Talk:Mark Foley scandal/Archive 3

message: Talk page was over 100k.  See Archive 2 for discussions between 10/04 and 10/06.--Bibliophylax 13:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to archive

message: The last time I put this in, an editor declared this truthful information to be "non-encyclopedic".  However, it is just as encyclopedic as reporting the drop in price of a stock on the stock market. Independent public markets are scientifically proven to be at least as accurate, if not more accurate than many polls and pundits. Furthermore, this sourse actually quantifies the amount of the political impact. Tradesports is used, by consensus, on several other policital wikipedia entries, such as United States gubernatorial elections, 2006 and United States Senate elections, 2006 .  Just because it is different than a political analysis tool you're used do doesn't make it wrong or unhelpful to readers.  Please try to seek consensus before deleting truthful information in the future. Thesmothete 13:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't tradesports sort of like the Hollywood Stock Exchange? A game? I don't think there's anything scientific or truly useful about it. I don't like polls either, they tend not to be a true indicator despite their continued usage. Kyaa the Catlord 13:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, Tradesports and the Iowa Political Futures Exchange are real markets where people buy and sell the "vaule" of stocks.  Please note that I have cited scientific studies, above, to back up their reliability. (Of course they're not perfect, but they are at least as good as editorial articles, and possibly better than polls, which we do cite here).  Thesmothete 13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually do think they're encylopedic, at least enough for a brief mention. There's real money on the line, and if you think they're wrong, well then go make yourself some easy money. But, then I may biased as an economist. Derex 21:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tradesports usage 

message: Just to make everything format properly. Never mind the Catlord. Kyaa the Catlord 13:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that didn't work. :P Kyaa the Catlord 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kyaa Summons the TOC

message: This RfC has been closed, because there was a consensus not to remove the e-mail texts.  The topic remains open for discussion about other alternatives. The comments below are retained for historical purposes. Thesmothete 04:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. The IMs are both necessary and encyclopedic because that is what this whole thing is all about. If it is removed or censored in any way, you would be violating a wikipedia guideline. dposse 14:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not suggesting censorship. I am suggesting a more "clinical" description of the content, with an external link to the actual content. I feel the insistence to include the lurid details in the article is POV pushing, and an attempt to shock and tittilate and/or disgust. That is not encyclopedic, in my opinion. Crockspot 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm relatively certain you are not talking to me. :P Kyaa the Catlord 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on explicit messages (closed) 

message: http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/meet-jordan-edmund-one-mark-foley.html
:Blogs like that are not proper sources. Look for a recent article by CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, ect. dposse 14:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And "passionate america" isn't biased? dposse 14:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the newspaper that used the information provided by passionateamerica? (This is actually included in the article with the ref name of newsok)  or the one where Passionate America is creditted by the AP?  Kyaa the Catlord 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You see, Yahoo news is a proper source, and i can't see a way that you can call it liberal or conservative. "passionate america", however, isn't. dposse 15:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny. Yahoo can use it as a source, but we can't? :P Circular logic! Whee! Kyaa the Catlord 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dposse, as I've explained above, I'm seriously doubtful that a former page would be likely to be 16, but we have to stick with the reliable sources.  Keep your eye out for newspaper articles or corrections regarding the page's age, but until then, the papers say what they say.  Thanks, TheronJ 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Read on. Since the material posted on this blog has been used by other sources with the necessary fact-checking, it has gained suitability. I'd still prefer that we use yahoo or newsok as we have done, but in this case passionate america's particular posting has broken the normal rule. Kyaa the Catlord 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, as was stated before this was all archived away, the media's all over the place and making a mess of the facts. There are reports that, at least some, of the emails were sent to former pages over the age of 18(see archive 1). And there are reports that all the IMs shown on the article were sent to a former page over the age of 18 as well(see archive 2). Kyaa the Catlord 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean.  I thought I could google my way to a definitive answer on this issue and I can't.  There's a similar problem over at Talk:Mark Foley.  I do think the article should reflect this, but not by wholesale age-altering to reflect one source.  Possibly a sentence such as: "The page has been reported to be variously (age +cite), (age + cite) (etc.) at the time of the IM exchanges. " And then let history sort it out...At some point, the ages will have to be documented in a way that satisfies everyone, but right now there's a fair amount of POV pushing on all sides of the issue...Dina 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You said that so much better than I did. Thanks Crockspot. Kyaa the Catlord 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PassionateAmerica is unacceptable as a source, primary or otherwise. So is Dailykos on the left. It's a gross violation of WP:RS. Only if it is notable that PA itself posted the allegation, as opposed to anyone else, is it acceptable to source them. And in that case, you'd be sourcing the notable fact that they claimed it, rather than the underlying claim itself. I don't see that condition satisfied here. Derex 21:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page was 18 and is now 21 

message: This sentence (which I didn't even write) has been removed twice: " It is widely speculated (based on the indications below, and others) that this scandal may hurt Republicans' chances to retain control of both houses of Congress."  I find this amazing.  It's a freakin'  topic sentence .  I believe that removing it makes the article harder to read, and in no way makes it more accurate or encyclopedic.  The statement is true, as is evidenced by the rest of the section, and it makes the article easier to read.  That said, I'm not going to put it back in, because I don't want to get into 3R territory. Thesmothete 15:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section doesn't need a topic sentance. Let the very short subsections speak for themselves. Kyaa the Catlord 15:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political impact 

message: As a humble contributor, not a moderator, may I state: after all the contributions, conversations, outright arguments, verifications, and the back-and-forth, I found the article an easy read today. The pacing is terrific, and updates will be easy as events unfold. In some cases it puts the mainstream media,  politically motivated organizations, and politicians,  whether objective or having an axe to grind, liberal or conservative, elected or self-deifying, to shame.  The process by which  this article was put together really underscores what debate should be about in all democracies (ok, national anthems can play now). All of the Wikipedian contributors and editors have a great deal to be proud of in this final article product.   Wayfarers43 17:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just re-read the article and agree.  It's a really good source of information.  Stability is a requirement for Wikipedia:FA, right?  It's too bad this can't be submitted for recognition of Wikipedia at its best. Thesmothete 18:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just read FA and don't see stability in there.  If anything, I think it deserves to be featured for grace under pressure.  Good work, all.  I'm proud to have contributed to this.Msalt 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. :) dposse 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow. Looks like there just have been 10 whole hours of stability. A record for this article, I believe... Thesmothete 15:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive Comment from a Contributor/Just plain ol' talk 

message: Why do you partisan losers spend so much time trying to out-snipe one another? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.160.138.52 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you bother attacking us if we're partisan losers?Msalt 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you find the article partisan? If so, it would be helpful if you could mention a specific example so that we can fix it. Thanks. Derex 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this anonymous snipe has a lesson for us: plenty of partisans from all sides do try to use Wikipedia to "out-snipe one another," and this article is a prime example.  I think the article is as good as it has been, but we do need to keep an eye out for anything that could be more NPOV.--Bibliophylax 22:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is ridiculous 

message: Article in the Oklahoman newspaper has an interview with the attorney for Jordan Edmunds that has two useful data points we've discussed. I don't see a place to put them on the page, but for future reference:
1) He states flatly that Edmunds was a minor when infamous IMs occurred, and
2) the texts were definitely NOT a hoax or prank played on Foley.
This is the page who got the texts including "miss you since San Diego" (where Edmunds is from) and apparently is the one ABC news said had "Internet sex" with Foley.
:The correct term is cybersex. dposse 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 data points 

message: "Jordan Edmund, now a 21-year-old aide to Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Oklahoma, was among the pages to whom Foley wrote e-mails and allegedly sent lurid instant messages."
"There was "no personal relationship" between Foley and Edmund, who served as a page in 2001 and 2002 when he was a high school junior, the attorney said."
If he is 21 in 2006, then in 2001 he was 16 and in 2002 he was 17. 
Ok, so maybe this isn't a huge revelation. Anyway, where should the infomation that he plans to talk to federal agents next week go in the article? dposse 14:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  confirmation:  Jordan Edmund was 16/17 yrs old. 

message: 1997 — A few months after completing service as a House page, Tyson Vivyan, now 26, says he started receiving sexually suggestive messages from a person he later guessed was Foley. He told AP he and another former page later visited Foley in his Capitol Hill townhouse, where they drank soft drinks and ate pizza.
1998-2002 — According to ABC News, three former pages who worked for the House during this time have reported "sexual approaches" over the Internet from Foley after their service when they were just 16 or 17. 
2001 — A former page who worked in the House in 2001-2002 says a Republican staff member warned pages "to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley." He says they were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff." 
2003 — Foley has sexually explicit instant-messaging exchanges with at least one underage boy who had worked as a congressional page. Two other former pages have reported they were aware of suggestive e-mails being sent to "three or four" pages from the 2001-2002 class. 
Fall 2003 —- Fordham says he contacted Scott Palmer, chief of staff to House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, with concerns that Foley was getting too close to young male pages and would not stop the inappropriate behavior. He says Palmer met with Foley to discuss the concerns and that Palmer told Hastert about the meeting. Palmer and Hastert deny that the consersation took place. 
August/Summer 2005 — Foley sends e-mails to a 16-year-old Louisiana boy who had been a page. Among other things, he asked the boy what he wanted for his birthday, talked to the teenager about another boy being "in great shape" and asked the former page to send him a photo.
September 2005 — The Louisiana boy contacts staff in the Washington office of his congressman, Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., about the e-mails from Foley. He forwards them, calling them "sick" 13 times and saying "This freaks me out." Alexander contacts the boy and his parents. 
This timeline that SouthCoastToday has put up is very imformative. I think that we should try to put alot of this info into the article to make everything alot more clear.  dposse 15:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, finally a nice timeline to put everything into perspective.DrCito 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that i can finally be of some use to this article. ^_^ dposse 18:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline 

message: Just a warning to editors to keep an eye out for this anonymous user.  He/she deleted the detailed section on Foley's response with the statement that Foley simply admitted it after the inital emails.  This person has a history of vandalism, such as previously deleting all text on the Lenny Bruce page, and stating that Rudolph Valentino appeared on Oprah recently.  And after I reverted this effort, he/she put a childish insult on my User Talk page.
Thanks!  Msalt 23:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up for this troll:  24.42.27.41 

message: GGreenVa reverted (without comment) a one-line summary (and one-line quote snippet) of the statement by James Dobson in the conservative groups section. I would like to know why. It seems fair to report accurately the position of the chairman, if we are to discuss the group at all. The total real-estate on the section actually shrank as I removed some excess verbiage at the same time.Here is the diff.  I have reverted, pending discussion. I removed his comparison to Clinton, in case that was the issue. That's relevant though, as it goes to his mindset. I have to leave, but I wanted to bring this matter to your attention. 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to explain my reasons: yep, it was the Clinton reference that sparked me to revert the change. I didn't see the edit I reverted as malicious at all, so I'm sorry that the anon editor took offense; I just wanted (and still want) to keep the article from getting too far afield into a meta-discussion on political scandals. The article is already long -- it needs to keep focused on the issue at hand. --GGreeneVa 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative groups, unexplained cut 

message: On the new section, "Foley's alleged activities": Did not quite know where to stick this last bit of info, feel free to delete section and place wherever appropriate. On the other hand, if section remains, it probably needs to be "fleshed out" a bit. Haiduc 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was in the middle of 'fleshing out' -- and given the context, we should probably pick a different metaphor ;) -- a similar section as you added this. I've combined your work with mine -- hopefully, that brings the requisite level of detail. --GGreeneVa 16:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning over a new page 

message: I removed this section, which was just added, because it's not at all clear what his role is or should have been, and the page is too long already.  It's basically reporting a negative -- this guy didn't do anything -- without establishing what it is he could have or should have done.  Also, the only source was the blog of Davis' campaign opponent, which is obviously not acceptable.Msalt 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Tom Davis (in Republican Leadership) 

message: I thought this did not fit there, but did not want to lose the refs, if anyone wanted to use them elsewhere: "In early October 2006, however, two news organizations quoted anonymous former pages as saying that they had sexual liaisons with Foley after they turned 18 and 21, respectively." Haiduc 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm with GGreeneVA who reverted on that. To my eye, it's much more misleading to just leave the lawyer's statement that he didn't have sex with minors, and not state that he did after they turned of age.  That certainly would create a false impression that it was just flirting, as in fact James Dobson and others have argued.  Conversely, the text in question couldn't be more clear that the sex didn't occur until they were 18 and 21, so I don't see any real risk of creating a false impression that he slept with minors.Msalt 05:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  material removed from intro (Part the First)

message: No need to apologize for reverting but thanks, haiduc.  Nonethless I still disagree with you, and the reasons may be more clear if I break that paragraph into what I see as its 3 logical sections.  
Section #1 is a straight out duplication of a sentence in the first paragraph, though you might profitably combine the two.  #2 is detail about #1, something that doesn't belong in the lede which should be summary and overview.  Plus these details are covered in far better depth later on.  #3 obviously belongs in Political Reactions - Republicans, and in fact I merged it in with that section when I first removed this paragraph.  So I don't think this paragraph needs to be there, and I also think it reads better without it.Msalt 05:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the other material removed from intro (that third paragraph)

message: Has anybody criticized Foley's behavior purely on moral grounds, e.g., being a sexual predator? Or is that considered a "conservative" point of view? 
I'm thinking of the statement by Ernie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the irony of Foley being head of a committee with a similarly-worded title. 
It also reminds me of Clarence Thomas, the supreme court nominee who was the head guy in charge of investigation sexual harassment, but was accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill. 
Is any of this related to the article, or am *I* just expressing a personal POV? --Uncle Ed 15:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I think there certainly are examples of moral criticism, particularly under the Reaction section under Conservatives and not surprisingly under Democrats too.  I think I've assumed moral criticism is obvious and didn't need to be spelled out, but I don't think it's necessarily a POV statement to add another angle.  I don't know the background on the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, but if there isn't a section for reaction from non-partisan children's advocacy groups, perhaps you could add it there.  It's always good to scrutinize yourself for POV though.Msalt 17:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonpartisan criticism

message: Washington Post informs that in 2000 Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz) reprimended Foley on unethical behaviour with pages ."" upps forgot to sign here :) DrCito 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I believe NatusRoma added that to the Knowledge of Emails Before 2006 section last night.  (PS don't forget to sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end) Msalt 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rep. knew in 2000

message: Cut 2 paragraphs:
*Press accounts of the scandal have been unclear about precise ages and legal issues concerning the congressional pages.  No charges have yet been filed but a criminal investigation is ongoing, leading to speculation in the media about possible crimes committed.
*In the United States, 18 years of age is the age of majority; anyone below that age is considered a minor. However, the age of consent for sexual relations can differ from the age of majority, being dictated by statutory rape laws, and varies by state (it is 16 in the District of Columbia).  
This doesn't serve our readers as much as just giving the straight facts. We should not make our own analysis. 
Many advocates (outside of Wikipedia) want to assert that Foley is "to blame" or "not to blame". Let's concentrate on reporting what these sources say, and the reasons they give. --Uncle Ed 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. No point of view is expressed, and missing information in an ongoing situation is extremely useful to know, because it shows the reader some things to be alert for. Without something about age of consent (and how it can vary state to state) readers could easily make false assumptions based on incomplete knowledge. If we ever have a guideline on articles about ongoing scandals, it seems to me that "Still unknown" should be a typical section. The deleted sentence in the first paragraph "leading to speculation in the media bout possible crimes committed" seems superfluous to me -- an ongoing criminal investigation obviously implies possible crimes. It's been noted in the media that the federal law on soliciting minors over the Internet exists and was cosponsored by Foley and applies to anyone under 18. That sounds like useful background to me. To say whether or not Foley has been accused by anyone in public of violating a specific law would also be useful information if we have citations for everything. Anything less than this is overly scrupulous to the point of hurting the purpose of having an encyclopedia article.Noroton 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Noroton.  The essence of an encyclopedia is providing context along with facts.  Furthermore, I fail to see anything in those two paragraphs that is NOT a fact, except the phrase about media speculation which I agree needs to go.  I do think that these statements should be better sourced. I will reinsert them as discussed.Msalt 19:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, reinstated the second and third paragraphs, tossed out the first altogether as conclusionary and hard to document.  Added specific citations to what remains.  I should note -- the statements there are all from newspaper articles about the legal consequences, not original research or analysis by editors here.Msalt 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis of the age issue

message: The guy he supposedly "molested" was 17 years old! WTF? He is freaking 17 years old. The age of consent in most countries and states is 16. Someone who is 17 definitely knows what he is doing. He is basically a full grown man. Why is this so blown out of proportion? It's not as if he had sex with a 10 year old, this page was 17! Zachorious 00:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people would disagree with you.  If I can presume to speak for them, I think the elements that are disturbing are 1) his pursuit of teens 35 years his younger 2) who he has a vast power advantage over 3) and are of the same sex 4) using 'grooming' techniques characteristic of pedophiles  5) even though he and his party have been attacking homosexuals to great political advantage 6) and he used new Internet technologies that few people over 35 are familiar with.  Oh yeah, and 7) he was cheating on his lover of 20 years and 8) many if not most of the people he hit on were grossed out and disturbed but felt they couldn't complain without ruining their careers.  There are more angles but I think those are a good start.Msalt 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are completely irrelevant to anything. Your #2 is identical to #8. Basically, the only real issues here are the underrage status of the people he pursued, and the fact that he had power over them, to a degree. HOWEVER, since they did not work for him, I don't see how the latter could constitute sexual harassment, either legally or morally. We are left with only one issue: The fact that he pursued people under 18, or whatever is the age of legal consent. BUT--he doesn't seem to have had actual sexual relations of any kind with anyone underage, preferring to wait until they passed that point in time. SO--what has he done? Ironically, I do agree with your first statement: "the vast majority of people would disagree with you." I think that while Foley's actions were not completely without fault, the fact remains that chasing after a 17 year old adolescent male is neither an admirable action, nor an indictable offense, nor a....what? While a 17-year old guy is, as someone wrote above, not a little kid, on the other hand, many 17-year olds are more vulnerable than you might think, they can be hurt, emotionally, physically, and I don't refer to same-sex behavior, which is a red herring here. It would be the same with a congressman chasing a 17-yr old girl, or a congresswoman after a 17-yr old guy. If he were your son, undesired attention from a congressman 35 years older is not a comfortable situation with which to deal. I basically consider his behavior pathetic and revolting, more than anything else. It's one of those moral questions that philosophy profesors and "ethicists" love to puzzle over, write a newpaper article about, but can never really answer. 66.108.4.183 01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Is Completley Retarded 

message: A bevy of post-scandal surveys hit today that show that this story appears to have had a calamitous impact on the GOP. I just cited one by Gallup; let me toss a few more out where that came from, just to give you a sense of the full scope of the apparent damage:
* http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/us/politics/10poll.html?hp&ex=1160452800&en=f142eb5c1016cd81&ei=5094&partner=homepage
* http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1023a1Politics06.pdf
* http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/09/hastert.poll/
These are jaw-dropping -- just appalling, brutal numbers for the GOP. If these numbers hold, we might need to adjust the section in the article on public opinion surveys to show how the scandal appears to have precipitated -- or at least catalyzed -- a near-collapse in GOP support. --GGreeneVa 04:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting especially in regard to the NYT article about evangelicals not blaming the party for Foley. JoshuaZ 04:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  anecdote vs. statistics, that's why every politician spends lots of money on pollsMsalt 04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMFG-worthy poll numbers 

message: I broke out a new section for the source of emails and chronology of their revelation.  Most of this information was piled into the section on emails, though it doesn't really describe the emails themselves.  I feel that some of the sections here have gotten too long and hard to read, and Emails was certainly one of them.
Does someone have time to add and integrate info from the Harpers one we've discussed into this section?  I've hit my obsession limit for the night.Msalt 02:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on Source of Emails and Chronology 

message: What's the copyright status of campaign ads?  Would it be acceptable/appropriate to add the following image from a Foley campaign ad (which illustrates the hypocrisy angle)? Crust 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about copyright status but I would worry more about POV.Msalt 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * IMHO, that's a great ad, and probably ok under Wikipedia:Fair use.  I'd say add near the bottom of the article.  TheronJ 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * On the other hand, if the person who uploaded the ad doesn't identify its source on the image page, it will get deleted in a few days anyway.  Do you know whether it's from a web page or TV or what?  TheronJ 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't there's a POV issue.  This was used by Foley (before the scandal of course) to promote his work introducing new legislation in July to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. The original link was  though that is now dead.  With a quick google search, I found a copy at . Crust 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Could someone explain the POV angle because I'm not seeing it.  This was created to promote Foley's prominent role in introducing legislation to prevent exploitation of children.  Part of the scandal is the perceived hypocrisy of this. Crust 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hypocrisy" is clearly a product of POV, and while I think it's fair to report the widespread perception of Foley's hypocrisy (as Crust points out, and which I certainly believe exists), we have to attribute the perception properly. If someone comes up with a source, like a newspaper column or something else reliable, that says, "This scandal proves that Foley's a hypocrite, I mean, look at this ad he ran!" - then I think we could put a screenshot of the ad. Otherwise, it's Wikipedia contributors who are using their POVs to judge Foley as hypocritical and using their POVs to judge what proves that. Even if hypocrisy was NPOV, we'd need a source that discusses the ad specifically because it would be original research - specifically, a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. If y'all want to go down this path, I think it would probably be more kosher to find a picture of Foley in relation to the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children or that legislation he was involved with. I'm sure there has been some discussion of hypocrisy regarding that in published commentary. Schi 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for coming up with the words I couldn't find.  That's exactly it.  Another way of putting it is that it's original research -- us identifying hypocrisy.  The fact that the point is made with a picture instead of words doesn't change the fact that we're making a point.Msalt 18:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Crockspot, what market role would Wikipedia's use be replacing?  TheronJ 17:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * It was clearly intended to be a campaign photo to show that Foley "cares about children". The arguments above cleary show that the intent is to expose Foley's hypocricy. You can't see that? On one hand, people are arguing that it is fair use, and on the other, that it isn't POV, which contradicts the fair use argument. Foley has resigned. He isn't running anymore. What is the point of continuing to kick the man? You can continue kicking if that is your choice, but I will not allow Wikipedia policies to be disregarded in the process of it. Crockspot 17:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Crockspot, you're a great editor and wikipedia is lucky to have you, but at least one of us doesn't understand fair use, and, with due respect, I'm pretty sure it's you.  If you want to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia Talk:Fair use, I'll be happy to abide by it.  (That said, there are other good reasons not to use the image, as discussed below). TheronJ 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * Unlike most people here (who don't see the POV issue), I can't see the fair use issue.  It was a public document produced with semi-public money for a candidate who PROBABLY doesn't have much use for it any more.Msalt 18:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright and campaign ads

message: Discussion of the paragraph Haiduc added refuting the October Surprise theory (ie that Democrats knew about the scandal and held it back until right before the election.)  Here's the paragraph:
"These charges of having engineered an "October surprise" have, however been labeled as deceptive. CBS states that "The Republican leadership is lying when they claim that Democrats have engineered an “October Surprise,” and asserts that it is irrelevant when the charges came out since they are obviously true, and since it is "common sense" that the original leak came from the Republican side. citing --Vaughn Ververs, The Timing Is Irrelevant In Foley Story CBS"
I reverted it, with a rushed note asking him to rewrite it with a more neutral point of view (NPOV) and (trying anyway) to say that it sounded like the Wikipedia page was arguing with the Republicans, but we should let Democrats do that, quoting and citing them if necessary.  Also, the phrasing seemed odd because it's presented as if the entire CBS news organization was making these arguments, but it seems much more likely that Vaughn Ververs was presenting some kind of editorial on that blog.
Haiduc put in back in, as he couldn't make any sense of my cryptic comments, and NatusROma quietly excised the paragraph amidst a bunch of other changes later.  I think it might be OK left entirely out -- the section is "republicans' reaction" after all.  If we are going to present a counter, it should be under the heading for Democrats reaction probably, or at least quote Democrats there in the Republicans section.
From a neutral encyclopedic viewpoint, IMHO, the documented statement in the previous paragraph that REpublicans have presented no evidence for these charges is the only reply necessary.Msalt 17:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican Response -- October Surprise theory 

message: The following paragraph was added and reverted today.  Opinions?
"During an October 8, 2006, appearance on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanoplous," Emanuel was asked repeatedly by the host and another guest, U.S. Representative Adam Putnam, whether Emanuel had prior knowledge of the Foley e-mails. Emanuel repeatedly replied "never saw them," but never denied prior knowledge."
To my eye, it's another example of this page arguing with one of the actual players in the scandal.  Call it POV or original research, but I don't think it's encyclopedic.  If there is an allegation, preferably with proof, that Democrats knew about then fine, but to write that when asked, the answer by a Democrat may possibly have left open the possibility of prior knowledge, that seems way down the road of speculation and analysis rather than facts and context.Msalt 22:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absurd. Lots of people don't say lots of things. We don't report those unless someone notable says that the not-saying is notable. Derex 11:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rahm Emmanuel possible knowledge of scandals 

message: The article said that Foley was being investigated for inappropriately touching pages on a raft trip. The article cited does not mention Foley being on the trip, and makes it clear it was Kolbe. I can see how confusing the two names are, like Saddam and Osama.  Perhaps there be a separate Kolbe scandal article,or this one should have a more inclusive name.  Edison 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see your point.  Are you saying we shouldn't discuss the Kolbe allegations here?  The beginning of the article is quite clear; the scandal is centered around the emails and IMs Foley sent, and has grown to include the response of House Leaders based on what they knew or didn't know, and now has grown to include another Congressman accused of similar behavior.  It may yet grow to include straight Democrats who pursue pages.  All of which is appropriate to add here.  Watergate started as a scandal about a breakin at that office building; it grew to include dozens of other issues, but is still covered by one article about the Watergate Scandal.Msalt 05:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I agree with that statement. If the article was "Page scandal", I would agree that it can grow to include that. The Watergate scandal is not called the "Nixon Scandal". Then again, this is all about names, and what the general public accepts as the name of a scandal cannot be determined on Wikipedia. I would suggest a link to "Kolbe Scandal" on the "see also", but i don't know enough about Kolbe to do it myself.-- ¢² Connor K.   13:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's my point exactly.  The "Watergate scandal" is not limited to the breakin at the Watergate office building -- that would be absurd.  It includes the white house tapes and Rosemary Woods' erasure of part, the plumbers unit, the Ellsberg psychiatrist breakin, the enemies list, etc. etc. up through Nixon's resignation.  It would be ridiculous to have 10 different articles for each new element that emerged -- it's one scandal that grew.  Ditto with Foley.Msalt 03:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kolbe is not Foley

message: A while back, in a now-archived talk session on this page, we reached a consensus not to name pages unless they wished to go public, as I recall.  Jordan Edmunds clearly does not -- his lawyer has refused to connect him to the explicit IMs and threatened to sue the website that named him unless they stop identifying him by name.
I'm not an absolutist on this, but the paragraph explicitly naming him did not add anything to the article that I could see.  Sure, it's somewhat interesting to us computer geek types how he hacked ABC's website, but I don't see it as significant in the big picture of this scandal -- for the average, non-technical reader -- and I certainly don't see any value that justifies revealing the name of a victim in an alleged sex crime.  Even if Foley's behavior was strictly speaking legal in this case, this guy was at best a confused teenager who was manipulated by a much more powerful person and is now being called gay and threatened by people around the globe.  He works for a Republican congressman and is in a very awkward position, I think we can all agree.
I would like to see a more compelling reason to trumpet his name as a chapter heading than the fact that the Wall Street Journal ran an article on it.Msalt 04:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming victims in the page scandal 

message: As I discussed earlier in talk (under Reorganization for Redundancy, and Timeline Needs Attention), I think the entire Responses section is unnecessary and wrong, for these reasons
*unnecessary
*not encyclopedic (essentially opinion and spin, not facts)
*it's impossible to give an accurate picture of the response of huge groups such as "Democrats" or "Christians", and it falsifies reality to pretend that you have done so
*it's myopic, by which I mean highly focused on today's headline that we know will change tomorrow, and again the next day, etc.  The day after the election all of it will mean nothing.
*it duplicates "political impact" but is even vaguer
*it is extremely hard to report these responses without the editors personal feelings affecting the writing.
In a nutshell, there are people who spout entertaining and extreme opinions and spin for a living, but that is not Wikipedia's role.
So I went ahead  and deleted the section.  And you will notice now that we no longer get this warning about the article being too long.  yet I feel that no essential information has been lost.Msalt 22:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not had the time to do a proper check, but we should make sure that any of the information removed that described activities of the principals in this affair is also reflected in the remaining appropriate sections. Haiduc 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning the Responses Section 

message: Where has it come out that Foley confronted Marcieca at their last supper? Haiduc 23:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, I've read so many articles on this stuff.  Let me see what I can find.Msalt 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I think I was basing that impression on the following passage in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel article.  Looking at it again, the connection is probably spurious, or at least ambiguous at best -- two paragraphs next to each other that create an impression of linkage.
 He said the last time he saw Foley was about 18 years ago when the two had dinner in a restaurant in Lake Worth.Msalt 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinner party?! 

message: I think it is a mistake to remove any part of this article, since it documents the unfolding of the event and future readers will want to know how the drama played out. All that is needed is a review of the grammar in order to update the tenses and the facts. Haiduc 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the deletion of article sections based on their not being relevant anymore 

message: Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status.  You can find comments about its nomination here.  I had previously proposed FA status on this talk page, and the consensus was to wait until the article had stabalized, which it now has.  Thesmothete 03:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Nomination