Talk:Leahy Law

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Untitled

I think whoever is writing this page ought to change the stub label to {{US-law-stub}} . Just a suggestion. --Eastlaw 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks I will do now.Travb 09:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leahy Law. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ostensibly

i added the term "ostensibly" to the declarative statement that this law prohibits assistance to entities based on human rights violations, due to the State Department refusing to use the law after it was found that IDF committed atrocities in the West Bank. it is probably a good idea to discuss this here, and i will check back from time to time to see if it is challenged. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good change, and deserves to be mentioned in the lead. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i obviously agree however User:EvergreenFir reverted your change made on June 30, and User:Owner of a Dog reverted mine made on May 1. there are now reliable sources that state that "the rules were different for Israel".[1][2] the Guardian article that came out on Jan 18th lists a bunch of extra processes to be used only in the case of Israel, these processes should at least be included in the article along with the statement that "the rules were different for Israel", however i am not inclined to include them due to the contentious article rules, and per article ownership by others. i would note that the editors who reverted the addition of "ostensibly" did not discuss the reversion here, per WP:BRD. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! When I made that reversion, I didn't see the long message up above, posted on 4/30.

Sounds like this is an edit with sense behind it. What can I do? Owner of a Dog (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well if that was the only reason you could restore the word "ostensibly". you can add the Guardian article(s) above if you feel like it need sourced. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the addition of "ostensibly" is editorialization. The law exists and says what it says. That the USA chooses to violate it would be something to add to a separate section in the article. I have no problem including things about rules being "different for Israel". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]