Talk:List of federal political sex scandals in the United States/Archive 1

Comment
This contains a large amount of negative information on WP:BLPs and needs to be deleted until a properly sourced version is created. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Negative" is a POV. Everything in here IS properly sourced and referenced. richrakh````

list
If this should exist at all it is a list, not a narrative article, so I changed the title. ALso removed the opening material that was unsourced and read like an opinion essay, not an encyclopedia. Tvoz / talk 03:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of political sex scandals in the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of political sex scandals in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Salon": From Donna Rice: "Donna Rice Hughes says enough is enough", By Amy Debra Feldman, September 12, 2000, Salon Magazine From Dan Burton: Baker, Russ. "Portrait of a political 'pit bull'", Salon magazine, December 22, 1998 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich

 * 1) Newt Gingrich Congressman (R-GA) and Speaker of the House of Representatives and leader of the "New Republicans" led the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. He later admitted to having an affair with Callista Bisek while still married to his second wife. (1998)[25]

1) Congress didn't investigate Clinton's affair; the independent counsel's office investigated Bill Clinton 2) the independent counsel's office didn't investigate Bill Clinton's affair; it investigated his perjury 3) Congress impeached and acquitted Bill Clinton while Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the house, however, Gingrich wasn't even one of the house managers who directed the prosecution's case during the impeachment trial.

In light of all that, I am going to edit the part about Newt Gingrich to say "# Newt Gingrich Congressman (R-GA) and Speaker of the House of Representatives and leader of the "New Republicans" admitted to having an affair with Callista Bisek while still married to his second wife. (1998)[25]"

24.111.218.90 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

while I'm at it, the one about Henry Hyde is wrong as well.
 * 1) Henry Hyde Congressman (R-IL) was chairman of the committee for impeachment of Bill Clinton and when discovered, referred to his own earlier affair a "youthful indiscretion." He was 41 at the time.[26]

the "committee for impeachment of bill clinton" is not a thing. Hyde was house judiciary chairman, and he was a house manager, who directed the impeachment. i will reword it to say "# Henry Hyde Congressman (R-IL) was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and one of the House managers who directed the prosecution's case in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial. It was brought to light that he himself had had an affair some years earlier, which he dismissed as a "youthful indiscretion" despite being 41 years old at the time of the affair.[26]"

I think that a) sounds better and b) isn't factually inaccurate. 24.111.218.90 (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

my edits have been partially reverted without any discussion here. I will fix them back. I am changing the reference in the newt gingrich line about "leader of the new republicans" I have been unable to find out what the "new republicans" are or were, and I've never heard of the new republicans. If someone has a reference for the "new republicans" please provide it. 24.111.218.90 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Try www.thenewrepublicans.net.  Use of the term increases the irony in Gingrich's actions.  About fifty of them swept into office in the 90's vowing to remake Washington and bring it back to "the people."  That is, not Democrats.  Gingrich was the spokesman/leader of the group, and one of Clinton's biggest and loudest opponents. So his hypocrisy in having an affair at the exact same time as Clinton, is particularly interesting.  That phrase should be included here, in Sex Scandals, even though, he was not technically one of the House Managers who prosecuted him. richrakh````

www.thenewrepublicans.net, from their "about" section: "On November 8, 2008, after the Election, The New Republicans started as an open-minded blog on how the Republican party should “reinvent” itself while staying true to its core principles..." it also lists the founding members, none of whom are newt gingrich. thenewrepublicans.net is a blog which was founded a decade and a half after the relevant time period, and Newt Gingrich doesn't appear to have anything to do with it.

Once again, if "the new republicans" were a thing in 1994, I'd like to see evidence of it. 24.111.218.90 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mehlman
This entry doesn't seem to fit the conventional definition of scandal. Basically, Mehlman changed his mind on a policy issue. Unless we can find a reliable source that labels this as a scandal, it should be removed.  Will Beback   talk    10:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ken Mehlman (R) manager of President George W. Bush's re-election campaign and chairman of the Republican National Committee which in 2004 proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, came out in August 2010 and admitted that he was gay.
 * www.washingtonpost.com, August 26, 2010, "Ken Mehlman and the same-sex marriage debate" by Dan Balz

Essay
I have retagged the "Sex, scandal, and politics" section with the original research and essay tags. The section is totally unreferenced and consists entirely of original research. It'd also written like an essay, even using first person at one point. This is not encyclopedic writing. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

split the article
I propose to split the article along Federal vs state/local lines as has been done with other similar articles. This allows each article to put into appropriate national vs state categories. I will do this in one week if there are no probems presented. Hmains (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

reverse order
Is there a compelling reason not to put this list in forward chronological order? ―cobaltcigs 23:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * People are interested in RECENT political scandals and convictions, so those citations are first, unlike other articles which would wade through 200 years of history to find a recent item.Richrakh (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup
I just finished going through this article and fixing some of the links and formatting. I only really made a dent in what needs to be done, so I also left a tag at the top of the page. I think the article should probably be split into two parts because of how long its bound to become. Maybe it should be turned into a table as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by *Kat* (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Relevancy?

As long as infidelity keeps making headlines and as long as people feel they have to resign because of one and as long as someone keeps making family values, or traditional values or total honesty a campaign issue, I quess someone will have to keep track of them and keep them in perspective. Remember, Bill Clinton came within 10 votes of being impeached over a blowjob. This list shows that many of his most ardent accusers were guilty of the same thing AND lying about it. That alone is enough reason for this article to exist. But you're absolutely right. We should have bigger issues to deal with than this. Richrakh (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Rickrakh, do you understand the difference between a blowjob and perjury? because if you don't i'm not sure you should be editing this article. 24.111.218.90 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And do you know the difference between stating an opinion and being a jackass? Because if you don't, you definately shouldn't be editing anything.Richrakh (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

improper synthesis
This article needs to stick to what its title says, federal political sex scandals, and not contain editorial synthesis meant to argue that certain things should have been scandals, or that certain people deserved what they got. If an actual scandal occured, with resignation, charges, or other actual negative consequences, that can easily be documented without going into voting records and deathbed confessions of acts which in no way amounted to federal political scandals. Please se WP:SYNTH. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied below - if someone committed a scandal and it is clearly citable that the result of that was such and such then attribute it and cite it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

explicit pictures
bulging underpants is not explicit, sending sexually suggestive pictures seems clearly more representative. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That bulging crotch shot article is ol;d news compared to his naked penis pic leaked by anthony and opie. Read the article, he himself confesses: "he admitted to having sent sexually explicit photos and messages to about six women over a three-year period, both before and after his marriage. He denied ever having met, or had a physical relationship with, any of the women. ".

Interesting
You have bipartisanship, but all of the politicians involved seem to be male... 198.169.15.141 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, about half of the people involved are female, they're just not the politicians...Richrakh (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Gardner
Richard Gardner 2000-2009 needs to be moved to the State and Local sex scandal category, but I cannot see how to capture the reference to move it also. Someone please do so. Hmains (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I hope I did it right.Sitsat (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

the sex of people
It clearly is relevant and notable in the scandal the sex of the people involved - eg, the seventeen year old prostitute - removing the sex of the prostitute is simply removal of notable detail. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, as I expect the RSs tend to reflect the gender of the person.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If that material is notable for the person concerned it belongs in that specific article. This is a list of scandals, not a forum to comment on the hypocrisy of only certain individuals.  We can hardly think it inappropriate to say that Evans was caught with a second family and then lost an election while thinking it appropriate to comment on a person's voting record.  This list needs to be neutral and balanced, and not to make synthetic value judgments. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple basic details such as the sex of a person are clearly notable. Why say someone committed oral sodomy and then as you did - remove the sex of the victim? by your reckoning you should also remoive the details of the assault and just say, so and so committed a sexual assault and resigned. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple notable facts placed together in a certain way as to imply cause and effect or to draw attention to only certain facts amount to synthesis. Do we need to add, for instance, the fact that Bill Clinton approved the sexual harassment regulations under which he himself was sued?  Going out of our way to mention such things as the voting record of a person whose actions would have been scandalous whatever his voting record are entirely inappropriate and a violation of WP:NPOV when used only against people with a certain viewpoint and WP:UNDUE when going out of their way to specify certain genders.  μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an article about sex. The sex of those involved MUST be mentioned.Richrakh (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The sex of the participants is necessary.Ovr&#39;apint (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Incestous Links
References that only link to references in other Wikipedia articles is incestous and would only tend to compound errors in both style and content. That is, if the other reference is bad or dead, all the links to that reference would be bad or dead as well. This article(list) was once recommended for deletion because each citation did not have it's own reference, preferably one outside Wikipedia. Modern citations without references is a violation of Wiki's policy on Biographies of Living People, and it makes no difference if it is an "article" or a "list." Richrakh (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's biographies of living persons!  Ovr&#39;apint (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Richrakh, you are placing far too much importance on this list. Wikipedia lists, in general, are like Wikipedia categories, but with a little more descriptive information so readers can decide if they really want to click on a link to read the full article.  The burden of providing references belongs on the full article, NOT the synopsis of the article in a list.  The list is nothing more than an index.  (Do you put references in the index of a research journal publication?  Of course not.)


 * Sure do, they're called footnotes. Richrakh (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If a "linked-to" article gets deleted, then yes the list will contain a bad link--that's the nature of the beast.
 * ProResearcher (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This article(list) was once recommended for deletion because each citation did not have it's own reference, All citations here need their own references. Richrakh (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

cause and effect comments
Hi, I removed a couple of ... and he was in a scandal ... and he lost the next election type leading comments - it is going to be a difficult thin to cite and imo is leading the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh?Logjam42 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeated synth and BLP violations, among other things
This has all been addressed before, but blog reporters are not federal politicians and listing them here with the synthetic argument that since they are gay conservatives they're actions are scandalous it is not only synth but blp violation. The same goes for creating a synth argument that a congressman is involved in a federal scandal becuase someone has made an unsubstantiated claim which neither led to a confession nor loss of office. This is a list, and should be kept to bare verifiable non synthetic statements in agreement with the lead statement's definition of scope. Conitinued restoral of SYNTH and BLP violations will go to ANI next. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. If you have an objection to any one citation please discuss it here before deleting it. Just because you think an citation violates BLP doesn't mean that it does.  Just because you think a list should be kept to bare statements doesn't mean that it has to be.  Just because you think that something is not a scandal doesn't mean it isn't.  Wikipedia is based on concensus and rational discussion, not arbitrary deletions.  Worse, you are deleting many citations at once without discussion about any.  As Wiki editors, we make these decisions together only after adequate discussion.  You do not make such decisions alone.  If you question Gannon's citation and inclusion, discuss it here before taking action.  Further vandalism and edit warring without dispute resolution may lead to being blocked.  And please be civil.  Threats are inappropriate.Logjam42 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Negative talk and deletion.
If everything in here is true and well referenced, how is it negative? Further, no 'groups of people' have been attacked. Only individuals of various positions and parties. Keep in mind that each one of them has 'earned' his place here. I try not to judge, only report. richrakh````
 * I didn't say it was an attack page in the traditional "this person is a moron and kills puppies", though apparently everyone doesn't seem to take the time to actually read the CSD criteria. Again, for everyone to see: G10: "These "attack pages" may include slander, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced ." Emphasis added on the last part. There is where the problem lies. UNSOURCED. Repeat, UNSOURCED. Which also creates problems for your opening sentence here, as though the info may be true, it is not in anyway "well referenced".


 * So hopefully it is now clear what the problem is. We have unsourced, negative information about a whole bunch of living people. That is a huge, giant WP:BLP violation. I care not that it is true, nor if people have "earned" there place here. That should be painfully obvious by my comment above. As I said there, it needs to be deleted UNTIL a properly sourced version exists. Which is to say, I'm fine with the material, but since it lacks proper sources, it must be deleted per our WP:BLP policy. So, it's really rather simple. And I too try not to judge, which I didn't here. But I don't report, I leave that to the media, I just regurgitate what the media tells me, and I do that the proper way by sourcing the material and giving proper attribution to those sources. That solves all the problems. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You caused your own confusion by repeatedly referring to it as 'negative information.' And you alone used the word 'attack.'  'Negative information' and 'attack' are both value judgements and POV, banned from Wikipedia.  But moving on, if the article were totally sourced it would be OK?   Done.  richrakh````
 * It is negative information, these are sex scandals. When I said judge, I mean I don't care if we have articles like these. The problem lies in the fact that Wikipedia has a rather strict policy on this. As to attack, actually I never typed such a thing. Twinkle adds an automatic templated message, and that does use the word attack. But nonetheless, our speedy deletion criteria does deem these types of pages as attack pages, as my quote above should make clear. And lastly, yes, if totally sourced it would be OK. And not to sound too rude, but duh, that's what the very first post on this page says.
 * Also, you may want to read WP:NPOV and how we actually deal with points of view, as NPOV stands for neutral point of view, not no point of view (as in points of view are not banned). And as to value judgments, no we don't make those judgments on Wikipedia, but that refers to how we present information in an article, as in we do not add our own judgments/views as editors into articles. In both instances we reflect what the sources say, or with "negative information" we can stick to what the courts have said concerning defamation (as in if your name is tied to a "scandal" that is considered negative by the dictionary definition, not mine, thus I have made no judgment). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, now, now. I don't think you're being entirely honest.  An editor of your caliber knows exactly what words to use and how to use them.  A simple call for references should not have led to immediate threats of deletion and the great amount of verbage about a lot of things besides references. Duh!  richrakh````

This article is rife with synthesis, irrelevancies (a reporter is listed as a federal sex scandal?) and BLP violations. If we can't stick to neutral descriptions of fact, maybe the list should be deleted. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This page was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. Richrakh (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Strom Thurman
Medeis is wrong. Strom Thurman died in June 2003. Esse Mae came forward 6 months later, not 3 years later. This became a scandal when it was announced, regardless of when it occured, because Thurmond never explicitly renounced his earlier views on racial segregation. Further, having sex with a 15 year old is scandalous at any time. And in additon to THAT, having sex with a black female was illegal MISCEGENATION at the time and Thurmond knew it. He belongs on this list. (See what you learn when you actually discuss things?) Richrakh (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? Three Years versus six months?  The guy was no longer alive.  How does something being "scandalous" make it a federal political scandal?  This is POV synthesis, no different from the other attack entries which make synthetic defamatory arguments. It will be interesting if we take this to ANI and look a little deeper into these editing habits. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

YOU said it was three years, not me. You were wrong. And something scandalous happening to a federal politician IS a "federal political scandal." Richrakh (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It can't be BLP, he's dead. Medeis admits this.  Synthess because he was a racist?  Thurmond was proud of it.  If you assume racism is wrong, that's your POV, not his. Ovr&#39;apint (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Medeis was taken to ANI and blocked for 7 days. Richrakh (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good. Birdshot9 (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Gannon
Gannon is included, Medeis, because it's the name given to the political scandal in which he was involved. Similar to the Newport Sex Scandal which involved the Asst Sec of the Navy, FDR (D). The Asst Sec Navy is not a "politician" but the scandal is political. Same thing with Steve Gobie and Barnie Frank (D). Gobie was a whore, but not a politican and Frank was not accused of anything more than fixing parking tickets. Gannon was not a journalist, he was a whore who visited the White House 92 times, often in the evening. It's unfortunate we will never know the politicians he was connected to (ha-ha) but until we know, I think this qualifies as a Political Scandal. Imagine if the Obama White House was visited by a whore 92 times, would that qualify? Richrakh (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas & Herman Cain
I didn't see anything in Discussion about adding Clarence Thomas to this list, so apologies if this has somehow already been discussed. I suspect that he may have been omitted as he is a judge, and not an elected official, but I submit Wikipedia's definition of politician: "A politician or political leader (from Greek "polis") is an individual who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, coup d'état, appointment, electoral fraud, conquest, right of inheritance (see also: divine right) or other means. Politics is not limited to governance through public office."

My second suggestion requires judgment - when does the current Herman Cain brouhaha become a bona fide 'sex scandal'?

Apologies in general for the homogeneity of these suggestions, I was reading this article and I got all upset, cos I think these two scandals have very little in common, other than the color of the alleged offenders. Herman Cain sounds more like good ol' Bob Packwood, IMHO. In any case, I found this wiki page, and noted the omission of Judge Thomas. Comments? Paul B Griffith (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No apologies necessary. I've thought about that too.  In Thomas' case even if he was quilty, there didn't seem to be any repercussions.  He didn't lose any elections, he didn't step down like Edwards, he wasn't impeached like Clinton, and the press soon forgot about it, because as I remember, there were no substantiated complaints at the time, just Hill's accusations.
 * Cain has 3 women who actually were paid damages. Sharon Bialek accused him. And he may lose the primary if coverage continues, but the allegations started before he was a politician. So, I'm confused too.  Though I'd have to say I'd exclude Thomas and include Cain.  What do you think? Richrakh (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Donna Donella, a 40-year-old former U.S. AID worker from Arlington, Virginia also accused Cain. Karen Kraushaar (R) also accused Cain. Sharon Bialek (R-tea party) was the first to come forward.


 * Donella's accusation seemed weak, and Bialek and Kraushaar didn't go anywhere, but the addition of Ginger White qualifies this as a scandal. Richrakh (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 'Suspending' his campaign, definately makes this a scandal. Richrakh (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of federal political sex scandals in the United States
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of federal political sex scandals in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sentence": From Wade Sanders: War hero sentenced to prison; San Diego Union-Tribune; May 4, 2009 From List of federal political scandals in the United States:  From List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Big picture
Especially as regards living people, this article has a lot of problems. Per WP:BLP, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source.

Also per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I don't see much in that regard.

Per WP:BLP, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law….Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association…. " Here, accused and acquitted people are mixed in with convicted criminals, which is guilt by association.

Per WP:LISTN, I don’t see that “Federal political sex scandals in the United States” are notable as a group.

The list is prone to being outdated, and thus an unintentional BLP violation simply by the passage of time.

It seems important to not connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted.

Accordingly, it would be preferable if this list would mention scandals instead of mentioning scandalous people. But if people are explicitly mentioned, it would be best to simply list their names with a wikilnk to either the article about the scandal, or to the section of their BLP that describes the scandal.

As I understand, this list covers sex scandals whereas another list covers scandals other than sex scandals. Since we also have yet other lists that cover federal officials who have been censured, expelled, or convicted in scandals then why include them on this list or on the list of non-sex scandals? Including them only gives the impression that other people listed here are guilty by association.

Additionally, WP:NPF applies to some of these named people who are not public figures, so they probably ought to be removed too. If this list only covered federal officials confirmed by the Senate or elected, then this would not be a problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's rather hard to have a discussion about generalizations, but that is what you are trying to do. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. This does not tell you to use multiple 3rd party source, This is a rule of thumb.
 * "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law….Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association…. " Here, accused and acquitted people are mixed in with convicted criminals, which is guilt by association. Read what a sex scandal is. Then comment. Also be specific instead of General. Who are you talking about that was acquitted of something and could no longer be considered involved in a sex scandal.
 * Per WP:LISTN, I don’t see that “Federal political sex scandals in the United States” are notable as a group. Why, because the list may get outdated? Yes this is possible but that has nothing to do with notability criteria. Note the list makes known that it may be incomplete. While a sexual scandal can involve criminal activity it does not imply criminal activity. It would be preferable to put a wikilink to the scandal or the involved individual if they have one(most do), there's no requirement that they do. I'm not responding the rest of that section, the point would be over all your case is bunk and that point has already been made.
 * Additionally, WP:NPF applies to some of these named people who are not public figures, so they probably ought to be removed too. If this list only covered federal officials confirmed by the Senate or elected, then this would not be a problem. Who? Can you be specific instead of general? You honestly don't have a very coherent argument here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is indeed difficult to speak in generalities, and therefore I have been trying to upgrade the article today with specific edits. I will keep at it if I have time and it's okay with people.  For example, I put everything in chronological order, and accordingly removed the recentism tag.  I've included some apologies by people already listed here, included an additional person (Daniel Webster), removed people who can be listed in a separate article as criminals, and removed people who were relatively minor (i.e. not elected and not confirmed by the Senate).  There's still a lot of work that I'd like to do here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've look at some of your edits, just skimming thru, not every single one. This for example. This is not a very competent removal. The problem with your guilt by association claim is you don't actually seem to understand the concept. You should honestly stop what you are doing. There's no suggestion or implication of guilt by association in the material you removed. This does not state, suggest, or imply that anyone is guilty but Mel Reynolds. Since your policy basis seems to be based of the language of the BLP policy I feel need to inform you that you clearly do not understand the BLP policy. You need to go back and readd anything you removed on this basis.  This removal is not a very competent removal. Your Removed ganley because he was not elected. He doesn't have to be elected for this to be a federal political sex scandal. You should go find some help or something, but you don't need to continue on by yourself if plan to continue making changes like these. These are very poor changes. I didn't look at any others, I'm scared to honestly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a separate article titled List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes where such people can be included. To mix convicted criminals here with other people most certainly reflects badly on the latter.  This is especially problematic from the perspective of WP:BLP, as discussed (without much objection) during recent AfD proceedings.  As long as the intro here clearly describes the inclusion criteria, there should be no problem.  As far as candidates who have sex scandals without ever being elected, my thought was there can be lots and lots of candidates, especially during primaries (e.g. I think hundreds of people will technically be running against Hillsry Clinton); this is already a long list, so it seems that inclusion criteria ought to be limited to actual federal officials.  I vote in federal races, but I don't think that should make all of my sex scandals eligible for this list either.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there is a list of criminals. Criminals can commit sex scandals. Non-criminals can commit sex scandals. This would be like excluding a world leader from a list of world leaders because that world leader committed genocide. That is white washing. Do you know how many AFD's there have ever been? You are saying that somewhere in the 1000's of AFD's there's at least one AFD that has some logic that would apply here. Provide the specific AFD so your logic can be verified. 100's of people may or may not run against Hilary or the average amount of individuals that run, I don't have a wp:crystalball and this isn't actually relevant to the discussion here. When a major candidate for a Federal political office is involved in a sex scandal while they are running for office this would apply. You as a voter are no one. You as a voter offer little action of the federal level. You do not compare to a major political candidate. It's not relevant. If you think that the inclusion criteria should be narrowed to exclude, that's a conversation to have. We can discuss how to change the list so that the inclusion criteria is clear. The major problem with the BLP is people who don't know the BLP try to apply it. The BLP says to beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. Here in your removal there are no claims of guilt by association and there are no biased, malicious, or overly promotional content. There are no claims that Bill Clinton or anyone else on this list has child Porn because Wade Sanders has child porn. It is not biased, malicious, or overly promotional to mention that Wade Sanders has Child porn. Now I question if this would be considered a sex scandal, if it's not it shouldn't be included on the list, but if it is it should be included. Honestly I should go thru and start reverting your changes. I'm not going to. I don't actually care about your changes. I came here from the BLP noticeboard to help but you really need to much help. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the title of the article says "sex scandal". I don't think one would call the Ted Bundy murders or the Jeffrey Dahmer murders "sex scandals" even though sex was involved and their reputations were damaged.  In other words, we are entitled as editors to limit this article to sex scandals that are merely scandals.  And there are very good reasons for doing so, including a separate Wikipedia article on crimes by federal officials, plus the BLP policy which urges us to avoid guilt by association.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ted Bundy? This is an irrelevant comparison. Ted Bundy wasn't involved in a sex scandal. Neither was Jeffry Dahmer. This also ignores my suggestion that I agree that only sex scandal's should be in this list. Juliet A Williams, professor of Women's Studeies at UCLA, discusses sex scandals here. She notes that the public doesn't differentiate non-consensual sex from consensual sex in regards to sex scandals. This is the differentiation you are trying to make. You need to exclude items from this list by finding that they are not Sex Scandals. You need to stop excluding them because they are crimes. Link the policy or guideline if you feel otherwise. The BLP does not, Let me repeat that, The BLP does not tell us to avoid guilt by association. It tells us to avoid claims of guilt by association. This is a distinction. You did not remove a claim of guilt by association. You are neither going by the word or the principle of the policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bundy and Dahmer both had sex with the victims, but it's perfectly legitimate to not consider their situations as sex scandals.  The opinion piece by Juliet Williams says: "When a powerful politician has an extramarital affair, it’s a scandal. When a powerful politician sexually assaults another person, it’s a crime."  If she distinguishes between scandals and crimes, why can't we?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really know how to politely say this. I apologize, but you are either incompetent or screwing with me. Cherry picking the last part of what Juliet Williams has to say and then asking why can't we distinguish as she has? Well first first she spent the entire article discussing that things are not that way. This is her opinion of how things should be. Personally I agree. We shouldn't be lost in in a scandal when an individual has been raped. Why can't we make this distinction? because that is original research. I don't care if you express the opinion here on the talk page. Rape is serious. Rape is a terrible and horrible thing. The experience is something that doesn't easily leave you. I view it as worse than murder. The nightmares, the fear, and the torture that you can continue to live with. Rape doesn't compare to an individual cheating on their wife with their maid. But it is not wikipedias case to make this distinction. We are not here to change the status quo. We are here to present things as they are. Review the sources. A Simple matter. Do the sources call it a Sexual Scandal?  Can it be consider based off their language, a sexual scandal? This is not if you consider it that or not. Wade Sanders  The sources do not suggest it is. I did not however look for other sources. I feel comfortable saying that based of the sources there doesn't seem to be any sexual scandal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to read carefully what you're saying, to think about it carefully, and to reply carefully.  I guess, despite my sincere efforts, maybe it isn't working too well.  I agree with you 100% about the seriousness and heinousness of rape.  As I read the first sentence of the Williams' column, she's saying that "One was accused of a crime, and one pleaded guilty to being a cad" and therefore they don't belong together.  I agree that criminals and cads don't belong on this list together.  If that means we have to think about re-naming the list, then I am open to that possibility, but at this point I don't think re-naming is necessary.  However, I would not object to a title like this: "List of top U.S. federal officials in sex scandals without criminality".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually just going to walk away now. Again I don't personally care about the article. It would be a nightmare to go thru and check every single edit you have made. On the few I did check there are massive holes in the logic that you have applied. While (the Cad and the accused criminal) they may or may not belong together, the article is pointing out they are together. She does not think they should be together but she acknowledges that they are together. Wikipedia is not for the advocacy that they shouldn't be together. This advocacy is for people outside of wikipedia to seek. Once that achieve it is for wikipedia to reflect it but not before. Renaming the list as you suggest only really sounds like POV pushing. There is policy basis here to do that. Later as the list goes larger there may be a reason to do a size split and branch this article in two in some way. Currently no reason for that exists. If and when such a reason exists it would be an option to split this off with one list being "List of top U.S. federal officials in sex scandals without criminality." There is no guilt by association here. Your are misapplying a policy. It says to avoid claims of guilt by association. Keyword is claims. Having the word claims in that policy makes very specific meaning. Specifically that you avoid claims of guilt by association. You have not removed any claims of guilt by association. You have come up with a very convoluted scenario to present a type of guilt by association. A scenario with no basis in logic. But again I don't care. I'm walking away.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true that this list is not yet large enough to require splitting, and addition of federal politicians who have committed sex crimes probably would not make this list tremendously bigger. However, I don't think that re-naming requires splitting, in this case, because there's already a separate Wikipedia list that covers federal politicians who have committed crimes.  As Wikipedia rules say, the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject, even if they are created unintentionally, causes redundancy and is to be avoided.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

McCain and Sanford
I removed McCain and Sanford because neither the scandals, nor the behavior which gave rise to them, occurred while they were occupying high federal offices. The other two new entries (Larry Craig and the Tennessee congressman) seem okay to list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of federal political sex scandals in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090630000231/http://www.reviewjournal.com:80/lvrj_home/1998/Sep-11-Fri-1998/news/8200206.html to http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1998/Sep-11-Fri-1998/news/8200206.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Emphasis
In the lead, it says that there is an "Emphasis" on post 1970s sex scandals. Shouldn't it be something more semantically accurate like "coverage" or something? Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of federal political sex scandals in the United States. 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/20070311033301/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_v18/ai_4190901 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_v18/ai_4190901
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227030031/http://craig.senate.gov/releases/pr082707a.cfm to http://craig.senate.gov/releases/pr082707a.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011020504/http://www.webcastr.com/videos/news-politics/sen.-craig-im-not-gay.html to http://www.webcastr.com/videos/news-politics/sen.-craig-im-not-gay.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911225154/http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/craig/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/craig/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008144802/http://www.mncourts.gov/documents/4/Public/4th_Suburban_Courts/Southdale/State_of_Minnesota_v_Larry_Edwin_Craig_10-4-07.pdf to http://www.mncourts.gov/documents/4/Public/4th_Suburban_Courts/Southdale/State_of_Minnesota_v_Larry_Edwin_Craig_10-4-07.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203181044/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/C000858 to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c000858/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20090716/NEWS/90716027/Ex-Miss.%2Bpolitician%2Bs%2Bwife%2Bsues%2Balleged%2Bmistress

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Far from complete
For one, it does not include: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson (who had many, but certainly Alice Glass is the easiest to RS confirm). In addition, the article states - "federal political sex scandals", but seems mostly just about affairs men had while in a high federal office. Kierzek (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of federal political sex scandals in the United States. 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 tag to http://www.wnpt.org/productions/rachel/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140408061236/http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20140407/NEWS01/140407023/Rep-McAllister-asks-forgiveness-following-video-him-kissing-woman to http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20140407/NEWS01/140407023/Rep-McAllister-asks-forgiveness-following-video-him-kissing-woman

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy?
What about Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick in 1969? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.182.38 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Kennedy and Kopechne had sex.Newlenp (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion
This article includes those appointed by the Senate. Shouldn't it include those hired or appointed by all elected officials?Caltropdefense (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes.Johnsagent (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Biden and Kavanaugh
The lead currently states Politicians' sex crimes are not covered in this particular list, regardless of whether there has been a verdict yet. As such, I have removed the two high-profile entries for Joe Biden and Brett Kavanaugh from this list, as both entries covered accusations of sex crimes. userdude 09:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aren't most of these considered sex crimes? Trump and Franken for example?— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with scandal. The push was not to have Kavanaugh arrested or disbarred, but to either embarrass him into resigning or make it such that he became such a political hot potato that the liability was too great and Trump would be forced to retract the nomination.  And the same is for Biden.  It's mostly politically motivated.  And this is the same for Trump -- the push was never to have him arrested or charged, but to make a scandal in the news media.  I am reverting your removal.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 15:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like WP:OR to call the accusations politically motivated. Even if they were, they are still accusations of sex crimes and should not be included per the scope as described in the current lead. The entry Donald Trump (Republican), the 45th President of the United States, was accused of sexual assault by 13 women… is also outside of the scope as described in the current lead. Either the scope should be expanded (which is counter to the Washington Post Opinion article currently cited in the lead) or the three aforementioned entries should be removed. This list should not contradict itself. userdude

Gaetz
Why no reference to Stephen Alford pleading guilty to that extortion, leading credence to Gaetz other statements?66.68.178.180 (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a horrible article
It can never be complete, never have a neutral and agreed upon definition, and has a huge potential of suffering from viewpoint discrimination. Editors will undoubtedly pick and choose which of their most hated officials they will add and how much detail they will add. This is already happening. Trump had no marital issues in office, but his past problems are being used in the article. Why? They have absolutely nothing to do with his candidacy or time in office. Compare and contrast with Bill Clinton, who has been accused by many, many women of past sexual harassment, yet these women are not mentioned at all. This article needs to be removed. 47.12.161.150 (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Cal Cunningham
Should Cal Cunningham be included on this page considering that he was not actually elected to federal office? It seems to me that his is a North Carolina state political sex scandal. Carguychris (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)