for a lesser charge, but substantiates everything else in the filings. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sal at PV: I'm setting this edit request to "declined", per Spintendo and IHateAccounts's replies above. The Business Insider source says that O'Keefe was sentenced ... after attempting to break into the phones of former Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (emphasis added) and [O'Keefe was] arrested after impersonating telephone repairmen on allegations they were attempting to tamper with Landrieu's phones, a felony - this, in my opinion, doesn't support the changes you want making. Furthermore, the WSJ source you've provided doesn't exist (anymore?): it's an error 404. Seagull123 Φ 16:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I now see you've provided a second source because of the WSJ source being down; however, I still don't think it should be changed personally, as per IHateAccounts's reply above. Seagull123 Φ 16:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LASen96Counties.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)