Talk:Mark Foley scandal/Archive 1

message: Who added all of the "unnecessary" "quotation marks" throughout the "article"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmob (talk • contribs) 2006-10-03T16:12:23
:I searched the article and the only quotation marks I can find are around quotes.  There are quotes around "sexually explicit" IMs and "overly-friendly" emails because someone raised a (probably unfounded) claim that that could be libel if it was stated as a fact, so out of an abundance of caution it was done as a direct quote from reliable sources with a footnote citing them.  Feel free to be bold and fix anything you think needs fixing, or point out specifically where you think the problem is.--Bibliophylax 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the quotes are a problem.  They aren't libel - if you read the IM's it is very clear that they are sexually explicit.  As is they only function to cast doubt upon the sexual nature of the emails in the mind of the reader, and obscuring the issue is not a goal of Wikipedia.  I have removed some of the extraneous quote marks.  -Interested2 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  perhaps a notice warning people who might not want to read the charged nature of these IMs and emails might be necessary. The762x51 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: quotation marks

message: Hastert's press release very explicitly says that no one besides Alexander read the emails, including Shimkus and the Clerk.
Shimkus now says otherwise, that both he and the Clerk read them.
It's hard to imagine that the Hastert put out a press release under those circumstances which was cavalier about facts that central. Someone clearly lied to someone at some point, but I'm not sure what to do with it. So, for now, I've just struck any mention of whether the emails got read. That's not a good permanent fix though. Derex 03:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The permanent fix is to say what you just said above. It isn't Wikipedia's job to determine in the mists of time who actually read an e-mail. We report the statements. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that. What I'm asking is where to put these contradictory statements narratively. Derex 06:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reading the emails 

message: :"If I were one of these sickos, I'd be nervous with America's Most Wanted on my trail."
Rep. Mark Foley to America's Most Wanted's John Walsh while discussing Foley's new anti-child predator legislation. Derex 05:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that should be included in a background section on his child-protection legislative activities. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote 

message: As a service, I decided to look into what major media outlets are calling this. Summarized:
* NYT: no name; keywords in heds are "Foley" and "e-mail"
* WaPo: no name; keywords in heds are "Foley" and "e-mail" (as well as "inappropriate", "messages to pages" in ledes and photo caps)
* ABCNews.com (who broke): "Foley scandal" in some heds; other keywords are "Foley", "resignation", "e-mails to teen", "explicit electronic messages", "sexually explicit [Internet] messages to minors", "inappropriate messages to teenage boy",
* Reuters: sort of a name "Foley matter" (regarding Congressional action), keywords "e-mail", "inappropriate contact" "former intern"
* AP: no name, "inappropriate messages to a teenage boy", "Foley e-mails", "sexually suggestive instant messages", quotes Boehner saying "improper communications"
* Orlando Sentinel (local to district): "explicit messages exchanged with former page boy", "questionable e-mails", "sexually explicit Internet instant messages"
* CREW (activist group published e-mails): "Foley page scandal"
* NY Daily News (major tabloid): "perv e-mails sink pol" , "flirted with teen pages", "raunchy online messages", "inappropriate e-mail messages"
* NY Post only using wire stories, preoccupied with local scandals?
* WashTimes (conservative, for balance): "Foley quits in Hill sex scandal", "sexually suggestive messages", "underage boys"
Regardless of dictionary definitions, I believe it would be original research to stray far from the words used by these media outlets, as well as placing an article where people won't find it so easily. So far I have seen no media outlet specifically refer to a potential crime or use language such as "sexual harassment" or "sexual assault", but I have seen "obscenity" mentioned. (Not one major media or wire service story used "pederasty" anywhere.) My sense of this is that the article is probably best titled something like "Mark Foley [obscene] e-mail  [to teens/pages] scandal". That sticks best to what is verifiable by reliable sources. After edit conflict & move: perhaps simplest is best. No objection to current name 2006 Mark Foley scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names in use in the media 

message: I don't see any need for an independent "external links" sections, except for the IM transcript. The references section should be sufficient, and there is considerable duplication between the two. If an external link isn't relevant enough to be a reference, why is it here? If it is relevant, but contains nothing beyond the existing refernces, why is it here? Derex 23:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me to delete redundancies. Haiduc 23:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: How is reproducing the instant messages a copyright violation? Was ABC committing a copy-vio when they reproduced the converstion? If, not why is wikipedia supplying the text any different? Arbusto 23:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should take it up over there. I used to be heavily involved there, and they are very strict. Too strict in my opinion, we couldn't even post UN resolutions for a while. Wikipedia can provide excerpts under fair use law, but the full text is questionable. We can always just link to the ABC transcripts, so it's not really a content loss. Derex 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see our resident Conservative Undergrounder instantly leapt into action to keep this from tainting Wikisource.  Derex 08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource of the text 

message: I'd like to see a better co-ordination between the main Foley article and this. It seems most of the editors here aren't involved there, and vice versa. The "leadership" section over there is basically redundant. And the "content" section is more comprehensive there. I'd almost like to switch the two. More of an observation that a request or a specific suggestion. Derex 08:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really being maintained more actively? Feel free to merge over the important parts, as we already have this designated as the main article. --Dhartung | Talk 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's mostly less active, while more detailed in the explict part. But, the editors there seem reluctant to trim that down in favor of this. At any rate, it's not an interaction as smooth as it should be. Derex 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Foley article 

message: Excuse my ignorance, but the law in Washington DC is that the age of consent is 16. What law has Foley supposedly broken? I can understand ethical violations, since his former position was superior to these boys, but I'm not certain what law he's accused of breaking. Kyaa the Catlord 08:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not charged with anything, though there appears to be a criminal investigation. Yes, he could legally make whoopee with the lad in DC. However, under federal law he cannot solicit or entice sexual contact with a minor (under 18) using interstate electronic communications. He sponsored that law; it passed last year. Ironic, isn't it? The Force runs strong in the commerce clause. Derex 08:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But since the act wouldn't be illegal in DC, how can this law be applied? Kyaa the Catlord 08:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very act of solicitation or enticement using electronic devices is illegal under that law. The consummation of the act need not be. You also can't cross inter-state lines to have sex with a minor (under 18) even if the act is legal once there. Take note, all you college freshmen with girls back home. No IM sex. And hands-off when she visits. Derex 09:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just keep in mind that there's a huge difference between what will send you to prison and what will force you to resign from Congress (although many Congressmen have economically combined the two). Obviously you don't need to be charged with a crime to become an embarrassment to your party and your district. --Dhartung | Talk 11:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyaa, the NYT has an article that looks at the question of "what crime" as well as "what jurisdiction". I don't expect an answer quickly. --Dhartung | Talk 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That Florida law is amazingly broad in scope. Scarily broad. *goes to take his naughty fanfiction off the internet* Kyaa the Catlord 14:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which laws? 

message: The "religious response" section is speculative - and veers way off into bias-land in the final sentence. Let's stick to the facts - they're condemning enough as it is. FCYTravis 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious response 

message: I moved the article from "2006 Mark Foley scandal" to "Mark Foley scandal".  Why?  Because "2006" in the title implies a previous Mark Foley scandal.  There is no need to disambiguate with "2006".  See articles like Zidane headbutt, which excludes "2006" in the title (as it would be unnecessary).  In fact, the first sentence of the article only refers to the incident as "Mark Foley scandal", and not the "2006 Mark Foley scandal".  Removing "2006" also eliminates a bias (again, one that implies a repeat occurrence.) Bssc81 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone moved the article to "Mick Foley scandal," presumably as vandalism.  In my rush to try to move it back, I moved it to Mike Foley scandal.  Sorry!  Could an admin pleease move it back to Mark Foley scandal??--Bibliophylax 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's probably unnecessary, unless it becomes the 2006 Congressional page scandal again later because (shudder) it gets worse. But the date held over from disambiguating with the 1983 scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved article 

message: Okay, I am tired of editing out the "possibly solicited minor children for sex" charges. There are a number of things wrong with this. One, we have no idea if this is what is actually being investigated, and such specific claims are wild speculation. Two, explicit sexual Internet communications with a minor might be illegal unto itself. Solicition for sex need not be a requirement for having broken a law. Three, keep in mind federal and/or state laws may come into play here, particularly ones involving this type of communication over there Internet where IM servers may be localed in different states (see my comments in underage and United States v. Dhingra).
Please refrain from asserting what charges (in their entirety) are being investigated unless you have a reference to back it up. Please note that it may be possible Foley broke several laws, and until we have more information, pegging the scandal as a one charge incident is both irresponsible and deceptive. Sysrpl 04:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandal != Solicitation for Sex 

message: For the record, I endorse NatusRomus who is merging the timeline into the body. Timelines are an excuse for poor writing. I was dismayed to see a previously nice text from yesterday chopped up that way this today. But, if you _must_ have a timeline, for god's sake use past tense. Derex 05:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the complexity and the contradictory accounts of this case merit a timeline, but I don't think it should replace a narrative approach. There's a real question of who knew what when. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind having one at the bottom that's very concise. But someone took most of the main narrative text and broke it up into a timeline. Derex 09:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Someone has twice removed mention of the Washington Times call for resignation. Once of those was without edit summary notice. The Washington Times is unquestionably one of the most influential conservative-leaning papers in the country. Their call for resignation of the Speaker is huge news. How often do most major papers cover an editorial of a rival? It's unheard of. If that's not "political fallout", then I don't know what is. Whether or not he resigns, it's a really big political deal so soon before an election. Derex 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it that this article seems to be consistently trimmed back to simply talking about e-mails when what the media are discussing as the most important aspect is the Republican coverup of congressional pederasty???? Haiduc 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wash Times call 

message: Drudge has posted the following as headlines without supporting articles.  If substantiated, these will be very relevant in the article:
* ABC News is hearing from more pages who have gotten "all sorts of messages from other members."
* Ross knew about the emails in early August, but didn't think they were worth his time until the end of September.
* The FBI has apparently responded to CREW's allegation and said they DID look into the email, but found "insufficient grounds" for an investigation
I don't think we can include these before they are expanded upon in a reputable source, but please keep an eye out.  They're sure to hit MSM soon.--Bibliophylax 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Upcoming developments

message: We "know", due to recentivism, that the hurricane in question was Katrina, but this quote could use some context to help explain it to future readers. Kyaa the Catlord 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context of "hurricane" message 

message: An anonymous user with IP 67.72.98.84 has twice removed the characterizations of the IMs as "sexually explicit" and the emails as either "suggestive" or "overly-friendly" on the grounds that these are libel.  The IMs *are* sexually explicit and they *are* alleged to have been sent by Foley.  The IMs are quoted in the article and available online--and I think it is clearly not a mischaracterization to call them sexually explicit.  Likewise, I don't think it is untrue to say they are alleged to have been sent by Foley.  And I don't think calling the emails either "suggestive" or "overly-friendly" is negative or untrue.  Libel does not include statements that are true.  I firmly believe these characterizations are true, and thus not libel.  I also think they are critical to an understanding of the scandal. It's not the fact that he sent emails and IMs that is the scandal.  It is the fact that the IMs are sexually explicit.  I'd appreciate other input on this.  I've already reverted the removal once, and don't want to do it myself again without further input.  See also WP:LIVING:"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."--Bibliophylax 18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that since it labels the conversations and not the person, it is kosher. If we, for arguments sake, labelled Mr. Foley, now that could be libelous. Kyaa the Catlord 18:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree with you.  The anon user hasn't responded and I commented on his/her talk page asking the issue to be discussed.  The edit summary suggests the concern was over the fact that the descriptions were unsourced, so I re-added them with sources.  I think the description "overly-friendly" can't be described as libel, since it is how Foley himself characterized the emails.  The concerns are well-taken, however.  We should all remain careful to be sure we aren't making unsourced negative statements.--Bibliophylax 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call on sourcing the labels. I don't see any ground for him to argue from now. Kyaa the Catlord 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing is always a good call, but it can be done with a link rather than an in-text attribution. Those IM's are sexually explicit by anyone's standards regardless: masterbation techniques, cute naked butts bouncing, measuring penis length. Calling them explicit is not a libel concern, particularly when every paper on the planet has called them that. What we _must_ be very careful about is stating, without attribution, that Foley actually sent the IM's. We don't know that's true; 2 anonymous pages presented IM transcripts which they easily could have typed up themselves. The first mention must be very clear about that in-text. That is, "ABC reports that 2 unnamed pages gave them alleged transcripts." After that, I think it's ok to refer to them as Foley's IM's, because the disclaimer is right up front. Derex 22:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characterizing IMs and Emails

message: I believe Democrats have attacked Republicans for not dealing with the Foley issue earlier. Are there any sources that say that Democrats have known about the issue as well? This "October surprise" comes down as being carefully planned, so I wonder if there are any news articles about this? Intangible 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have definintely been some Republican commentators commenting about the fishiness of an "October surprise" and speculating that the Democrats or "liberal media" intentionally sat on the issue until now for political gain.  But they are just that--speculations (and politically motivated ones at that).  See, for example, .  But Wikipedia is not a place for speculation or accusations.  There is no evidence at this point the Dems knew anything and not even any substantiated accusations or speculations.  As such, this shouldn't be included in the article (unless of course facts come out that the Dems did know).--Bibliophylax 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with B. However, if those speculations become notable, for example if Hastert comes out and makes speculates it explicitly regarding the Demns, then it should go in as notable. A personal observation: some of these IM's go back 5 years. If this were all a Democratic election plot, they would have sprung them in the 2004 election. Derex 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening of scandal 

message: I'm hastily adding this here for someone to look into, as I am at work right now.  I don't know if this is reported at the moment or not in wikipedia, or even if it is legit source: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732575.php SargeAbernathy 20:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  That's definitely a plot twist!  At this point I don't think it's reliable enough to include in the article... but if it is true, it is sure to hit the main media sources very soon... at which point it might need its own article!  As of now, I can only find mention of it on blogs and politicized sources... but let's keep an eye out!--Bibliophylax 21:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Howard Kurtz revealed this yesterday in his Washington Post column. He didn't explicitly name Fordham, but he described him uniquely. Kurtz confirmed the name to the NYDaily news. Reynolds has confirmed, but he says Fordham did this "on his own time". Video of Reynold's statement off this page. Personal prediction: the press will reveal that Fordham was working during business hours, and did not apply for leave. Reynolds eventually goes down in flames for lending out Fordham _after_ he knew about the explicit IM's. Derex 22:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reynold's Conduct 

message: #Note on Events and Failure to Act
A fairly major structural change was proposed in that section. Could we get some feedback? Derex 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan on re-introducing the individual members section - it was much more informative than what we have now. Haiduc 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Derex 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There should be a sentence in the lede stating that the Republican leadership has come under criticism about this, as a large part of the text involves that. I've got to go now though, no time to handle it. Derex 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for further input

message: This is not a biography of a living person. Please do not add the template used for the talk pages of biographies of living persons. All policies apply to all articles. The BLP policy applies to all claims made about all living persons in all articles. But the BLP template goes on BLP articles and not other articles. For example it goes on a singer's bio article but not the article about the group he is a member of. WAS 4.250 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. A reminder here is exceptionally important. The temlate re-inforces that message. It does not say a word about this article _being_ a biography. Derex 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please create a box at the top that expresses what you think is important for this article, rather than copying the text that is specifically for BLP articles. Others can edit that text. And it won't create a precedent for everyone to add the BLP template to every talk page with an article that contains claims about living people.  Thanks. WAS 4.250 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current box at the top says PRECISELY what I think is important. Read it. Derex 05:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Haven't you got better things to do than remove warnings on one of the most contentious and heavily publicized articles on the entire Wikipedia advising people to be mindful of our very strict rules regarding living people? Derex 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP

message: Please keep in mind that this event has grown beyond the immdiate issues involving Foley, and that an intro that solely focuses on Foley and his doings is simply inadequate. Haiduc 03:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. For neutrality, it is also important to keep Foley's public statement there about not molesting anyone. That has been removed a few times. Derex 03:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Haiduc 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introductory paragraphs 

message: It is impossible to edit with a swarm on anon-ips and new accounts jumping all over it, vandalizing, violating policy, mass reverting, and the rest. Anyone now how to request it? Any admins out there?  Derex 03:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a request at the appropriate place. Derex 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, Joshua did the right thing.  If I actually cared about "process over common sense" I would un-semi it and re-semi it myself, but hopefully no one is actually that silly.  Guettarda 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can an admin please semi-protect this? 

message: Kudos on the code from D.C. on child/adult relationships vis-a-vis the law. I lend my support to that edit, and that as of now, there is no crime alleged. However, it is possible that he furnished alcohol to a minor--this was at least discussed in one of the im's, but who knows if they went through with it.-Kmaguir1 06:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should be absolutely clear that he has not been charged. It is fair though to report what expert consultants to the media think might be applicable law. Derex 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criminal investigation latest edit

message: I believe the source for this is mischaracterizing itself. In the lead of the article, it says that gay advocates are criticizing the leadership of the Republican majority, but doesn't include any evidence to support this article, rather it quotes Newt Gingrich (who is not in office) and the Family Research Council (an activist group), nowhere in the article does it address any of the leadership in Congress or even quote any statements by them. I'm going to remove the text from the article due to it not supporting what it states with evidence. Kyaa the Catlord 11:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I removed the article, I'll post a link to it here:  Kyaa the Catlord 11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I completely agree that his sexual orientation and the mishandling of such was an issue in this scandal on a number of levels. Kyaa the Catlord 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gay Spin" article 

message: Okay, the last entry on the to-do list is:
"Response, or lack thereof, from Gay Rights Groups, First Amendment Groups, Internet Freedom Groups -- (be sure to avoid original research)"
How about anti-predator groups? Surely they'll have something to say about this. For example, Perverted Justice recently posted an article condemning the whole mess and calling for action. They're one of the more prominent ones. Not sure if it's hit the smaller-scale ones yet. I'm keeping an eye out. Crystallina 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a source worthy of being used in this article, its a 40 person volunteer vigilante group that has a self-published "blog". We need something more credible, if the article is picked up in a newspaper or something then we'd have something here. This smacks of fishing for free press, imho. Kyaa the Catlord 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about to-do list