Talk:Mark Foley scandal/Archive 3

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

Tradesports usage
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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

RfC on explicit messages (closed)
'''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)

Is it necessary or encyclopedic to include the most lurid and explicit message excerpts in Mark Foley scandal (See subsection "Message excerpts"), when there are external links available in the article to the complete texts of the messages? - 14:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No and no - I am the requestor of this RfC. I feel it is unencyclopedic to include the most sexually explicit chats in the article, when they are already externally linked in their full form. I think a less explicit description, with the links provided, is sufficient. Crockspot 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - If kept, these excerpts need to be properly labelled. If they were sent to someone over the age of 18, we should definately label them as such. The government has no business interfering with the lawful communication of two adults, regardless of their position. The same First Amendment Rights that protect our posts here should be granted to Mr. Foley and the recipients of his communications. Kyaa the Catlord 14:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I'm relatively certain you are not talking to me. :P Kyaa the Catlord 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment per Dposse, WP:NOT censored. I have no position on whether lengthy excerpts are appropriate for the article, but sexual explicitness is not a valid reason for deleting them. Dan B † Dan  D  15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually don't think that these excerpts are that lengthy, nor are they the most lurid. I also don't think whether the recipient was 18 or not is that central.  Personally, I think this scandal is more about sexual harassment and hypocrisy than statutory rape.  In any case, someone with more time than I could read through all of the texts and try to see if there are somewhat shorter or more representative ones.  At the same time, in a way the most lurid IMs ARE what this is about.  If they were all just "overly friendly" there would be no scandal.Msalt 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Include- I think, if they aren't overly long and pointless, including the messages will provide more information to the scandal than an opinion of someone else. If they are from a reliable source and are actually what was said, people can form their own opinions from the facts. I understand some people will find it inappropriate, but Wikipedia is NOT censored. Just put the appropriate tags.Connor K. 19:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Closed RfC Per above. Thesmothete 04:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Include- They're the essence of the scandal. The excerpts are brief illustrations of the content of more than 52 IM's. No valid reason to remove these. The objection is not one of article quality, but of sensibilities. I refer you to pearl necklace for how wikipedia treasures that. Derex 21:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak remove or Improve flow/readability-I have no problem with quoting from the messages, but raw excerpts from primary materials is generally unencylopedaic and doesn't really add much to the understanding of the scandal. I would rather we replace the section with a description of the number and character of the IMs, with well integrated quotes, and links to the full text on news sites.  My only concern here is improving the flow, quality, and readability of the article which I think is interupted by the choppy quotes.--Bibliophylax 22:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not object to removing one of the IM's for easier flow, but I think it's important that we keep some intact. The reason is neutrality. We should have at least one place where the quotes stand alone, without commentary. Commentary, even inline integration, is a form of interpretation. Let at least one stand alone, and let the reader make of it what he will.  I also don't think we should interpret Foley's statement, but leave the imporant parts as full quotes for the same reason. Derex 23:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Include Wikipedia is not a Walt Disney movie &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 00:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Include-The sensational and explicit nature of the IMs is a part of the story. Posting an exerpt is the only way I can image to really get this across in an honest manner.  I do agree that the readability is junk.  Quoting the EMail however contributes nothing, and we don't need all four IM excerpts.  Also, the exerpts are currently posing as in-article references, which is inappropriate, and that needs to change. Questionc 05:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Include. Yes, the IMs are crude and in very poor taste.  Yes, they're also the heart of the scandal.  Per WP:NOT, readers have a right to firsthand access to the relevant material.  If this were tangential to the headlines I'd support a link, but here there's the additional issue of whether two newspapers should have broken the story last year.  It helps to see the actual text those newspaper editors had at that time and contrast to the more explicit texts.  Given that this reached the public in the final weeks before an election year, a reasonable person could wonder whether "the liberal media" held back on the story for political gain - the best way for readers to weigh these possibilities is to place the most relevant excerpts in the article.  Durova  06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Include This will give the lie to those who say they were just jokes on the part of the pages. Without the IMs there wuld not be much of a story. Indicating the age of the young person is very appropriate. Edison 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Include The IMs are an integral part of the story and thus should remain on the page. --Hemlock Martinis 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Include they're central for people in the future knowing what all this fuss was about. to remove them would be to remove a central part of the issue. The762x51 04:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Include per Hemlock Martinis. Also, I propose we close this RfC, because there is a consensus to include the e-mails. If there is no objection, I will close the RfC in 48 hours. Thesmothete 04:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Include I object to closing this RfC. I think we can reach an agreement that might satisfy both sides. At the very least, include a warning or warning banner that this particular article contains graphic/sexual content/however you want to word it/ material. Or another option includes a way to minimize (a part of the screen) the explicit sexual content within the page (as a link, maybe), with the option to open it for those who desire to. This action is meant to warn others who want to learn about the scandal, and yet opt-out of viewing the particulars. jmbrink 15:10, 19 October 2006
 * I don't really see two sides here, -- 13 includes, and only the originator of the RfC is against it, plus one "weak remove or label". That sounds pretty much like consensus to me.  Especially since anyone can label.Msalt 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The initial proposal -- to abridge, remove, or link the quotes is no longer viable (i.e. there is a conensus against it). If jmbrink would like to launch an alternative proposal to label or warn, but otherwise keep the quotations intact, that would be an acceptable discussion (and we could talk about it here), but there's no need to continue to solicit RfC from all wikipedians on the inital proposal. Because there was an objection to my shutdown, I will delay removal of the RfC for an additional 24 hours (sometime after 15:10 on 22 October 2006) in case there is a sudden turnaround in sentiment by others Thesmothete 04:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Page was 18 and is now 21
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)

Well thanks for giving me proof that Wikipedia is biased to the FAR LEFT since MSNBC,CNN,ABC are all known liberal news networks.


 * And "passionate america" isn't biased? dposse 14:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you like keeping it one sided with no other views. Good Job on keeping wikipedia lib biased only.

Did you even read the article, I guess not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.245.104 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC).
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

You might wanna check out WP:RS. "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." dposse 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything must be blessed by AP/LiberalMedia before it can be posted on wiki. Ok now AP/Yahoo accepts it so... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.245.104 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC).
 * 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)
 * 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)

Well, Foxnews isn't liberal media, right? They report the page as being age 16 "The conservative group Focus on the Family said leaders should have responded more aggressively to Foley's attempt to solicit a picture from the 16-year-old page in the e-mail, but hindsight is 20-20." (that's from )Anyway, if the age of the page is disputed, the fact that it is disputed should be reflected in the article somehow, don't you think? Instead of just changing it because of conflicting sources...Dina 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Passionateamerica would, in my opinion, be considered a primary source. Since we have two secondary sources that refer to it (plus Drudge, I believe), we can use the primary source as additional verification of the secondaries. Primary sources generally should not be used alone as a source, but in conjunction with secondary reliable sources, it is allowed. - Crockspot 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You said that so much better than I did. Thanks Crockspot. Kyaa the Catlord 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Dina on this one. We should note the variations in the age as reported in verified sources. PassionateAmerica is definitely not a verifiable source. And yes, conservative-media-basher-who-doesn't-sign-your-name, it IS better once a mainstream news source reports it, because they have standards -- they (hopefully) check it out, call people for reactions and corrections, and weed out information that is too shaky. Not always but better than any other alternative at the moment.

There are plenty of conservative verifiable news sources -- my favorite news source, and the only paper I subscribe to, is the Wall Street Journal. National Review, etc. etc. Find one of those. By the way, Matt Drudge is most certainly NOT a verifiable news source, primary secondary or tertiary. He is infamous for linking to completely false or spurious sources with clear partisan agendas, and providing no fact checking or added value of any kind.

The Passionateamerica post is interesting, although purely conjecture and web searching. But it misses one key element -- how old this page was at the time of the texts. They establish -- if you accept a bunch of likely but not definitive leaps of logic -- that the page is 21 now. But unless there are dates on the texts I haven't seen, they could have been before or after his 18th birthday. Note that, according to passionateamerica, his AOL login was LOLAKANA223 -- which they interpret to be "LOL aka N/A (not available until) 2/23" (Februrary 23, which was the date of his upcoming 18th birthday.)

Which again paints a portrait of Foley and the page flirting with legal danger and adopting the ethics of "Barely Legal" magazine. With all due respect, I think most Americans -- including the vast majority of Republicans -- would find Foley's behavior still very scandalous even if he was tiptoeing around pages' 18th birthdays. Msalt 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You dont have to lie about matt drudge with your partisan rants about him. AP has already backed up passionate america blog incase you didnt notice or you didnt care to read this discussion all the way. PS the MSM is as reliable as Drudge. Stephen Glass and Dan Rather dont ring a bell to you ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.245.104 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC).
 * 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)

Aparently you didnt read this:

Quote: Passionateamerica would, in my opinion, be considered a primary source. Since we have two secondary sources that refer to it (plus Drudge, I believe), we can use the primary source as additional verification of the secondaries. Primary sources generally should not be used alone as a source, but in conjunction with secondary reliable sources, it is allowed. - Crockspot 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And you probally didnt read this either: quote: How about the newspaper that used the information provided by passionateamerica? (This is actually included in the article with the ref name of newsok) [2] or the one where Passionate America is creditted by the AP? [3] Kyaa the Catlord 15:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Political impact
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)
 * 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)

Positive Comment from a Contributor/Just plain ol' talk
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)
 * I just re-read the article and agree. It's a really good source of information.  Stability is a requirement for 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)
 * 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)
 * Agreed. :) dposse 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

I think it's an exceptionally good article under the circumstances. I've been involved in many breaking-news type articles with political implications. Never have they stabilized in to a good article this fast, so congratulations all around. However, since this event is probably a long way from over, a FA nomination would be premature. Article quality can quickly degrade in a situation like that as new editors with less exacting standards become involved. In a few months though, I think it would be a good nominee. Derex 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC -- Whether Foley has been accused of actual sexual contact
We've gone back and forth on this one. The statement that he has not been accused of sex with pages per se is clearly false -- it's documented in the same section on legal issues and consent, and we note that the page in question specifically says he was 18 at the time.

I removed the statement that Foley "has not been accused of sex with a minor." It was unsourced, and I'm not sure it can be sourced. I'm pretty sure 5 minutes of web searching could dig up some one without much basis accusing Foley of sex with minors. This wouldn't be solid enough to include in the article, but it would disprove that flat statement that he hasn't been accused.

I'm unaware of any verifiable accusation, but to definitively state that he has not been accused goes way beyond that. I think it's best to state the one fact that we do know -- that Foley has stated, through his lawyer's statement, that he unequivocally did not have sex with any minor.Msalt 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I found some sources, although not great ones, that state he has not been accused of sex with a minor--and re-added the sentence. I haven't found any credible accusation of sex with a minor. I think it is important to make the picture whole.  Frankly, since there haven't been credible accusations of sex I think the whole discussion on the age of consent is irrelevant, speculative and misleading.  I removed the whole section before, but some people felt strongly that the article needs to discuss age of consent.
 * Bottom line--without this disclaimer, the section strongly implies he HAS been accused of sex with a minor. That implication is false.  As long as we have the age of consent content, I think we need to dispel the natural assumptions that discussion creates.--Bibliophylax 20:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. The text of the section -- it is only a crime if you have physical sex with a minor, and his attorney has denied that -- implies exactly the opposite, that he carefully avoided breaking the law.


 * The direct statement of Foley's own attorney, long before we created this section, said that he has not had sex with a minor. That denial is the only solid fact we have.  I don't think we should be in the position of making blanket statements that we can't prove, and can easily prove wrong. The fact that a newspaper says he hasn't been accused of something is not verifiable 5 minutes later, because of course he could have been accused later.  At the VERY minimum you would need to qualify that statement with a date and scope ("As of 10/6/2006, he has not been accused in a mainstream news source").  I think it's much better to avoid conclusionary statements altogether.Msalt 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to delete it at this point because I think we should work to a consensus and I don't like the idea of revert wars. I'd like to see what other people think thoughMsalt 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I found a good short term solution. That section is discussing the emails sent to the first (Louisiana) page, so I narrowed the scope of the statement that he has not been accused to limit it to that same page, and then note that his lawyer has denied he had sex with any minor.  I'm still interested in people's feedback though. Msalt 21:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is ridiculous
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).
 * Why would you bother attacking us if we're partisan losers?Msalt 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Three more pages.
I'm not sure where to put this infomation, but here it is:

"ABC News reported that three more pages, one each from 1998, 2000 and 2002, have come forward detailing sexual approaches from Foley over the Internet." dposse 21:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is actually a reference to this item on the ABC News Blotter part of its website, which has been cited elsewhere on the Foley Scandal page (e.g. paragraph 3 of the Legal Issues - Consent section.) http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html   Msalt


 * Uh, no...this is three additional pages that have come foward. i think. i'll try to find some sources. dposse 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused -- as you can see, the article I listed is "three_more_form.html". Are there actually 6 new ones?  I looked at your citation and it referenced ABC news, which is what I was also citing.Msalt 23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

2 data points
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)

confirmation: Jordan Edmund was 16/17 yrs old.


"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)

As stated elsewhere, Edmunds' birthday is 2/23/2003. His attorney stated directly that he was a minor at the time of the infamous IMs that were in the news. Msalt 21:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

timeline
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)


 * yes, finally a nice timeline to put everything into perspective.DrCito 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that i can finally be of some use to this article. ^_^ dposse 18:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's some more info that would be good for a timeline, given that the leadership response is such a large part of the stink. Their statements conflict temporally. It's from a blog, but they do source it. Use it, don't, whatever. Just bringing it to your attention. some anon 07:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Heads up for this troll: 24.42.27.41
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)

Conservative groups, unexplained cut
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)


 * 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)

Turning over a new page
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)


 * 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)

"Given the context, we should probably pick a different metaphor."

And there was me thinking it was a brilliant pun.

I must say, your sex laws are odd, but your drinking laws are odder.TRiG 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Section on Tom Davis (in Republican Leadership)
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)

Here's the text I removed:Msalt 21:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Davis
- As of October 8, 2006, Tom Davis, Chairman of Government Reform and Oversight Committee and former Chairman of the NRCC (the chairmanship now occupied by Reynolds), and with an overwhelming lead in campaign financing reletive to his Democratic opponent, has failed to take any action on the matter.Tom Davis Refuses to Take Action on Foley

material removed from intro (Part the First)
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)
 * 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)

the other material removed from intro (that third paragraph)
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)

1. "The Republican congressional leadership has been criticized for not investigating Foley's behavior when they first found out about it. "

2. "Kirk Fordham, Foley's former chief of staff, said he complained in 2003 to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and other congressional leaders about Foley's "inappropriate behavior." "

3. The scandal has divided Republicans, some of whom have called for Hastert's resignation.

Nonpartisan criticism
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)
 * 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)

Rep. knew in 2000
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)
 * 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)

Analysis of the age issue
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Rewrite for clarification
I'd like to see a new emphasis in this article:
 * 1) How Democrats and/or Republicans are seeking to gain political advantage from this scandal - as in the upcoming November 2006 elections, just a few weeks away. Is this an October surprise?
 * 2) An overview of the moral and legal issues of adults having sexual relationships with young people in their service.
 * 3) *The moral aspects of "sexual predation" on someone whose job depends on serving you
 * 4) *The precise legal aspects of flirtation, "phone sex", seduction, age of consent, etc. In other words, where exactly is the line and what did Foley say or do which crossed (or didn't cross) the line?
 * 5) Controversy and disputes over the moral and legal aspects (in general) - which might require a spin-off articl.

What do others think of this proposal? --Uncle Ed 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My two cents again: Republicans have no advantage from this scandal (that I know of), so the idea for No. 1 on your list I think would be better expressed by an article about the political reaction or how the scandal affects the election. I think it's a great idea for a separate article on that, because the subject is going to get pretty big. Possible working title: "Mark Foley scandal affect on 2006 election:"?? Sections on: Democratic leadership response; Public opinion polls on scandal; Republican leadership response; Democratic campaingers around the country; Republican campaigners around the country; Tom Reynolds re-election (probably just a "For more information, see:" line there). Just an idea.
 * No. 2 -- I'm not even sure I like the term "predation" or "preditor" in regard to this case, because I don't think that should be applied to seduction, only some kind of coercion. No article on the subject exists now?
 * No. 3 -- If done, it should not be linked solely to the Foley affair, because the issues are permanent and this will obviously fade in importance over time.Noroton 18:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see a large danger of POV and spin from taking the article in this direction. It is pretty much all analysis.  Furthermore, we run the risk of being too myopic for an encyclopedia -- focusing on ultra-short run effects (such as current polls) in races that will be ultimately decided in just a few weeks.
 * Discussion of effects on the 2006 election, I think, should be in the article on that election, and more briefly in the existing sections of this article on the subject, rather than in a new article.Msalt 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Msalt above; #2 is going to be a lot of original research or otherwise should be addressed in Wikipedia articles specific to each item; for example, the various aspects of age of consent should be addressed at the age of consent article, not here. As is, the Legal issues section is already treading the original research line, in my opinion. #1 could be addressed in both the Responses section and/or Political impact section (for example as predicted by columnists and analysts), and also, as Msalt pointed out, in the article on the 2006 election.  I can see how there might be some overlap between the Political impact and Responses section though. Also, I don't really know what you mean by #3 so I can't address that point. Schi 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This Is Completley Retarded
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)
 * 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)
 * 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) Allen Roth

OMFG-worthy poll numbers
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)


 * Interesting especially in regard to the NYT article about evangelicals not blaming the party for Foley. JoshuaZ 04:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * anecdote vs. statistics, that's why every politician spends lots of money on pollsMsalt 04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization for redundancy?
I noticed there's a fair amount of overlap and redundancy in this article as it's currently structured. There is repeated material about the calls for Hastert's resignation in the Dennis Hastert section, Columnists and analysts "political impact" section, and a little in the Republicans' response section. I think it might be useful to consolidate this information into one subsection on "Calls for Hastert's resignation" or something like that - and put it under the Responses section.

Also, there is similar overlap and redundancy in the "Congress" section. A lot of the information in the "Knowledge" section seems to be repeated in the subsections for Hastert, Reynolds, etc. The section on the House Page Board likewise overlaps with the section on Shimkus' role - and all of these subsections overlap with subsections in the Responses section.

I'm not yet sure how best to resolve this. I'm thinking maybe we should edit the "Congress" section to be strictly about previous Congressional knowledge/attempts at reporting incidents, and to save Congressional responses for the "Responses" section? Any thoughts? Schi 19:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your points are well taken. Furthermore, I think there is excess detail in some sections.


 * The Knowledge Before 2006 section is very important, I think, more important than the various reactions of different groups -- political consequences and reactions way down my priority list, especially since anything we write now will be forgotten as soon as the election results come in. To my taste, the only important reactions are those that are shaping the public debate, e.g. things like Democratic ads criticizing candidates by association with the House leadership, and Republican arguments that it's all a prank or democratic setup.  Ironically, those last two are barely mentioned on the page.


 * I don't have time to do this but I think what editors really need to do is to step back from all the little details -- which I think we've done a wonderful job adding and integrating -- and read the article as a whole, editing from a macro point of view to prune excessive detail and the kind of redundancy you describe.


 * My guidepost would be -- which information will still be just as relevant after the elections? And clearly, the most important elements are 1) precisely what Foley did, and when, and to whom  2) who knew about it, and when, and what did they do (both Democrats and Republicans)


 * I continue to think the context on the legal questions is very valuable and encyclopedic as well.Msalt 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Harpers claims
See here: This website has been apparently overwhelmed with traffic since Drudge linked to it and has been off and on... but it is a published article by a reporter claiming: (a) He got the original emails from the same source as the Miami Times and St. Petersburg Times. (b) This source was a "democratic operative" (c) He wrote a story, but Harpers ultimately joined the ranks of other media that decided it lacked enough proof to run (d) He passed the info along to various media sources, including talkingpointsmemo.com, americablog.com, the New Republic, and more He ultimately argues that this isn't an October surprise, since it would have been stupid to shop the story a year ago if you wanted it to effect the election this year--something that definitely makes sense. But the fact that "Democratic operatives" and liberal blogs had the emails for more than a year definitely raises questions. We also have info on more media organizations that knew about the stuff. I don't have time to work this in now, but some of this seems article-worthy.--Bibliophylax 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's already been stated by Brian Ross -- the ABC News reporter that broke the story -- that Republican sources gave him the information. The Hill has also reported that it was a Republican source who conveyed the emails that sparked the controversy to the media. Until a more credible source than Drudge documents that Democrats had any hand in this, I have to say this needs to stay out for the moment. --GGreeneVa 01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A little clarification: The reporter got some of the more innocuous emails but couldn't uncover enough supporting information to satisfy his editors. He received them in May 2006 (not a year ago). He does say that he got them from a Democrat but that he believes that they could only have been leaked by a Republican. He claims that some publications had the same information at the same time (i.e. May of this year) but then he backtracks and says that maybe they were just aware of some of the salient points. He doesn't seem to be a very reliable source on anything but his own actions. Ultimately what I got out of his story was that he got wind of the scandal but couldn't get enough details because the Republicans (staffers for Foley and Congressman Alexander) were stonewalling. --Lee Hunter 01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Stuff like this happens all the time - as a journalist, it's happened to me. You get a story, you know what happened, you can write everything... but you just don't have enough sources who are willing to go on record about it to be absolutely sure that you're right, and the story never gets written. It's the same thing Wikipedia deals with - verifiability, not truth. This reporter figured out what was going on but didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle back then - and ultimately decided, with his editors, that it wouldn't be right to publish at that time. We can't second-guess that decision, we can just know that after some time passed, more sources trickled out, people asked the right questions and the story broke. That's what happens in journalism. To attribute it to some sort of "October Surprise" conspiracy is ludicrous. FCYTravis 02:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What I find puzzling and interesting about that article is that he mentions two separate people; 1) his "source", who put him in touch with 2) "a Democratic operative." Well, who was his source?  It's curious he didn't identify the source as a Democrat.
 * When he talks about the two Florida papers, he says "In the fall of 2005, my source had provided the same material to the St. Petersburg Times—and I presume to The Miami Herald—both which decided against publishing stories." Not the Democratic operative, but his presumably Republican or non-partisan source.  (Why else distinguish them by identifying the operative as Democratic?)  The St. Petersburg Times has said though that they got their information from a Republican, and this is already in the article here.Msalt 04:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New section on Source of Emails and Chronology
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)

Copyright and campaign ads


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)
 * Not sure about copyright status but I would worry more about POV.Msalt 17:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, that's a great ad, and probably ok under Fair use. I'd say add near the bottom of the article.  TheronJ 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

It would almost surely fall under our fair use provisions, not sure about the POV-implying aspect though. Derex 11:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)


 * It most surely DOES NOT fall under Wikipedia's fair use policy. See criteria 2 in the list of all criteria required to be met, which I quote for you now: The material must not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media;. The image should be deleted immediately. Crockspot 17:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the justifications above to argue against POV only bolster the argument that criteria 2 is not being met. I have removed the image from this page, and am requesting speedy delete of the image from Wikipedia. Crockspot 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Crockspot, what market role would Wikipedia's use be replacing? TheronJ 17:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

On reflection, I don't think we should use the image, but not because of copyright concerns. The image appears to originate from the "Voter's Voice" website, http://www.votervoice.net/groups/foley/. (You may have to click quickly - the site isn't archived, and I imagine they'll be taking this down soon). Without some reliable source evidence that Voter's Voice is connected to the Foley campaign, I don't think the image is sourced well enough to establish its relevance. TheronJ 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Republican Response -- October Surprise theory
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)

Rahm Emmanuel possible knowledge of scandals
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)


 * 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)

Political disinformation

 * Fox News has branded Foley several times as a Democrat, according to images available at bradblog.com.

Why was this deleted? -- Evertype·✆ 09:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not notable. Fox goofed up for a total of 45 seconds in a 24 hour period, in 3 15 second chunks. I'm certain someone who used to work in their graphics department would disagree though. Kyaa the Catlord 11:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to WP:notability the minimum standard for notability is: "... it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself." In this case, the gaffe was featured on The Daily Show as well as numerous websites not connected to FOX.  So it does, or nearly does, meet the criterion for its  own entry , and seems to me notable enough to include as a mention in this article. Thesmothete 17:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "45 second" argument is silly. A Fox newscaster could announce in words "It's a lie that Foley is a Republican, he's always been a Democrat." That would only take 5 seconds but it would clearly be noteworthy (if reported on by independent sources, which obviously it would.)
 * The real issue here is whether it was deliberate or accidental, and if it is ongoing. There definitely were verifiable discussions of it in the first days of the scandal.  Has it recurred though?  If not, I would put it in the category of "minute detail that there isn't room for on the page."  Msalt 18:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Blogs don't count as non-trivial published sources, or even reliable sources of any kind, and I disagree that the Daily Show is a reliable source regarding whether Fox's misidentification was intentional or accidental. Find two newspapers, scholarly articles, NPR stories, or other venues with established fact checking or peer review that argue that Fox's misidentification was intentional, and we're in business.  TheronJ 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the test. It doesn't have to be intentional to be notable. It merely has to be  noted  to be notable.  Mistakes can be notable, even if they are not intentional, or if their intentionality is disputed.  If it was intentional, but not noted (someone did it on purpose, but the only person that noticed was a wikipedia editor) it would be an NOR violation to state it here.  Conversely an accidential act that is widely covered/reported would qualify (for example Al Gore purportely claiming to have "invented" the Internet). Thesmothete 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Thesmothete. I think Editor & Publisher looks like a good source.  Schi 19:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Editor and Publisher is an excellent source. Then again, reading those two articles it doesn't seem that significant either.Msalt 19:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kolbe is not Foley
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)
 * 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)
 * 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.--  &#162;&#178;   Connor K.   13:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Naming victims in the page scandal
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)

Naming names
While I would be against outing anyone here or elsewhere, in Jordan's case his name has been already spread all over the media everywhere so that there is no longer anything left to protect. At this point not mentioning him just leaves a pointless lacuna in the article. Haiduc 04:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But what is the value of naming him? I certainly didn't see any in the paragraph I reverted.  And even assuming we do choose to do that, I certainly don't see any point in making his name a section heading.


 * Another point is, the paragraph I removed stated that Edmunds was in all of the sexually explicit IMs, but everything I've read identifies two recipients of IMs, and I'm not sure it's clear which are Edmunds'.Msalt 04:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is no point in blowing this up into a full paragraph, just a mention that he was a recipient of some of the e-mails - I would not even say which since that is not clear. Haiduc 04:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline needs attention
The Mark Foley scandal article is too long. One obvious way of cutting it down is to move some information into a timeline article. Mark Foley scandal timeline was created a while back by Grazon but received little attention. I've just re-worked it, largely cutting and pasting material from the main article. Can we have a push to clean up the timeline article and then start trimming the main article? Bondegezou 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. But I would say that the best way to shorten the article is drastic pruning of the various "reaction" and "political impact" sections.  First, because the vast majority of them are predictable spin and don't really give much information.  Secondly, because they are all 'written on the wind", so to speak -- the day after the election all of it will be outdated and possibly even ridiculous.  Daily updates of various polls, who ran what ads based on the scandal, who cancelled what fundraising trip -- the significance of all this stuff will be much more clear later, and we are way too up close to make any sense of it right now.  That's my opinion, anyway.  What do other folks think?  I'm inclined to blow away a third of the article but even with instructions to "be bold", I like to get some sort of consensus first.Msalt 04:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate to respond to myself, but it just ocurred to me that there's a basic problem with A timeline -- basically there are two key timelines in this story.
 * 1) what actually happened
 * 2) when key Congressmen and staffers found out about it.
 * Our section "knowledge before 2006" is basically the latter. Politically, it is actually at least as important as #1, if not much more so.Msalt 05:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pruning the Responses Section
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)
 * 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)

Scandal name
With accusations having been made against Kolbe and rumours circulating that a third Congressman is going to face accusations, should the article be moved to 2006 Congressional page sex scandal (currently a redirect)?
 * Certainly not yet. The Kolbe preliminary investigation and the supposed Weller rumor aren't enough to generalize: we need reputable sources to do so before we do. NatusRoma | Talk 05:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously the allegations about Kolbe and the rumours about The Third Congressman, are just that - and even Foley is subject to an on-going investigation. My point was that the scandal has gone beyond Foley - regardless of who did what, the scandal now involves other Congressmen. It's gone beyond Foley also through the involvement of the Republican leadership. I don't think the current title reflects the nature of the scandal (bearing in mind the scandal is the story, the sum of rumours and allegations, whether they're true or false) or the scope of the article itself (a good half of the article covers people other than Foley).
 * I think this argument has already been raised, and has been dismissed by the example of the Watergate scandal, which ranged far beyond Watergate without alterations to its name. Haiduc 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some other allegations but they are no where near 50% of the article. Maybe 10%.Msalt 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dinner party?!
Where has it come out that Foley confronted Marcieca at their last supper? Haiduc 23:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) Foley "seems to have interpreted certain things as inappropriate ... I don't know what I did to him," the priest said. "I wonder why 40 years later he brought this up?" http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pnppriest20oct20,0,4705138.story?coll=sfla-news-palm

Legal issues (again)
Sorry if this has been discussed already; I'm still not crazy about the Legal issues section as I feel it borders on original research (as a synthesis of published materials to advance a view), but as the consensus of editors seems to be to let it stay, then let it stay. But if it's going to stay, we need better cites for these laws, particularly in the alcohol subsection. The link to the Lowe Family Foundation is, for one thing, not a news site, and also isn't a great source. It cites to sections of something, but does not specify what it is they're citing to (§ 25-130.1? I couldn't even find that in the District of Columbia Official Code, which I can only assume is what they meant to cite to.) So, I did some looking in the District of Columbia Official Code and found some sections that may be applicable: Anyways, I couldn't find the "fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 180 days" mentioned in the article and on the Lowe Foundation page. Can anyone else find it? Schi 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * § 22-3101 and 3102. Sexual Performance Using Minor: Definitions and Prohibited Acts. "A person is guilty of promoting a sexual performance by a minor when, knowing the character and content thereof, he or she produces, directs, or promotes any performance which includes sexual conduct by a person under 16 years of age."  Performance is defined in 22-3101 as: "any play, motion picture, photograph, electronic representation, dance, or any other visual presentation or exhibition"; and sexual conduct is "Actual or simulated sexual intercourse" or "Masturbation", among other things.  I understand this is a bit of a stretch to be considered applicable, but still interesting.
 * § 25-1002. Purchase, possession or consumption of alcohol by persons under 21. I have yet to find anything about giving alcohol to minors (aside from sale or delivery, in § 25-781.)
 * The only real issues here are the underrage status of the people he pursued, and the fact that he had power over them. 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? 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 professors 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) Allen Roth
 * I think you are underestimating the legal issues. We know that the FBI is investigating his actions to see if a crime has been committed, and apparently some states are too.  That certainly implies that it is an open question.  Open issues:
 * 1) he certainly flirted with danger, for example, inviting a 17 year old to his hotel room and "touching his leg". We don't know all the facts -- it's certainly possible he crossed the line despite his vigorous efforts to avoid doing so
 * 2) providing alcohol to a minor, esp. in the course of flirting/seduction, is unmistakenly illegal. Furthermore, if he provided alcohol to a boy who was say 18 and they had sex, that may constitute illegal sexual coercion where age alone wouldn't trigger a crime.  There are specific laws on providing booze and drugs to teens for seduction
 * 3) There are many, varied and ambiguous laws about electronic communications and seduction, some of which are clearly going to be judgment calls. Schi's interpretation of the "sexual performance" law is an excellent example. Msalt 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and I'm aware of the many possible legal violations Foley may have committed. There are quite a number of others, besides the ones you mentioned. However, all I was doing was replying to the writer above, who seemed to think that a 17-year old adolescent/boy/man did not need any protection, as he was a grown man. Some are grown, and some are still in need of/worthy of protection by the law. I was really responding to this point only. One reason is that everything else, including the points you mentioned, is completely speculative, along with much of what I wrote as well. There's enough speculation in these million Wiki articles already, and I don't think it's profitable to spend more time on that. 66.108.4.183 20:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Bold text

On the deletion of article sections based on their not being relevant anymore
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)

Featured Article Nomination
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)

Can someone tell me why this is part of the article
''Clerk of the United States House of Representatives

The Clerk of the House of Representatives is the Chief Administrative Officer of the United States House of Representatives. The Clerk is responsible for the effective administration of all personnel matters, including those relating to the house pages. During the early period of this scandal (2000 to 2005) the Clerk of the House was Jeff Trandahl. He resigned on November 18, 2005, shortly after meeting with Foley about his contacts with pages, and was replaced by Karen Haas, who was until then the floor assistant for Hastert.''

What relevance does this have to do with the topic? These people have no significance to the controversy and appears to be speculation that this Jeff guy resigned because of Foley. Speculation does not belong at Wikipedia. --Jayzel 04:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Trandahl is a significant person to this controversy. E.g. according to CNN :

Trandahl repeatedly raised red flags about Foley years before GOP leaders said they knew about Foley's inappropriate conduct with pages, sources said.

Trandahl's attorney, Cono Namorato, released a statement after his client's testimony, saying Trandahl will not discuss his recollection of events while the investigations are pending.

"Jeff Trandahl has cooperated fully with the investigation being conducted by the FBI and the investigative group of the Committee on Standards [of Official Conduct]," the statement said. "He answered every question asked of him and stands ready to render additional assistance if needed."

Two sources close to Trandahl told CNN that he had been monitoring Foley's interaction with pages after being told of troubling behavior by the congressman in the House cloakroom and elsewhere. Trandahl took his concerns to Kirk Fordham, Foley's former chief of staff, many times, the sources said.
 * Here is the Chicago Tribune describing Trandahl as a "key figure".
 * On the other hand, I think you may have a point that the phrase "shortly after meeting with Foley about his contacts with pages", despite apparently being factually correct, is suggestive of speculation/POV.
 * Crust 20:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, that makes sense then. I now notice that Mr. Trandahl is referred to numerous other times in the article. Now I defininately think this section/paragraph should be ash-canned. It offers no new information, causes confusion to the reader, and is indeed suggestive of speculation as a stand-alone item. Perhaps if the information was merged into one of the other mentions of the man in the article it wouldn't smack as such as much. Regards, --Jayzel 04:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make the changes suggested by this discussion. Any comments? Thesmothete 05:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Intercourse
I'm revising the lead graf of the Mark Foley and Mark Foley scandal articles to remove the assertion that he had intercourse with one or more teens. His lawyer denies it, and the source links either do not mention intercourse or mention only allegations. Moreover, I know of no news source that mentions intercourse when making passing reference to Foley -- only the explicit messages are mentioned, not that he actually had sex with anyone. Fabfablew 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As the editor who first added the info on Foley's alleged sexual contacts w/ former pages, I have to differ. I checked the footnotes in the Mark Foley article, and see your point -- but the source links here point to a Los Angeles Times article and an ABC News article that plainly discuss, using legitimate reporting techniques, substantiated charges that Foley had sexual intercourse w/ two former pages. We can qualify the language to make that clear -- I don't know when the tone shifted from "former pages say they had intercourse w/ Foley" to "Foley had sex w/ former pages." But as for the lack of everyday mention of these charges meaning we should dial this back, I don't see how that follows; two major news organizations reported on it, and one can see the reporting through readily available links. --GGreeneVa 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just went back to an earlier version of the article to fish out a more easily substantiated sentence on Foley and former pages:


 * "In early October 2006, two news organizations quoted anonymous former pages as saying that they had sexual liaisons with Foley after they turned 18 and 21, respectively.[12][13]"


 * I think that states it more verifiably. You? --GGreeneVa 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm about to head out, could you move these sources over to the main Mark Foley page and restore the phrase then? JoshuaZ 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some version of the above sentence would be fine with me. However, we should not simply revert back to saying, "He had sex with two of them."  I deleted that wording again.  If it's critical to mention allegations of sex, let's make clear they are allegations.  The sentence you quoted above does this, but "He had sex with two of them" does not.  Fabfablew 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've changed the lede one more time, adding an edited version of the old sentence I quoted above. I hope everyone can feel comfortable w/ this. --GGreeneVa 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * GGreeneVA, your edit looks good to me. Fabfablew, it is not true that Foley's lawyer denied this.  He denied sexual liaisons with minors. Crust 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)