Talk:Mark Foley scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

quotation marks

Who added all of the "unnecessary" "quotation marks" throughout the "article"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmob (talk • contribs) 2006-10-03T16:12:23

I searched the article and the only quotation marks I can find are around quotes. There are quotes around "sexually explicit" IMs and "overly-friendly" emails because someone raised a (probably unfounded) claim that that could be libel if it was stated as a fact, so out of an abundance of caution it was done as a direct quote from reliable sources with a footnote citing them. Feel free to be bold and fix anything you think needs fixing, or point out specifically where you think the problem is.--Bibliophylax 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the quotes are a problem. They aren't libel - if you read the IM's it is very clear that they are sexually explicit. As is they only function to cast doubt upon the sexual nature of the emails in the mind of the reader, and obscuring the issue is not a goal of Wikipedia. I have removed some of the extraneous quote marks. -Interested2 21:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

perhaps a notice warning people who might not want to read the charged nature of these IMs and emails might be necessary. The762x51 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Title

It seems disingenuous of title this article "Mark Foley sex scandal" since it is not just Foley that is implicated but a good number of other (apparently mostly Republican) representatives. And it may not be accurate to title it a "sex" scandal since apparently no sex took place. It may be more to the point to title this 2006 Republican pederasty scandal. Haiduc 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest Mark Foley page sexual scandal. "page" makes the context clear. "sexual" is accurate, even if "sex" is not. And I don't see why the "2006" belongs in the title, since the rest is a unique identifier. Derex 01:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that the date is to differentiate it from other Congressional sex scandals. But it is clear from news reports that Foley is just one aspect of this scandal - the other one is the Republican leadership sitting on this information for a year without taking sufficiently forceful action. As for "sexual" that is still vague. I think we should call a spade a spade. Haiduc 01:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Having the name "Mark Foley" doesn't exempt the leadership. Typically, these things get named for the main character even if the scope is wider, e.g. Abramoff. What we should do is see how the press ends up referring to it and use that. For now, it's getting play as the Foley scandal. I don't really mind "sex", but I can see why others might. Derex 01:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about leaving the "Foley" tag. But since it is clear that the overtures were of a pederastic nature, I would like to introduce that into the title, after a seemly pause for comments. Haiduc 01:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "underage"? Pederasty often refers to pre-pubescent. Plus, I suspect that a large fraction of the general public doesn't know the meaning of that word. Derex 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate to seem like a dog with a bone, but "underage" could mean anything, pre or post pubescent, while "pederasty" is properly used of relations with teenage boys and so is more on-topic (not that it has not been used to mean other things too, but there are no perfect solutions here). Haiduc 02:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really object. But, I also really don't think most people have a clue what it means. At least my in-laws wouldn't, and they're bright but only high-schooled. Would be fine in the first sentence though, where it can be wikilinked. I see from your talk page that you work a lot in the area, there must be a more everyday word for it. No need to settle right now though, this thing's not going away too soon.

And if I may go off topic, Reynolds just threw his entire party under the bus, outing Hastert as knowing. Surprising for their political chief, but I guess he was pissed about taking the dive. The newspapers started going crazy a couple hours ago about what the GOP leadership knew. At any rate, it now without a doubt requires a separate article from Foley. Derex 02:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any every-day word for it - it is a topic that is either avoided or lumped with pedophilia, which is totally off the mark here. As far as the scope of the scandal, you are right that Foley is just road kill compared with what is still to come. Let's face it, if this had just broken now as news to everyone there would have been no real issue - politician into kiddie sex gets busted, end of story. The real issue here is the Republican cover-up, in true Catholic bishop style. I will introduce the term as per your suggestion, but I am still minded that it needs to be in the title simply to not seem to be beating around the bush (no pun intended). Where are you getting your breaking news, by the way? Haiduc 03:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just poking around google news, and looking for news links off political blogs now and then. Basically bored as hell today, and it's raining out. Watching a political trainwreck go down is at least better than TV. Derex 03:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this one will not be swept under the rug. I'm about to knock off for the night, but I still feel uncomfortable with the vague title. I'll try a redirect, let's see if it flies. Haiduc 03:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the AFD (and how did the AFD get separated from this article? Cut and paste move? That's ... incorrect.) The name is generic and I think that "pederasty" is a reach since there are no criminal charges. The word that I brought up in the AFD was "cybersex" and I would support calling this "cybersex scandal". (I still like "Congressional page scandal" but it appears this may go beyond that.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of the crime of "pederasty". Derex 06:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pederasty" as the name for a crime has largely disappeared as US states enacted gender-blind sexual assault laws. Nevertheless it remains a crime in certain jurisdictions. That said, the definition is "sexual intercourse, specifically anal intercourse, with a boy/young man", and we have no evidence that any sexual intercourse took place. As such the name is original research. We should stick to what we know, given that there isn't a media name for this yet. "Mark Foley resignation scandal"? --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think just "2006 Mark Foley scandal" would be better than that. It's not really about his resignation per se, but about trolling teenagers. That and about the House leadership response. Though I've got to say that based on those initial emails, I wouldn't have thought much of it either. They should have asked around with other pages though, and not kept it from the Dem on the page board. Derex 06:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the AFD, I think it was closed with a speedy keep, and the closing admin did a page move on the article. Or do AFD pages automatically get moved with? Derex 06:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears the admin simply overlooked putting the note in this Talk page. I was concerned that the Talk page and article had become separated. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

reading the emails

Hastert's press release very explicitly says that no one besides Alexander read the emails, including Shimkus and the Clerk.[1]

Shimkus now says otherwise, that both he and the Clerk read them.[2]

It's hard to imagine that the Hastert put out a press release under those circumstances which was cavalier about facts that central. Someone clearly lied to someone at some point, but I'm not sure what to do with it. So, for now, I've just struck any mention of whether the emails got read. That's not a good permanent fix though. Derex 03:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet a third version, from Shimkus's spokesman.[3] Derex 13:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The permanent fix is to say what you just said above. It isn't Wikipedia's job to determine in the mists of time who actually read an e-mail. We report the statements. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that. What I'm asking is where to put these contradictory statements narratively. Derex 06:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

quote

"If I were one of these sickos, I'd be nervous with America's Most Wanted on my trail."

Rep. Mark Foley to America's Most Wanted's John Walsh while discussing Foley's new anti-child predator legislation. Derex 05:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that should be included in a background section on his child-protection legislative activities. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"pederasty" in the article title

I strongly object to the use of the word "pederasty" in the title of this article. What about "2006 Mark Foley page scandal"?

Notwithstanding the definition on Wikipedia, when I hear the word "pederasty," particularly in the kind of declarative context, I think of an active (realized) sexual relationship between a man and and an adolescent boy. So far, there's no actual sex in this scandal — just a kind of instant message flirtation, inappropriate as it was. I'm not defending Foley. But is that word "pederasty" really necessary? Aren't we overselling this? Mine might not be a popular opinion, but I think the article title is prejudicial, an obvious violation of NPOV. — Sandover 06:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussion at top on this. I'd suggest taking it up with Haiduc tomorrow. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure what the technical definition of "pederasty" is. Does it require sex per se? As I said above, I think the word is not in sufficiently common usage to use in the title of a scandal, whether it's technically correct or not.

People don't like just "page" because it undersells, clearly sexual inclinations are the substance. People don't like just "sex" because it suggests realized relations. Derex 06:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved it per Dhartung's documentation of the legal term. Derex 06:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There's always 'sexual', but it sounds stupid. Pederasty, as far as I at least still use the term, is more precise. Assuming that the various media allegations are correct, which would be somewhat unwise, would indicate that the actual scandal is somewhat wider than sexual content in instant message conversations. Nimmo 07:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't happen to know anyone who uses the term in casual conversation. ;-) Perhaps Greek scholars ... In particular, I agree that it is prejudicial and POV. The way you're using the term sounds more like a synonym for ephebophilia. But putting it in the title just comes off, to my ears, like "My opponent is a homo sapien widely known as an habitual masticator, and his daughter is a self-admitted practicing thespian." In other words, using big words to stand in for nasty things that the reader can supply from imagination. --Dhartung | Talk 07:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I don't have that much of a problem with roving players.Nimmo 08:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Names in use in the media

As a service, I decided to look into what major media outlets are calling this. Summarized:

• NYT: no name; keywords in heds are "Foley" and "e-mail"
• WaPo: no name; keywords in heds are "Foley" and "e-mail" (as well as "inappropriate", "messages to pages" in ledes and photo caps)
• ABCNews.com (who broke): "Foley scandal" in some heds; other keywords are "Foley", "resignation", "e-mails to teen", "explicit electronic messages", "sexually explicit [Internet] messages to minors", "inappropriate messages to teenage boy",
• Reuters: sort of a name "Foley matter" (regarding Congressional action), keywords "e-mail", "inappropriate contact" "former intern"
• AP: no name, "inappropriate messages to a teenage boy", "Foley e-mails", "sexually suggestive instant messages", quotes Boehner saying "improper communications"
• Orlando Sentinel (local to district): "explicit messages exchanged with former page boy", "questionable e-mails", "sexually explicit Internet instant messages"
• CREW (activist group published e-mails): "Foley page scandal"
• NY Daily News (major tabloid): "perv e-mails sink pol" , "flirted with teen pages", "raunchy online messages", "inappropriate e-mail messages"
• NY Post only using wire stories, preoccupied with local scandals?
• WashTimes (conservative, for balance): "Foley quits in Hill sex scandal", "sexually suggestive messages", "underage boys"

Regardless of dictionary definitions, I believe it would be original research to stray far from the words used by these media outlets, as well as placing an article where people won't find it so easily. So far I have seen no media outlet specifically refer to a potential crime or use language such as "sexual harassment" or "sexual assault", but I have seen "obscenity" mentioned. (Not one major media or wire service story used "pederasty" anywhere.) My sense of this is that the article is probably best titled something like "Mark Foley [obscene] e-mail [to teens/pages] scandal". That sticks best to what is verifiable by reliable sources. After edit conflict & move: perhaps simplest is best. No objection to current name 2006 Mark Foley scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it pederasty or is it not?

First off, I was myself curious whether I was just making this up in my head or not, and I did a couple of searches for Mark Foley + pederasty / pederastic / pederast. I came up with a couple of hundred hits, some of which but by no means all may be spurious. Among them (not that we will use blogs as sources) one that claims The congressman doth protest too much. Seriously, any time you snuck up behind Foley he’d shout “I’M NOT A PEDERAST!”
As for pederasty being necessarily physical, that is simply false, though some dictionaries will still suggest that. Others do not, and sexology rejects that notion, as do many other disciplines which we need not trot out here. As for it being a crime, there is no single "it." Certain forms of pederasty are criminal, as are certain forms of sex. So both "pederasty" and "sex" are liable to that interpretation. It also so happens that observers have asserted that Foley's doings were indeed criminal under current statutes, but it is not our place to speculate.
Finally, is it appropriate? I would refer you to the article by Bullough which asserts that pederasty is "The erotic relationship between an adult male and a youth, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection". Of course we can talk about unreciprocated pederastic desire, analogous to any other kind of desire. If you still think that the term is inappropriate, if the desire of a middle aged man for a boy in his mid-teens is not pederastic, then what is?! Haiduc 13:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Dhartung's concern is that the term "pederasty" is, in some states, a legal term for a crime involving sexual contact. WP:BLP may be a concern there. Derex 13:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Occasional American usage cannot be allowed to impact the clarity of a supra-national project like the Wikipedia. "Homosexuality" is a crime in some countries, but that will not prevent us from describing Foley's doings as homosexual, since they involve the erotic attraction of one male to another. In every respect this is a pederastic scandal, why not call it what it is? Haiduc 13:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Foley is an American. Therefore, using the name of a crime in the US is of particular importance with him, as it may falsely suggest that he has committed a criminal act (within the jurisdiction of those laws). Since the pages seem to have come from all over, it's difficult to know which state laws might apply to those contacts. Jimbo and the Foundation have lately been very emphatic about this potentially libelous material. Beyond that, I have no personal opinion about using it, and I will let others sort it out.

As to the title of the article, simplest seems to me best given the vigorous debate about all other options. Derex 13:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect... using the term "pederasty" as a term implying sexual contact is not 'occasional American usage'. It's the common definition. Virtually anyone who sees the term is going to not recognize it, and type 'dict pederasty' into google. They will come up with a handful of definitions, all of which suggest anal intercourse. I'm sorry that the dictionaries have hijacked the proper meaning of the term, but using the term will probably end up defaming the congressman.

Also, this is an encyclopedia. Our target audience is pretty much anyone who can read. Wikipedia should be, whenever possible, written at a very basic reading level. In proper or improper usage, "pederasty" is an arcane term. Unless the article really forces it--like using the term "carom" in an article about billiards--we should stick to words that are in common circulation.Questionc 15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion online about what words are appropriate to define this scandal. Should Foley be called a pedophile? A lot of people object to that, because it is at odds with the correct legal and medical definition (if not the colloquial usage of the term). While Foley's attraction to these young men is psychologically questionable and certainly an abuse of his power, there's irony in the fact that actual sex between Foley (age 52) and a page (age 16) might be legal within DC, according to Glenn Greenwald, although the online explicit sexual communication between them probably would be illegal, in part thanks to the law of which Foley was co-sponsor.[4]

I digress, but it does bring me back to my point: the word "pederasty" seems to me a sort of an enhancer, to make this scandal more salacious, and to my ear bring it back around to pedophilia (which it isn't). The word "pederast" in itself implies someone who has anal sex with boys, as the aggressor. (The French slur pédé derives from the same root, and is unfortunately thrown at all gay men, creating a bad misunderstanding within the culture.) I'm not saying "pederasty" doesn't apply in the Foley scandal, but it's a very broad brush to paint it with, and really doesn't define anything we know yet since we don't have specifics about the nature of Foley's relationships. Call him a sexual predator, and you would be (at least) accurate according to what we know. Sandover 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, the current title is consistent with our articles on other sex scandals - such as the Lewinsky scandal. Wikipedia's job is not to sensationalize things, and putting "pederasty" in the title is clearly meant to inflame sensationalistic feelings. FCYTravis 22:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I take exception to that. Though I am no longer of the opinion that the term "pederasty" should be in the title, having been persuaded by Derex's argument above, there is no more reason to exclude the term from the body of the article than there would be in avoiding the term "lesbian" of an analogous relationship between two females. And it is not a "broad brush" but the very opposite - it is the only term which perfectly fits the nature of these acts - it is the other terms that are vague and imprecise.

Nor do I find the term "pederasty" to be any more salacious than "sexual", "homosexual", or any other term of that nature. As for "sexual predator", I looked it up in its own article here to discover that, The term sexual predator is used pejoratively to describe a person seen as obtaining or trying to obtain sexual contact with another person in a metaphorically predatory manner. I do not think that we should use pejorative terms; "pederasty," however, is not intrinsically pejorative, though doubtlessly it is looked down on by a number of people - but that falls under the rubric of prejudice and is not our concern.

It is not my desire to "sensationalize" things but to be clear and precise, and call a thing by its name, even if that name is not routinely on everybody's lips. Wikipedia is not dumbed down. While FCYTravis' concern to prevent a sensationalistic spin being put on these events is absolutely valid, let's acknowledge that we equally have to be on the watchout for an opposite threat, that of playing down what took place so as to blur in the mind of the reader what the real issue is here: a middle aged man making sexual overtures to boys in their mid-teens. What is this if not pederastic?! Haiduc 23:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points have been raised besides mine. I will offer up this text from a book on the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases:

Contemporary English lacks a common word for the behaviors [in clergy abuse cases, of men with teen boys]. The best and most comprehensive term is probably pederasty, the erotic love of a youth (Greek, pais) [by an adult male]... The difficulty is that in general usage, pederast has fallen into disfavor as a derogatory epithet applied inaccurately to homosexuals; as late as the 1970s, the Oxford English Dictionary gave pederast and sodomist as synonyms. Moreover, pederasty fails to include sexual activities with young girls. [Thus] the recent preference for the medically precise pedophile, but ... sexual activities with teenage boys have fallen into a linguistic limbo. To describe this activity as homosexuality fails to take account of the age difference between partners, and thus the inability of one partner to provide legal consent. We are therefore left with the obscure word ephebophilia.... Not surprisingly, few writers seeking a popular audience use such a word, which until recently was not even defined in major dictionaries. They therefore fall back on the better-known but inaccurate pedophilia, with all its connotations. Excerpt at Beliefnet

In short, it's a loaded term. We can't use it because:

• it's imprecise (different things to different people)
• it's defamatory (a crime in some jurisdictions, thanks to inconsistent terminology for sex crimes)
• it's npov (a slur)

[Do you mean "it's NOT NPOV"? DWalker59 22:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 16:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)]

• it's archaic (most people don't know it; its primary usage is in Classical Studies)

...and the most important of all:

• it's unverified (no reliable sources that we can cite are using the term to describe Foley).

There are many times when a "correct" term is just not appropriate. Because of very similar definitional problems Wikipedia avoids using the word "terrorist", especially when describing individuals, and similarly most journalists prefer the bland "militants", or sometimes "guerrillas" or "insurgents", to other words like "freedom fighters" or "rebels".

Haiduc, if you want to avoid "playing down what took place", what could be better than saying "a middle aged man making sexual overtures to boys in their mid-teens"? Simple, clear language is not dumbing down, as Strunk and White have maintained for decades. It is a necessity for effective writing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung, I think it is a mistake to persist at a matter such as this when one is in a minority of one. So I will leave off matters as they are at present, but allow me to refute your argument by pointing out that your first three points are applicable to any other term you can think of; your fourth point is not tenable since the term is in common usage in gender studies, sexology, history of many countries and periods besides the Classical, anthropology, and literature, including drama and poetry. It is also in use in association with the Mark Foley case, as any cursory search will reveal. Finally, and most importantly, your fifth argument is refuted by the example I gave above, of sexual involvement between two women being implicitly lesbian, whether described as such or not. We are not bound to wait for another to use the term when it clearly fits.
I agree with your point on labels in general, but we have to be discriminating and not lump descriptive labels with subjective ones. In this article let's simply be on the watchout for vague generalities, and I think we will be fine. If I come across any instances of media use of "pederasty" in relation with this event I'll drag it in here. Cheers, Haiduc 00:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of press

I'm a little concerned about the amount information here. I think it's a good thing that we have this much freedom of press, but I still think that the availability of this much detail of the case for the public's free access threatens the possibility of Mr Foley ever receiving a fair trial. I am not a republican, no I would very much like to see this man tried for this sort of behavior, but I simply feel that no one should make up their mind whether or not he is guilty until proven so. That said, there's a lot of information here that does suggest his guilt, but I see no suggestion to the opposite. The section on the pages' emails, in which there are quotations and references of detail are all very incriminating. All this makes the artcle, accurate or not, unbalanced. This is really also the fault of the news sources, or the congressman himself for not making any statements or exhibiting any behavior to suggest the opposite. In the end, it's a very informative article, which I guess is what people want. Nevertheless, I do have to ask the question: Does this article, and the news coverage of the scandal in general, interfere with due process? And even more important: Is this the type of news service wikipedia wants to be? hayadel 7:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's generally the type of article Wikipedia wants. Could use a bit of polishing, but it's only existed for a couple days.

No, it doesn't interfere with due process. Mr. Foley hasn't even been charged with a crime. Also, we're not printing anything here at all that's not from a press source. I find it hard to imagine that there would even be charges brought if the facts listed here about Foley couldn't be introduced as evidence. There is no prejudicial tone here; it's just the neutral facts. If it does have a POV tone, please correct it.

No, it's not unbalanced. Balance requires presenting all sides of an issue, not suppressing some. If, for example, Mr. Foley issued a statement saying this was all a smear job, and none of it was true, we'd certainly put that right in. If an accuser had a known history of civil lawsuits (think M. Jackson) we'd put that in. So, the known facts might presently be balanced against Mr. Foley, but the article isn't.

I'm glad you found it informative. Feel free to edit it, or any other article on Wikipedia to add more information. Derex 08:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

hayadel, I'm opposed to censorship, and Wikipedia has a policy against it. As long as the article and information meet other policies such as neutral point of view, there's little justification for not including it. As for due process, Derex makes the point that he is not currently charged with anything, so there is no process that he's "due", certainly not on our part. If he ever is, obviously a change of jurisdiction would be impossible, so he would have the option of a bench trial (but I would more likely expect a plea agreement). Ultimately I don't think Wikipedia's role is that significant in relation to the saturation coverage elsewhere.

"Derex makes the point that he is not currently charged with anything, so there is no process that he's "due", certainly not on our part. (Dhartung, I think)" Oh come on, he certainly may be charged with a crime, so due process absolutely comes into play. Just because he hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean Wikipedia doesn't have a due process consideration. On the other hand, I agree that all this seems to be factual and therefore it's as balanced as the facts are at the moment. DWalker59 22:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll also note that you're using the standard of whether information is incriminating. (To that I say, facts are funny things.) A more appropriate standard is whether the information is prejudicial. I don't think that a properly edited article would be prejudicial. But if the requirement for due process is that everyone else is muzzled, I don't think that's a fair bargain. Other countries (Canada, parts of Europe) feel differently. As to your last question, there are plenty of editors who don't feel that Wikipedia "does news" well at all, and that's one reason why this was nominated for deletion. See m:Recentism. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Offhand remark on the "does news". I tend to agree that if editors have strong conflicting personal pov's we tend to get poor, though neutral, initial articles for breaking news. That doesn't really strike me as the case here. In the long run, we get better articles for it. That's because all the facts and references are recorded in real time by a great many interested people. Given that comprehensive initial research, it's not hard for a couple people to massage an article into neutrality. It is hard for a couple of people to do comprehensive research on a stale event. Derex 19:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, that's not my position, I probably characterized it unfairly. Obviously I argued to retain the article in the AFD and I'm here editing it (or offering suggestions, mostly). I'm also less concerned about (getting the link right this time) recentism. In fact, I think that print encyclopedias (necessarily, perhaps) practiced anti-recentism, and it's really neat that we have a resource where we can be encyclopedic about recent events. I've seen it not at all work well, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, I don't think that neutrality can be boiled down to point of view or tone, especially in writing. people often complain about the tone in what I write, but when I read it aloud they say that that's not how it sounded in their heads. I assume a lot of people are like me, or at least agree, that it is very difficult, outside of well written poetry, to convey tone effectively. This article does not suffer from prejudicial tone. Details are what determine balance. Of course, it seems that, Mark Foley has effectively admitted the accuracy of all reports by going the safe way and resigning and entering rehab. It is the fault of the sources available for not printing this information. Also, I don't think that the news sources are good sources. I personally see them as less dependable than wikipedia. This, due to the fact that they have few authors per article, are not edited in real time, and are subject to the approval of an editor, who, responsible or not in terms of ethics, is responsible financially for the paper - it must sell, and nothing sells better than someone looking bad. I even tend to disagree that it is an example of this recentism that Dhartung mentioned, because it relates effectively to this time in history where anything can happen to the two party system. All in all it's a good article. It is very informative, in that it is a one-stop for all the available information on the web. I guess my complaint is not directed toward wikipedia but towards the news industry, and I consider my question to wikipedians answered and my beef resolved. hayadel 2:57, 2 October 2006 UTC.

external links

I don't see any need for an independent "external links" sections, except for the IM transcript. The references section should be sufficient, and there is considerable duplication between the two. If an external link isn't relevant enough to be a reference, why is it here? If it is relevant, but contains nothing beyond the existing refernces, why is it here? Derex 23:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me to delete redundancies. Haiduc 23:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource of the text

How is reproducing the instant messages a copyright violation? Was ABC committing a copy-vio when they reproduced the converstion? If, not why is wikipedia supplying the text any different? Arbusto 23:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You should take it up over there. I used to be heavily involved there, and they are very strict. Too strict in my opinion, we couldn't even post UN resolutions for a while. Wikipedia can provide excerpts under fair use law, but the full text is questionable. We can always just link to the ABC transcripts, so it's not really a content loss. Derex 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see our resident Conservative Undergrounder instantly leapt into action to keep this from tainting Wikisource. Derex 08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Foley article

I'd like to see a better co-ordination between the main Foley article and this. It seems most of the editors here aren't involved there, and vice versa. The "leadership" section over there is basically redundant. And the "content" section is more comprehensive there. I'd almost like to switch the two. More of an observation that a request or a specific suggestion. Derex 08:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it really being maintained more actively? Feel free to merge over the important parts, as we already have this designated as the main article. --Dhartung | Talk 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's mostly less active, while more detailed in the explict part. But, the editors there seem reluctant to trim that down in favor of this. At any rate, it's not an interaction as smooth as it should be. Derex 11:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Which laws?

Excuse my ignorance, but the law in Washington DC is that the age of consent is 16. What law has Foley supposedly broken? I can understand ethical violations, since his former position was superior to these boys, but I'm not certain what law he's accused of breaking. Kyaa the Catlord 08:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not charged with anything, though there appears to be a criminal investigation. Yes, he could legally make whoopee with the lad in DC. However, under federal law he cannot solicit or entice sexual contact with a minor (under 18) using interstate electronic communications. He sponsored that law; it passed last year. Ironic, isn't it? The Force runs strong in the commerce clause. Derex 08:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But since the act wouldn't be illegal in DC, how can this law be applied? Kyaa the Catlord 08:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The very act of solicitation or enticement using electronic devices is illegal under that law. The consummation of the act need not be. You also can't cross inter-state lines to have sex with a minor (under 18) even if the act is legal once there. Take note, all you college freshmen with girls back home. No IM sex. And hands-off when she visits. Derex 09:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that there's a huge difference between what will send you to prison and what will force you to resign from Congress (although many Congressmen have economically combined the two). Obviously you don't need to be charged with a crime to become an embarrassment to your party and your district. --Dhartung | Talk 11:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyaa, the NYT has an article that looks at the question of "what crime" as well as "what jurisdiction". I don't expect an answer quickly. --Dhartung | Talk 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That Florida law is amazingly broad in scope. Scarily broad. *goes to take his naughty fanfiction off the internet* Kyaa the Catlord 14:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Religious response

The "religious response" section is speculative - and veers way off into bias-land in the final sentence. Let's stick to the facts - they're condemning enough as it is. FCYTravis 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved article

I moved the article from "2006 Mark Foley scandal" to "Mark Foley scandal". Why? Because "2006" in the title implies a previous Mark Foley scandal. There is no need to disambiguate with "2006". See articles like Zidane headbutt, which excludes "2006" in the title (as it would be unnecessary). In fact, the first sentence of the article only refers to the incident as "Mark Foley scandal", and not the "2006 Mark Foley scandal". Removing "2006" also eliminates a bias (again, one that implies a repeat occurrence.) Bssc81 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone moved the article to "Mick Foley scandal," presumably as vandalism. In my rush to try to move it back, I moved it to Mike Foley scandal. Sorry! Could an admin pleease move it back to Mark Foley scandal??--Bibliophylax 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably unnecessary, unless it becomes the 2006 Congressional page scandal again later because (shudder) it gets worse. But the date held over from disambiguating with the 1983 scandal. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ephebophilia (not pedophilia)

Ephebophilia is the most accurate term to describe the behavior Foley engaged in. It's not a loaded word since it does not carry meaning or implications beyond its strict definition. --Loremaster 18:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Either is POV at this point. To prove this you need admitted sexual relations or to prove a motive. Neither has been done. It's potentially libelous. I'll keep deleting it when I see it. Remember, "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Negative material that is unsourced...must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The 3 revert rule does not apply for such deletions." --138.162.0.38 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read taken the time to read Ephebophilia article, you would know that ephebophilia, as most strictly defined, refers only to an attraction, not to actual love relations or sexual activity. --Loremaster 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Find a reliable source which uses it to describe Foley, or it stays out. FCYTravis 19:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that we need a source to use a word that objectively describes someone's reported behavior. --Loremaster 19:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I remind you that our policy on living people requires that all contentious material be scrupulously sourced - particularly that which is negative and tends to create disrepute. Wikipedia is not a place for sensationalism. When mainstream media sources use that word to describe what he did, then we can start using it and citing their use of it. FCYTravis 19:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This about accuracy not sensationalism. There are plently of mainstream media sources that have used the word "pedophile" or "pedophilia" to describe Foley or his behavoir. However, until we discover that Foley made sexual advances to pre-pubescent or pubescent children, it is "unfair" and innacurate to describe him as a pedophile. So, by using the word "ephebophiliac", Wikipedia would be setting the record straight. --Loremaster 19:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as no one trumpets this as the "Mark Foley ephebophilia scandal", or insists on putting the word in the leading sentence. It is quite specific and fits the known and demonstrable evidence, and does not assume he's actually had sex with these young men. (There's actually a more specific and better-known word, chickenhawk, which is what sexual predators with Foley's tastes are known as in gay slang. From all available evidence, Foley's a textbook chickenhawk — but even so, the word is probably too disparaging for use on his Wikipedia page.) Sandover 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing renaming the article. However, I think the word should be used in the lead so I've put it back. --Loremaster 20:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind it the way it is. "Ephebophiliac." I got a laugh out of it, actually. Sandover 20:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We haven't properly classified Foley's behavior by bodily humour. This is a major omission. If we're using ancient Greek terms we should do so throughout. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't find anything about this disgusting scandal funny. --Loremaster 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but you know, nobody's dead. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, What heights of Wikipedia pedantic anality in the service of avoiding the obvious description: pedophile and hypocrite. Has Wikipedia degenerated into the depths of obfuscatory PC-speech meticulously scrubbed of all meaning by paid political flaks?

I would have no problem with Foley being described as an hypocrite. However, until we know more, all the evidence suggest that he is ephebophile rather than a pedophile. This isn't about political correctness. It's about encyclopedic accuracy. --Loremaster 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

coverup

Attempted coverup.

"The correspondent, who had dozens of instant messages that Foley sent to teenage House pages, had asked to interview the Florida Republican. Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.

"Underage"

These pages are above the age of consent in Washington DC, therefore they are not underage despite being labelled as such by persons who are quoted in the article. Let's continue to strive for accuracy despite other people making false statements to the media. [5] and [6] Kyaa the Catlord 23:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The sad part is Foley was the chair of the exploited children caucus. Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop.

This is also covered in the section above. Some news reports are using "underage", others aren't. It may depend on what jurisdiction you're talking about (eg. when the IM/email bits are being discussed, "underage" may be appropriate). --Interiot 23:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

See below, for the Federal law to cover this issue the act needs to be criminal. So far there is no evidence that any crime has been committed since the majority of states in the US have an age of consent of 16, including Florida and Washington DC. This is still much ado about nothing. Kyaa the Catlord 04:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Federal Law {Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state.United States v. Dhingra Sysrpl 00:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely aware of this well-intended but way overreaching law. So far none of the messages have been shown to be illegal in any state, most sodomy laws have been repealed and in the vast majority of states the age of consent is 16. Foley's lack of self-control may be an ethical violation, but once he resigned the Congress doesn't have jurisdiction over him any longer. Until there is proof that one of the pages lived in a state where the age of consent is not 18, we must assume that no law has been broken, these boys are not 'underage' even by the poorly worded 2422. Kyaa the Catlord 04:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You personal opinions of the overreaching-ness of the above law are irrelevent. I might also note that you and others lay claim to the age of consent without providing any of the following information. One Credible sources pinpointing where the Foley was and the boys involved were located when the converstation over the Internet took place. Two Credible sources showing the age of the boys at the time the conversation took place (the scandal goes back a few years). Three Since the FBI is now involved, it's fair to assume they are looking at possible federal charges. Federal laws are written specifically to protect children under the age of eighteen. Sysrpl 05:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Assume all you want. Until you can back your assumptions with RS, BLP states that all unsourced, potentially libelous negative material must be removed IMMEDIATELY. Kyaa the Catlord 06:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I make no assumptions other than if the FBI is investigating, that means they are investigating possbile violation of federal laws. That's not really much of assumption either, it's more of a fact. By the way, this is an article about a scandal, and not a biography of Mark Foley. As such, the rules of negative content on living persons do not apply. Perhaps you want all the facts deemed offensive removed? Sysrpl 07:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:Libel still applies. Simply because it is not the article directly about Mark Foley does not negate the fact that it is a biographical article about an incident in his life. *rolls eyes* I simply demand that all negative material follow the rules of WP and be sourced properly. Is that too much to ask? Kyaa the Catlord 08:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, WP:BLP absolutely does apply here. Without question. Jimbo does not screw around on that. Derex 08:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The alleged incident did not occur in Washington, DC, but rather once the pages were home. Therefore, you would need to look at the rules for all the states involved.

No, I don't need to look at all the rules. Per BLP, the burden of proof on this is on those who wish to add the negative content. Kyaa the Catlord 04:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Our job is merely reporting what reputable sources say. WAS 4.250 05:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Source it and it stays, if it is unsourced or poorly sourced, it is removed immediately per BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 06:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "minor" should be used, that's indisputable and probably the relevant factor legally anyway. For the record, Kyaa, age of consent in LA is 17, 18 in Fl, and 18 in CA. His chatting involved lads below those ages in all of those places, not that it matters for the purposes of this article. Derex 05:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add the following. The age of consent in Florida is 18 years of age. It is changed to 16 for adults who are either under 24 years of age or married to the minor. Sysrpl 05:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The law in Florida specifies sexual contact as oral, anal or vaginal. It does not seem to make any provision for "dirty talk". Kyaa the Catlord 06:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in the section below, this scandal is not centered on the act of sex. Using the Internet to communicate explicit sexual conversations with minors is illegal unto itself, specifially some of the federal laws Foley himself helped to create. [7]. Also, Florida law law prohibits anyone from "encouraging, offering or soliciting sexual conduct" over the Internet with anyone under 18. [8] Sysrpl 08:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! Now tie those in with sourced evidence showing that the IMs originated in Florida's jurisdiction. Kyaa the Catlord 08:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is. We already have several sourced statements that he might be prosecuted under both state and federal law. There's no need to say "underage", they're "minors". If they weren't, this would all be completely legal anywhere in the US. Derex 08:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a point at this point. :P I'm looking forward to seeing the FBI's results. There's an awful lot of speculation in the media, but we don't seem to have much fact at this point. Kyaa the Catlord 08:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was merely retorting the argument that this scandal is solely about solicitation for sex, which it is not. No one can say for sure what charges Foley is being investigated under. Also, implying or saying that it was okay because the boy was 16 is just wrong (as evidenced by the possible scenarios above). We don't know everything, but we are free to reference factual information such as the statements of those involved, and source referencing the law. Sysrpl 08:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What strikes me is that the IM evidence would be incredibly easy to fake. I hope ABC cross-verified that stuff with accounts from multiple pages. Or Mark Foley is going to own ABC. That said, he did resign in a heartbeat after they came out, so I imagine they're legit. Whether they are criminal or not is an entirely different question. But it looks like Foley might get hoisted on his own petard here. Derex 08:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the issue the sentence in the first paragaph? I think it would be safer to say simply that he's being investigated by those agencies to see if he broke any laws. Derex 08:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the original line I questioned was different (due to it being nearly 24hours ago). I agree that the first line should center on the investigation of Foley, not the alleged activities of Foley. Kyaa the Catlord 08:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The alleged activities are the center of the scandal, not the FBI or FDLE investigation. Sysrpl 08:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The investigation of whether or not the alleged activities are prosecutable is the essence of the scandal. Not that Foley may have gay desires for young men. Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Foley may be in violation of the federal laws he helped craft. Specifically the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 sections 111 (7)(H) which defines an offense against a minor "criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct" and section Section 111 (14) that defines a minor as "The term minor means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years" [9] Sysrpl 08:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Scandal != Solicitation for Sex

Okay, I am tired of editing out the "possibly solicited minor children for sex" charges. There are a number of things wrong with this. One, we have no idea if this is what is actually being investigated, and such specific claims are wild speculation. Two, explicit sexual Internet communications with a minor might be illegal unto itself. Solicition for sex need not be a requirement for having broken a law. Three, keep in mind federal and/or state laws may come into play here, particularly ones involving this type of communication over there Internet where IM servers may be localed in different states (see my comments in underage and United States v. Dhingra).

Please refrain from asserting what charges (in their entirety) are being investigated unless you have a reference to back it up. Please note that it may be possible Foley broke several laws, and until we have more information, pegging the scandal as a one charge incident is both irresponsible and deceptive. Sysrpl 04:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

For the record, I endorse NatusRomus who is merging the timeline into the body. Timelines are an excuse for poor writing. I was dismayed to see a previously nice text from yesterday chopped up that way this today. But, if you _must_ have a timeline, for god's sake use past tense. Derex 05:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the complexity and the contradictory accounts of this case merit a timeline, but I don't think it should replace a narrative approach. There's a real question of who knew what when. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind having one at the bottom that's very concise. But someone took most of the main narrative text and broke it up into a timeline. Derex 09:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wash Times call

Someone has twice removed mention of the Washington Times call for resignation. Once of those was without edit summary notice. The Washington Times is unquestionably one of the most influential conservative-leaning papers in the country. Their call for resignation of the Speaker is huge news. How often do most major papers cover an editorial of a rival? It's unheard of. If that's not "political fallout", then I don't know what is. Whether or not he resigns, it's a really big political deal so soon before an election. Derex 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that this article seems to be consistently trimmed back to simply talking about e-mails when what the media are discussing as the most important aspect is the Republican coverup of congressional pederasty???? Haiduc 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep the facts straight

A few mistakes or misrepresentations have been creeping into the article and we want to keep the facts straight. These have been repeatedly put back into the article:

• A page said that he was "warned" about Foley in 2001. The page later retracted this and said he was NOT warned and used that word by mistake. He was just told in passing that Foley is "flaky but doesn't need to be avoided." (see [10])
• The page with the emails sent them to Congressional staffers. This is not true. All the facts I've seen are that he sent them to various media outlets. In the course of their investigations, the media contacted Rep. Alexander and he forwarded the emails to other offiicals. It is not factually accurate to say "the boy forwarded them to Alexander" or "the boy forwarded them to various congressional officials." (see This is the ref on that.)

au contraire, the pdf of the email containing the sick sick sick ref shows the addressee was in whitehouse.gov

no, it was "house.gov", not "whitehouse.gov" the pdf is under external links. 150.203.2.85 13:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See Derex's comment below. It seems he sent it to a low-level congressional staffer, possibly within Alexander's office. He asked that Alexander be told, but apparently that didn't happen and the guy instead leaked it to the press who told Alexander himself. Some of this is speculation, but we do know that the boy sent the message to some House official but Alexander himself first learned about it from a reporter.--Bibliophylax 14:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Overly-friendly emails" versus "sexually explicit IMs" -- when talking about who knew what when, it is important to make a distinction between the emails that started the scandals and the IMs that surfaced only recently. It can be confusing to people who haven't been following the scandal closely if we say something like "The FBI knew about the contacts in July 2006" when they didn't know about the IMs.
• Remember, all these people are alive and we have to be careful not to make factual errors or libelous comments. This isn't a place for accusations or partisan massaging. Just the facts! If others are commonly removing errors that keep creeping in, please feel free to post them here as well.--Bibliophylax 12:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I said that reporters found out first and asked Alexander for comment, but now there are a few sources that say Alexander was contacted directly. Alexander has been quoted as saying he got them "from a reporter." Is this conflict addressed in the media? What's right?? --Bibliophylax 13:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I can figure. The page emailed a buddy (probably a page) in Alexander's office. He did ask that his buddy tell Alexander. It is not clear that he did so. Alexander says he heard from a reporter. Reporters did know back then, so that's not inconsistent. That's the citeable facts.

Now, personal opinion, just for fun. My best guess is his buddy didn't tell Alexander, who seems to have played it reasonably straight. His buddy probably did tell a couple of _his_ buddies, and that's how it got circulated to the press. Derex 13:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't the kid circulating them to reporters. The St. Pete Times had to track him down. Anyway, ABC who apparently did speak with him said they were sent to "congressional staffers". --Dhartung | Talk 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming developments

Drudge has posted the following as headlines without supporting articles. If substantiated, these will be very relevant in the article:

• ABC News is hearing from more pages who have gotten "all sorts of messages from other members."
• Ross knew about the emails in early August, but didn't think they were worth his time until the end of September.
• The FBI has apparently responded to CREW's allegation and said they DID look into the email, but found "insufficient grounds" for an investigation

I don't think we can include these before they are expanded upon in a reputable source, but please keep an eye out. They're sure to hit MSM soon.--Bibliophylax 13:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The first has been broadcast by ABC
  • The NYTimes has Ross
  • I imagine the CREW press release has the third, but I'm going to sleep now. Derex 13:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • FBI did not investigate in July.[11] Derex 00:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note on Events and Failure to Act

There is currently some redundancy between these, as a result of some miscommunication. The material in Events is generally better sourced and more comprehensive. The main difference otherwise is the organization If you re-organize this material between the two _please_ check to see that you aren't dropping material or references.

It has been suggested to separate out Foley's actions in "Events". I don't object to that. It has also been suggested to gather the "Official" knowledge (pages, FBI, Congress), and the "Media" knowledge separately. I in principle have no problem with that. But I think it might be hard to keep the timing clear, as these events are interleaved. Good night, all. Derex 13:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have thought it would be best to keep the "alleged failure to act" controversy separate from the Foley's actions. But Derex has a good point that this separation might make the timeline a little confusing, since there would be too separate sections. At the same time, I think dividing the long narrative into shorter sections will make it more accessible and easier to read. I also think separating out the failure to act will give more appropriate weight to that part of the controversy. Derex is right that we need to eliminate redundancy and consolidate it. Does anyone else have input on how to go about this. Please weigh in:

• Complete the separation of the "Foley's actions" from "failures to act" so there are two shorter, well-sourced sections. This would probably be better organized but might make the timeline more difficult to decipher
• Merge the "alleged failures to act" completely into the Foley's actions in the "Events" section. This would create one lengthy (and perhaps unwieldy) section without any topical divisions, but should make a more chronological telling of all of the events.

Thoughts?--Bibliophylax 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a proposal. Merge Events & Knowledge as follows:

• Separate out Foley's actions from Events. Align it somehow with the "contents" section.
• Still have a modified section on knowledge. This includes longstanding page rumors, media knowledge, FBI report, & who definitively knew what in Congress. But, it's not in the context of a failure, more how the story broke. That's because there's not much explicit criticism of the media yet (that I've heard), though it's certainly implied.
• A section on Congressional response to the revelations. This includes two parts.
  • The condemnations (Dem & Rep), calls for investigation, etc.
  • The Rep. response to the news breaking itself. Changing stories by Boehner, initial denial by Hastert + changing story[12], Reynolds knifing Hastert, Reynolds lending out Fordam & his attempt to suppress, all the quotes from them saying they did it fine (Shimkus, Boehner, Reynolds, Hastert). That's all getting big play. To the extent the leadership is in trouble it's the old saw "cover-up, not crime".

Thoughts? Derex 22:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Context of "hurricane" message

We "know", due to recentivism, that the hurricane in question was Katrina, but this quote could use some context to help explain it to future readers. Kyaa the Catlord 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Failure to act by FBI, media, house clerk

The controversy around failure to act has included the FBI, media, and house clerk. The St. Petersburg Times editors are repeatedly defending their failure to act. The FBI is defending its failure to act. CREW is calling for an investigation into the FBI's failure to investigate. WaPo is covering it. This aspect also seems to be getting more attention now as the facts are becoming clearer. I don't see any reason to exclude this from the scandal, especially given the fact that a number of sources (and a growing number) are documenting and focusing on these facts. The references to these have been removed and changed to just "Republican leaders" knowing about it, which gives a very slanted point of view and hides much of the scandal.--Bibliophylax 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The scandal revolves now around the appearence of coverup by the Republican leadership. The insinuation of the "media" and other bit players ahead of the entry has the perhaps unintentional effect of deceiving innocent readers into thinking that others are being equally blamed. Haiduc 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right that most of the accusations are being leveled toward Republican leadership (for obvious political reasons). But the other players are still receiving significant coverage and indeed are discussed in the body of the article and deserve mention in the top summary. We're not trying to push a POV here, we want to include all the facts. For references on these people being included in the controversy, see:

• FBI: [13][14][15]
• House Clerk: [16][17] (he's also mentioned in almost every account)
• Media: [18][19][20][21][22][23]

I think these are rightly included and it isn't appropriate to say only "Republican leaders" knew about it. Please remember we're trying to create a NPOV, fact-based encyclopedic account.--Bibliophylax 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc: The scandal is that Foley was having naughty chats with arguably minor boys on the internets, everything since then is just compounding upon the original scandal and is further political "fun". Kyaa the Catlord 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, clearly Foley' activities are a scandal. I'd say that, for now, the leadership's activities are more of a controversy. It does look more & more though like a controversy that is likely to cost Hastert his job. There is speculation in the media that it will also cost the Republican's the House, because so many key races are extremely tight, and a percent or two of angry voters staying home could flip it.

As to the media, I think there is some _implicit_ criticism, between the lines if you will. But, we can't play it that way until someone comes flat out and says the "media failed us in this." By the way, add FOX News to the list of papers that knew.

As far as political fun, it is true that the liberal blogs are just awash with this. However, liberal blogs have extremely little influence, except on their own readers who clearly have no influence on the Republicans anyway. The Democratic leadership has provided a couple of critical statements, as they obviously must, but for the most part they're laying low and letting the Republicans eat their own. Several influential conservatives have now come out for Hastert's resignation. And I think that's what's keeping that political element very much alive in the media.

It isn't helping that every single Republican involved has come out saying they handled it just fine, given only the chit-chat emails. That's incredibly stupid politically, and the media are all over it, pushing the 'could have asked around' line. It isn't helping that Boehner has now flipped his position on his activities _4_ times. It also isn't helping that Reynolds lent his own chief of staff to Foley _after_ he learned of the explicit IM's. It also isn't helping that his chief then tried to cut a deal with ABC to suppress them. Given that this may well be a crime, and Hastert is now screaming for an FBI investigation, trying to cover them up may not have been overly wise.

So, part of the evolving "scandal", as played by the media, is the utter ineptitude, cavalierness, and dissembling (Wash Time's word). I imagine they would have come out relatively unscathed if they had just issued a big mea culpa right up front, saying in hindsight we should have seen the red flags and investigated more aggressively.

At any rate, I do think we should avoid deciding what elements we call a scandal or imply are a scandal. I also think we should only report _explicit_ criticisms, including of the media and the FBI. The key is to choose neutral phrasings for section headings, and stick absolutely to the citeable facts. We can handle the between-the-lines criticisms merely by reporting the facts the media present in support those. Derex 21:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing IMs and Emails

An anonymous user with IP 67.72.98.84 has twice removed the characterizations of the IMs as "sexually explicit" and the emails as either "suggestive" or "overly-friendly" on the grounds that these are libel. The IMs *are* sexually explicit and they *are* alleged to have been sent by Foley. The IMs are quoted in the article and available online--and I think it is clearly not a mischaracterization to call them sexually explicit. Likewise, I don't think it is untrue to say they are alleged to have been sent by Foley. And I don't think calling the emails either "suggestive" or "overly-friendly" is negative or untrue. Libel does not include statements that are true. I firmly believe these characterizations are true, and thus not libel. I also think they are critical to an understanding of the scandal. It's not the fact that he sent emails and IMs that is the scandal. It is the fact that the IMs are sexually explicit. I'd appreciate other input on this. I've already reverted the removal once, and don't want to do it myself again without further input. See also WP:LIVING:"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."--Bibliophylax 18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that since it labels the conversations and not the person, it is kosher. If we, for arguments sake, labelled Mr. Foley, now that could be libelous. Kyaa the Catlord 18:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you. The anon user hasn't responded and I commented on his/her talk page asking the issue to be discussed. The edit summary suggests the concern was over the fact that the descriptions were unsourced, so I re-added them with sources. I think the description "overly-friendly" can't be described as libel, since it is how Foley himself characterized the emails. The concerns are well-taken, however. We should all remain careful to be sure we aren't making unsourced negative statements.--Bibliophylax 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good call on sourcing the labels. I don't see any ground for him to argue from now. Kyaa the Catlord 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing is always a good call, but it can be done with a link rather than an in-text attribution. Those IM's are sexually explicit by anyone's standards regardless: masterbation techniques, cute naked butts bouncing, measuring penis length. Calling them explicit is not a libel concern, particularly when every paper on the planet has called them that. What we _must_ be very careful about is stating, without attribution, that Foley actually sent the IM's. We don't know that's true; 2 anonymous pages presented IM transcripts which they easily could have typed up themselves. The first mention must be very clear about that in-text. That is, "ABC reports that 2 unnamed pages gave them alleged transcripts." After that, I think it's ok to refer to them as Foley's IM's, because the disclaimer is right up front. Derex 22:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

opening of scandal

I believe Democrats have attacked Republicans for not dealing with the Foley issue earlier. Are there any sources that say that Democrats have known about the issue as well? This "October surprise" comes down as being carefully planned, so I wonder if there are any news articles about this? Intangible 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There have definintely been some Republican commentators commenting about the fishiness of an "October surprise" and speculating that the Democrats or "liberal media" intentionally sat on the issue until now for political gain. But they are just that--speculations (and politically motivated ones at that). See, for example, [24][25][26][27]. But Wikipedia is not a place for speculation or accusations. There is no evidence at this point the Dems knew anything and not even any substantiated accusations or speculations. As such, this shouldn't be included in the article (unless of course facts come out that the Dems did know).--Bibliophylax 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with B. However, if those speculations become notable, for example if Hastert comes out and makes speculates it explicitly regarding the Demns, then it should go in as notable. A personal observation: some of these IM's go back 5 years. If this were all a Democratic election plot, they would have sprung them in the 2004 election. Derex 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be mighty tough to paint this as a Democratic "October Surprise" considering the ABC sources were Republicans.[28] Derex 00:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reynold's Conduct

I'm hastily adding this here for someone to look into, as I am at work right now. I don't know if this is reported at the moment or not in wikipedia, or even if it is legit source: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/1732575.php SargeAbernathy 20:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's definitely a plot twist! At this point I don't think it's reliable enough to include in the article... but if it is true, it is sure to hit the main media sources very soon... at which point it might need its own article! As of now, I can only find mention of it on blogs and politicized sources... but let's keep an eye out!--Bibliophylax 21:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Howard Kurtz revealed this yesterday in his Washington Post column.[29] He didn't explicitly name Fordham, but he described him uniquely. Kurtz confirmed the name to the NYDaily news.[30] Reynolds has confirmed, but he says Fordham did this "on his own time". Video of Reynold's statement off this page. Personal prediction: the press will reveal that Fordham was working during business hours, and did not apply for leave. Reynolds eventually goes down in flames for lending out Fordham _after_ he knew about the explicit IM's. Derex 22:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for further input

#Note on Events and Failure to Act

A fairly major structural change was proposed in that section. Could we get some feedback? Derex 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I plan on re-introducing the individual members section - it was much more informative than what we have now. Haiduc 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Derex 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be a sentence in the lede stating that the Republican leadership has come under criticism about this, as a large part of the text involves that. I've got to go now though, no time to handle it. Derex 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized the article, broadly in line with the discussion here. I have not removed any factual material at all, except for a speculative paragraph on the DC age of consent laws. That was removed because he has not been charged under them, and the article does not suggest that he will be. Many redundancies were removed. I have not touched anything in the "Responses" section or below. That could probably use some restructuring and redundancy removing too. But this is a major enough change that we should let it settle for a while. Derex 09:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did go on and edit some more below that. But the first massive edit didn't touch those sections. So, you can separate out the two. Derex 10:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Category: LGBT?!

For Mark Foley himself, that's a no-brainer; he came out today, and that's that. But placing the scandal article in the LGBT category strikes me as offensive -- I mean, the behavior at issue (Foley's engagment in inappropriate relationships with minors) has nothing to do w/ homosexuality per se. Even hinting as much reinforces the notion that homosexuality and incidents like this go hand in hand -- a key right-wing talking point today, and a POV problem we ought to avoid. --GGreeneVa 01:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He's a gay man assering his homosexuality and thus this matter belongs in that category. He is further claiming to have had a homosexual relationship with a priest during his teenage years. We are not keeping the LGBT cat only for pleasant topics. Haiduc 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You just made my point for me -- he is a gay man. This isn't a gay scandal, any more than the Mel Reynolds affair was a straight scandal. --GGreeneVa 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the actions in questions involve same-sex relations, and especially since he has chosen to interject his sexuality by coming out as a gay man, the category fits. Otherwise I would agree with you. Haiduc 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But the same treatment wasn't given to, say, the Catholic priests' sex abuse scandal article. The Lewinsky scandal article, if you want to examine the flip side, doesn't fall into a heterosexuality category (not that one exists!) -- even though you could argue Clinton interjected his straightness into it by denying, then admitting, to having sexual relations with "that woman."

Lift the scales from my eyes, somebody -- I still don't get it. How does 'asserting his sexuality' somehow explain his attempts at seducing young boys? --GGreeneVa 02:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the other articles, I was not involved. But from what I remember, Monica did not have her lawyer go in front of the media spotlights and have him reveal that she is a heterosexual. If she had, presumably it would have made the grade for the cat. Haiduc 02:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Back in 2003, Foley was still declining to state whether he was gay or not. But according to a friend who lives in his district, Foley admitted he was gay during a 2004 campaign debate in Florida, after having been pressed on the subject. Foley then added that he had nothing more to say about his personal life. I could be wrong about this, so I hope the media tracks the 2004 debate reference down. It apparently didn't get national coverage at the time but was noted locally, because it defused a simmering campaign issue. — Sandover 05:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP

This is not a biography of a living person. Please do not add the template used for the talk pages of biographies of living persons. All policies apply to all articles. The BLP policy applies to all claims made about all living persons in all articles. But the BLP template goes on BLP articles and not other articles. For example it goes on a singer's bio article but not the article about the group he is a member of. WAS 4.250 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. A reminder here is exceptionally important. The temlate re-inforces that message. It does not say a word about this article _being_ a biography. Derex 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please create a box at the top that expresses what you think is important for this article, rather than copying the text that is specifically for BLP articles. Others can edit that text. And it won't create a precedent for everyone to add the BLP template to every talk page with an article that contains claims about living people. Thanks. WAS 4.250 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The current box at the top says PRECISELY what I think is important. Read it. Derex 05:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you got better things to do than remove warnings on one of the most contentious and heavily publicized articles on the entire Wikipedia advising people to be mindful of our very strict rules regarding living people? Derex 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The introductory paragraphs

Please keep in mind that this event has grown beyond the immdiate issues involving Foley, and that an intro that solely focuses on Foley and his doings is simply inadequate. Haiduc 03:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. For neutrality, it is also important to keep Foley's public statement there about not molesting anyone. That has been removed a few times. Derex 03:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Haiduc 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can an admin please semi-protect this?

It is impossible to edit with a swarm on anon-ips and new accounts jumping all over it, vandalizing, violating policy, mass reverting, and the rest. Anyone now how to request it? Any admins out there? Derex 03:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a request at the appropriate place. Derex 04:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A note for the record about the recent sprotection. My protection request had been place for an hour with no action either affirming or denying the request. There were no admin edits to the protection request page during that time at all. In the meantime, we were getting pummeled here. As such the protecting admin was fully justified, regardless of any technicalities in the manner. Derex 05:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Joshua did the right thing. If I actually cared about "process over common sense" I would un-semi it and re-semi it myself, but hopefully no one is actually that silly. Guettarda 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Name of the student

Seeing as Wikipedia is not a media outlet, and Foley has not been charged with a crime, and even if he were, while his actions are deplorable it seems as if to call the 16 year old who he harassed "a victim" is a ridiculous statement--he should in fact not be shielded, and I suggest that we try to find out the name and insert it in appropriate areas, i.e. areas where it has not already been redacted by ABC news, etc. -Kmaguir1 04:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumably this is meant as a joke? Guettarda 05:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not a joke. Somewhere, facebook is "reporting" the student's identity: [[31]]. This isn't yet a question of legal violations, at least as we can reasonably see, the minor was of the age of consent, and as said, the minor's own conduct is notable--and part of that entails what his name is. Why should he be protected? because he's a victim? WEll, that's debatable: I do not think he's a victim in the legal sense because there is no crime alleged by anyone against the purported "perpetrator".-Kmaguir1 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to know who it was. Public's right to know. -Kmaguir1 05:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable and verifiable source. Derex 05:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe Wikipedia isn't a "report first" type place--but clearly you can see the frustrations of the person trying to be informed on the issue--I mean, where would I find this information out?-Kmaguir1 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad idea. Remember the first rule of BLP - do no harm. We aren't the media, we depend on secondary sources. Outing people is always a bad idea, and has a lot of potential to hurt the project. We're an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet. If a reputable news outlet reports the name, and doesn't retract it the next day, then we could consider whether including the name in the article outweighs the harm we are going to do the person. When it comes down to it, why do you need this information? Guettarda 05:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, right to privacy anybody? Want to be held responsible for possible gay bashing? NO. The762x51 06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not gay-bashing. He has the same right to privacy because he's not yet a victim of a recognizable crime. It's in the interest of public disclosure, and no law forbids it of which I am aware--it's just media outlets' "discretion".-Kmaguir1 06:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this site can move away from the convention in modern media that seeks to make a name for themselves by trying to implicate anybody and everybody they can possibly smear. Let the partisan media outlets fight this one out, stick to the facts; maybe when this blows over, then you can add it. At this time it is way too volatile to do such a thing, much less do your own private research to find the people involved. The762x51 06:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What the hell, I'm just ranting. Oh and good job finding him! The762x51 06:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I know the possible alleged identity of one of the gay teens rumored to be involved. But out of respect for his privacy -- and the fact that his parents are big shots in the GOP and would probably beat him to a bloody pulp -- I will not divulge his name. I'll just say the guy used to have a MySpace, is a Mormon rocker, likes Louisiana, the troops and Sean Hannity, and is a pianist into that whole emo scene. Total closet case.

Well, I was just about to ask you for a little hint. /runs off to Google. Derex 05:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he has the same expectation to privacy as Foley did. Foley's getting beaten to a bloody pulp, and deservedly so, and this kid hides behind the cloak of the "molested", when really he was an active participant and is in no way a victim. We need not say alleged--he didn't commit a crime, Foley didn't commit a crime. What's more, the information you gave me, while helpful, is not in anyway dispositive. If you'd like to give me more but do not want to post, send me a private email on here. This is a serious freedom of the press issue, in my opinion.-Kmaguir1 05:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. If a 52 year old guy had his way with my (non-existent) 16 year old daugher, I'd get me hold of a Louisville slugger and acquaint it with his head. Whether or not she was willing. There are reasons it's illegal to do lots of things as a minor — that's because society deems them too immature to make adult decisions. So, I don't really care if the kid was an active and willing participant, or if it was a crime. Many of the boys that got molested by priests "participated" as well. But, that was an abuse of a trust and power relationship. Same here. Derex 06:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not illegal, even if they had sex all night long. Age of consent in D.C. is 16, no evidence they were ever in Virginia, where it is 18. The law defines who can be a willing and active participant. The best people have on Foley I've seen is possible furnishing of alcohol to a minor--but to suggest that the kid is a victim because he may have gotten a little tipsy, that's pretty spurious. It may be an abuse of trust and power relationship, may very well be, but there's no illegality, therefore there is no 'victim'.-Kmaguir1 06:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Age of consent in Louisiana is 17. And according to our anon friend, that's where the lad is from. At any rate, I agree that the word "victim" should not be used in article, unless it was a crime. However, unless the lad is revealed to have lied, I don't see how his name would further the article in any meaninful way, beyond titillation. It would also expose Wikipedia to enormous liability. If it becomes printed in the mainstream press, then we can talk about it. Derex 07:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a freedom of the press issue. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Furthermore, as the editor in chief of a weekly college newspaper, I would be doing some serious soul-searching as to the public interest in publishing this young man's name. I really don't see where there is any, except for the mere titillation value - and that in no way outweighs this young man's right to be left alone. Ethically, I would be shocked if any respectable news outlet published the man's name - and if they don't publish it, we shouldn't either. When and if that happens, we can have a discussion. The issue is moot at this point - there are no reliable sources which are reporting the names of any of the pages involved, and thus per policy we cannot either. FCYTravis 06:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

On second thought... The reason I put "alleged" is because I'm not 100% sure this kid was involved, and I'm not sure how old he was when the chats happened. I just happened to do some sleuthing a couple days ago and found a cached version of his myspace. Dunno if he's the real deal, but just throwing out those clues in case he doesn't want to be outed, if he is in fact gay. Anyways. Just Google It.

It didn't link.-Kmaguir1 06:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See my "on second thought..." edit above.. :)

haha... well, with a history on wikipedia, sort of difficult to have a "on second thought"...-Kmaguir1 06:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops...cat's outta the bag then?

yes... there's already a name attached to your cached myspace account. I would think, given the publicity, an article should be created on his name. Who's up for that?-Kmaguir1 06:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be someone who knows the legal issues--I can't divulge the name without being certain legally, so I won't divulge it. Perhaps a lawyer, someone very familiar, should do all this.-Kmaguir1 06:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you this, create such an article and you'll be permanently banned in about 1.2 seconds. WP:BLP. Derex 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess User:FCYTravis has taken care of the link. Absolutely not. Creating an article based on a name attached to a MySpace page would be an incredibly unwise action. NatusRoma | Talk 06:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I retract all this--it would be unwise to create such an article. Not notable, waaayy too controversial. In fact, the history should probably be deleted on this page.-Kmaguir1 06:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Was it already deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmaguir1 (talk • contribs)

Yes. NatusRoma | Talk 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Criminal investigation latest edit

Kudos on the code from D.C. on child/adult relationships vis-a-vis the law. I lend my support to that edit, and that as of now, there is no crime alleged. However, it is possible that he furnished alcohol to a minor--this was at least discussed in one of the im's, but who knows if they went through with it.-Kmaguir1 06:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be absolutely clear that he has not been charged. It is fair though to report what expert consultants to the media think might be applicable law. Derex 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Gay Spin" article

I believe the source for this is mischaracterizing itself. In the lead of the article, it says that gay advocates are criticizing the leadership of the Republican majority, but doesn't include any evidence to support this article, rather it quotes Newt Gingrich (who is not in office) and the Family Research Council (an activist group), nowhere in the article does it address any of the leadership in Congress or even quote any statements by them. I'm going to remove the text from the article due to it not supporting what it states with evidence. Kyaa the Catlord 11:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I removed the article, I'll post a link to it here: [32] Kyaa the Catlord 11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, if that's the case - I'm off to work so I don;t have time to investigate further right now. But let's not downplay this, whatever we may feel about the injection of his gayness into this. Haiduc 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that his sexual orientation and the mishandling of such was an issue in this scandal on a number of levels. Kyaa the Catlord 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about to-do list

Okay, the last entry on the to-do list is:

"Response, or lack thereof, from Gay Rights Groups, First Amendment Groups, Internet Freedom Groups -- (be sure to avoid original research)"

How about anti-predator groups? Surely they'll have something to say about this. For example, Perverted Justice recently posted an article condemning the whole mess and calling for action. They're one of the more prominent ones. Not sure if it's hit the smaller-scale ones yet. I'm keeping an eye out. Crystallina 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a source worthy of being used in this article, its a 40 person volunteer vigilante group that has a self-published "blog". We need something more credible, if the article is picked up in a newspaper or something then we'd have something here. This smacks of fishing for free press, imho. Kyaa the Catlord 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)