Jump to content

Talk:Mark Foley scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateMark Foley scandal is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 30, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
November 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Reaction formation (psychology)

[edit]

The case of Mark Foley is presented in the Reaction formation article as a prima facie example of behavior typical of this psychological defense mechanism. It would probably be best to have a reliable source for citation that had commented on this connection, however, the case appears so clear-cut, I personally shouldn't think it needed to be a requirement for this to be included in the present article. __meco 01:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source request

[edit]

In the state of Florida the age of consent on the internet is 21. <- could someone source that? Klosterdev 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

[edit]

Either transwiki the information, or remove the template. But the article is not stable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has had less than ten edits in the past month. Please describe how you see it as "not stable" cause this is a nearly static article at this point. Thanks! (Compare this to the Global Warming article which is truly unstable and has been given the FA nod.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to include the "message excerpts"?

[edit]

It would appear that Rschen's main problem with this article is the arguably non-encyclopedic giant chunk of quotes in the article. Are these necessary and would it be acceptable to simply remove this section since the quotes are available at other locations, this may also clear some of the problems that this article could face with copyvio concerns. Kyaa the Catlord 06:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether they are or not. But a GA cannot have stuff like {{transwiki}} on it. Either transwiki the stuff, or remove the template. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we'd transwiki the quotes. If they're not in the article, I don't see any value they'd add to wikiquote. I'm suggesting we just remove them completely since the text messages are linked to in the EL. Kyaa the Catlord 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused

[edit]

The article says toward the bottom that the "age of consent on the internet" is 21 in Florida. What does that mean? Does it mean that no one under 21 is allowed to have sex in Florida or that they're not allowed to communicate with older people on the Internet?

On another note, the reason I came to this article was because I was curious what Foley is up to now, a year later after the scanal broke. Does anyone know? --YellowTapedR 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of April 2008, he was the "Beau of the Ball" at a Palm Beach charity event.[1] Local boy forgiven, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To please people living under rocks

[edit]

This article is a disgrace. Not only is it heavily opinionated (one section with Foley's response, nine condemning him), but it's longer than Watergate scandal, Lewinsky scandal, and Impeachment of Bill Clinton combined. There's no reason for either. Sceptre (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Kent Hovind. If the vast majority of material on a subject doesn't favor the subject that doesn't make there be a BLP issue. BLP simply means we need to be careful about NPOV issues. As to the length of those other articles, you are of course welcome to add material to them. Lack of length in other articles in now way means that this one should be removed. Just as Princess Diana is much longer than Diana (mythology) doesn't mean we should get rid of material from the Princess article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article about Foley, it's a POV spinout. And your Diana argument... that's so flawed I'm not bothering talking about it. Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a "POV" spinout. Please read what FORK actually says. It is an extended segment of an article that was spun off because it got too long. As to the matter of Diana, the point should be simple and I'm sorry if it wasn't apparent: Wikipedia is decentralized. Articles being of less than ideal length in terms of real-world or general importance is something that should be solved by expanding other articles, not by removal of material. Length of an issue is not a BLP problem if we had enough reliable sources to justify that length. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, apples and oranges. Princess Diana is as important, if not more than the goddess, especially in the UK - the tribute single to her as sold more copies than anything except White Christmas. Her death inquest is still frequent headline news eleven years after she died. But this is a minor political scandal as far as things go - a 1983 scandal along the exact same lines has a 10kb article, and you can't seriously argue that this is more important than Monicagate or Watergate. Sceptre (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I can't argue that this is more important than Watergate, and I'm not trying to. The point is that doesn't matter. The solution is to add material to those articles, not to get rid of this. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need anything more about Watergate? No. That article is perfectly summarised in 50kb. This can be done in 20kb. Sceptre (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre, please cite specific objections to material in this article, rather than sweeping generalizations and vague statements about length and neutrality. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to Watergate is incorrect. It'd be like saying this is longer than World War II. When articles get too long parts are spun off. There are dozens and dozens of articles in category:Watergate and it's subcategories. On the other hand, this article (plus the response and the biography of Foley) are the complete story of the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first say that I am open to any good faith suggestions for amending the article. I don't, on the other hand, agree with your explicit metrics, e.g. that we need to equalize the material somehow (it's unequivocal that the charges were damaging enough for him to quit Congress) or that we need to cut it to a specific size in order to match the weight of articles which, in my view, are in fact too short. Let's start, though, by considering jettisoning Mark Foley scandal timeline and Responses to Mark Foley scandal. The first seems in retrospect to have been mainly helpful in sorting out what-happened-when at a point when new information was coming in right and left, but really doesn't add anything of historical value. The second is an expansion of a section I have always considered utterly boring in Wikipedia articles, the official statements about the event by various entities. My gosh, they all deplore his actions, but whether they want him to quit depends on which side of the political fence they're on. In other words, utterly predictable. Is there consensus here that AFDs for those two articles would be comparatively uncontentious? --Dhartung | Talk 01:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Mark Foley scandal timeline appears to be redundant to this article anyways, and could be redirected without any controversy. Any worthwhile material in Responses to Mark Foley scandal could be merged into the existing section. The various responses there looks like it could be summarized in a paragraph or two. Dance With The Devil (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dance. We can reasonably merge any relevant material from those articles here. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and redirected Mark Foley scandal timeline over here. There might be some tidbits there that could be moved over here and if so it's easy enough to check the page history. I left the Responses to Mark Foley scandal alone since there might be more there worth moving into this article, though I did not look closely. I would have no objection to redirecting that as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your uncivil heading aside, the NPOV tag compels you to articulate your concerns on the talk page. Read it. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image changed

[edit]

I changed the image here to his official Congressional one. Something about the old image in the context of the article felt wrong and exploitive with BLP in mind. It was the fact it was blurry, had an "action" feel to it, and the look of it. This is more neutral and far higher quality in any event. Lawrence § t/e 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, this article Mark Foley scandal is too long. This article is way too long. According to WP:UNDUE, and other policies, it seems to me that much of the material in this article could be redundant, just going over the same incident in a depth which does not reflect the inherent notability of this incident accurately, and which in places is poorly written, reflecting the haste with which this has been treated, and the difficulty of organizing such a vast sea of relatively minor information. Can it really be sensibly argued that this article be longer than the article on Albert Einstein, or as long as the article on William Shakespeare? Something ought to be done about improving this situation, I am not sure what that would be. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the notion of undue weight. If you think the article repetitive or overlong on its own merits, fix it. Yes, it can be sensibly argued that this article can be longer than the article on Albert Einstein, or as long as the article on William Shakespeare. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, if you are right, even if I concede both those points, what I meant as undue is that my understanding is the incident being covered, and the focus of the article, is the activities of this individual, which led to their resignation from the U.S. Congress. But much of the article is filled up with words from reporters, and other individuals, which are all sourced, but which simply repeat the facts, over and over. Repitition doesn't amplify the evidence, which is ample. There is too much of it. --

I will say it another way. That the congressman resigned, and what happened, is a matter of events that are notable, and ought to be encluded in en.wikipedia's coverage. However, that it was reported in several newspapers, several times, and reported widely, is not significant. That is what reporters do, and newspapers do, and every item published is not itself worthy of inclusion, if it merely repeats a previously established line of text. --

I will say it one more way, as I understand it, the encyclopedia is for all readers. Sources are added so that all those readers can understand the information presented. Is the information so complicated that 60 references are needed to understand it, I don't think so. --

As one example of material which seems not to belong --

Age of consent

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).[1]

Thank you, as I say I may be willing to concede these points, my understanding could be wrong since I am no expert, and you can obviously make sound arguments which may not have previously occurred to me. --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Worldwide Ages of Consent". Avert.org. 2006-10-08. Retrieved 2006-10-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Jordan Edmund

[edit]

Do you think if I made a article on Jordan Edmund it would be deleted? Is he notible "enough"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDonna (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "threemore" :
    • {{cite news|url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html | publisher=ABC News | title=Three More Former Pages Accuse Foley of Online Sexual Approaches | date=[[October 5]], [[2006]] | accessdate=2006-10-05}}
    • {{cite news | publisher=abcnews.com |url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html |title=Three More Former Pages Accuse Foley of Online Sexual Approaches |date=[[2006-10-05]] |accessdate=2006-10-08}}
  • "GOPleaders" :
    • {{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093001265.html | title=GOP Leaders Knew Of Foley's Messages | publisher=[[The Washington Post]]| date=[[October 1]], [[2006]] | first= | last= | accessdate = 2006-09-30}}
    • {{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093001265_pf.html| title=GOP Leader Rebuts Hastert on Foley | page=A01| publisher=[[Washington Post]]| date=[[October 1]], [[2006]] | accessdate = 2006-10-04}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLDE?

[edit]

First paragraph references "FLDE." Probably should read "Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveCrane (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does this contribute to LGBT history?

[edit]

Erm...
So, I noticed that this article includes the category: Category:LGBT history in the United States.
I'm not saying he isn't gay or anything, and I'm not even suggesting that nobody cared that he's gay. But, weren't the primary reasons for the degree of the scandal the appearance of being a sexual predator of underaged people, and exploiting his position to prey on his subordinates?
Heck, even if people had mostly ignored those and focused solely on the revelation of him being gay, I still wouldn't see how this contributes to LGBT history as a whole. I know that 'history' certainly doesn't exclusively include positive events, but I don't really see any historical significance whatsoever here. (And, again, that's even if one were to pretend that his being gay was the sole issue focused on)
Any objection to removing it? 209.90.133.69 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

[edit]

I have moved the page from the overlong "Mark Foley congressional page incident" to "Mark Foley scandal." First, of course, the whole affair was not just one incident, but involved a series of events over time. Second, and most importantly, "Mark Foley scandal" is the common name, as seen here:

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mark Foley scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mark Foley scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mark Foley scandal. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Mark Foley scandal. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mark Foley scandal. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mark Foley scandal. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Foley_scandal&oldid=1246043810"