Talk:Page of the United States House of Representatives

message: "Pages Throughout History" seems like 90% vanity edit.  There are probably a dozen names there that deserve mention.  Anyone disagree?  22:47, 2 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.42 (talk • contribs) 
: Since there are around 200 pages per YEAR, it's absurd to even think about listing them all.  I'm going to rename the section "Notable pages" and delete all non-notables.   John Broughton  |  Talk 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Emilie Kleine keeps getting added.  How do we stop it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.80.176 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but given the breadth of all these scandals, it would be interesting to have a master list archived for historical records.  Since the Page "alumni" sites seem to be maintained by recently ex-Pages, they're unlikely to provide a reliable, long-term record.  Pages are the youngest "officials" in the government, and thus notable in that own right.  For one, I'd keep it... but I'm too lazy to put it back in.  Izzyizzo - 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's good, because putting the list back would violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, not to mention lack of newsworthiness of the information.  As for "reliable, long-term record", why would you think a list that can be edited by ANYONE would be more reliable than a list maintained by an individual with personal knowledge and a vested interest in its accuracy?  For example, I just removed Tiger Woods from the list (again).  And while someone may find a citation to support that (I'm skeptical), if you're Joe/Joannna Nobody, wouldn't it be cool to put your name into wikipedia, in the middle of a list that no one can verify?  John Broughton  |  Talk 13:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Way to be respectful and civil.  Cf. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground.  That said, in the spirit of Wiki, I stand by my original post, and my original laziness.  That also said, feel free to vanity-add Comic Book Guy.  Izzyizzo 05:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity Edit 

message: It states that Gerry Studds claimed they were both consenting adults. However the Gerry Studds page claims the page was underage. Can anyone confirm which one of these is true. Obviously we shouldn't remove the claim even if the peer was underafe but we should add the claim to the Gerry Studd page and we should also mention here that the peer was underage Nil Einne 15:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consent 

message: I do not believe that either Tiger Woods or Bill Gates were pages.  This must be confirmed.  22:40, 3 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman87 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, as in - it must be confirmed before it's acceptable to add them back to the article.  I think the general rule should be that if a source/citation is not provided and there is any doubt, the name is removed.  (It's a bit of a stretch to say that being a page is automatically a negative thing, but I think it's clearly the case here that it's better to have a smaller, fully accurate list than a larger list with questionable names in it.   John Broughton  |  Talk 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Pages 

message: thought I would mention (but lazily, not fix) that the uniforms they wear are mentioned twice: once under "environment" and once under "compensation and dress". Stevage 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clothing 

message: The title is so long that it is easy to miss the word "Page" at the end -- which is what the whole article is about.  I suggest that, in keeping with common Wikipedia practice, the article be named "Page (US House of Representatives). –Shoaler (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the current name is problematical.  To tweak your suggestion:  "Page Program (U.S. House of Representatives)" is a bit more consistent with the introductory paragraph of the article.  John Broughton  |  Talk 13:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds better. –Shoaler (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is embarrassing.  I moved the page, then realized that the word "Page" should not be capitalized (it's not the first word in the title), so I moved it back.  But upon further consideration (looking at "What links here" to the temporarily new page), I realized other titles should be considered.  Then when I ran a google search on "Congressional page program", it returned 57,000 results.  Further discussion?   John Broughton  |  Talk 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The word Page is actually a title, and because it is a title, it would be capitalized.--Robertff 12:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?

message: I checked the source that was being cited to back up the claim that Tiger was a House Page: Lawrence Londino's 2006 biography Tiger Woods A Biography (Note that this source was deleted by User:70.144.50.140 on March 13, 2008).  
It does not confirm that Tiger served as a page.  Quite the opposite, it claims he "played varsity golf all four years at Western High" his high school in Anaheim (page 8).  It doesn't "explicity discuss" Tiger acting as a page, (doesn't even mention it), it doesn't mention him playing golf with the Speaker of the House (who I suppose would have been Tom Foley) and it doesn't cite Tiger's supposed experience as a House page as a factor in his decision to go to Stanford.
If anyone wants to re-insert this claim, please cite the page number of the reliable source you cite, so we won't have any more mix-ups.  
Baileypalblue (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and if anyone's in doubt about this, I suggest you go to Talk:Tiger_Woods and ask the wikipedians there who have studied Tiger and his biography.  Baileypalblue (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiger Woods a House page?  That source does not confirm it ...

message: I have removed several references to security-related information contained in this article. They really don't need to be in there, and we don't need to make this information more accessible than necessary. I know that deleting them does not completely purge the information, but it at least makes it less visible. Please, please, please do not revert my edits. 63.199.4.144 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security related information 

message: http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/Hrpt98-548.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.204.94 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1983 investigation regard 1979-80 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States House of Representatives Page. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20061021180930/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/29/national/w123452D40.DTL&type=politics  to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/29/national/w123452D40.DTL&type=politics
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified