Jump to content

Talk:Mark Foley scandal/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Moved to archive

As of 5:00PM Eastern Time, the Talk page had reached 100k. I moved all prior discussions to an archive here. Please be sure to check there for past discussions.--Bibliophylax 21:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick recap of some key prior discussions: a consensus emerged against naming any of the pages, at least as long as this isn't in the mainstream press[1]. A weak consensus was reached that the appropriate name for the entire scandal is "Mark Foley scandal" (even though others are involved)[2][3]. And there were repeated reminders that this article must avoid libel, so all additions should be NPOV and with a reliable source--including characterizations like "pederasty," "ephebophilia," "sexually explicit emails," and even the term "underage."[4][5][6][7][8]. And the article survived AfD.--Bibliophylax 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, but the page was underage. He was/is 16. [9] dposse 21:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Your link undermines your statement. The boy was not a minor by the rules of DC and therefore not underage. Kyaa the Catlord 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't involved in the discussion and think it is a pretty picky point. But the concern was that "underage" is an ambiguous term not completely synonymous with minor. Since 16 is the age of consent for sexual relations in D.C. and most of the U.S., the pages were actually not underage in that sense. It's pedantic, but it was discussed.--Bibliophylax 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, i didn't know that 16 is the legal age of consent. Sorry. dposse 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Minor" means under-18 everywhere in the US. That's a separate issue from age of consent. What has DC got to do with it? All these were ex-pages, and he apparently met with many of them outside DC. He met with one in San Diego, and CA age of consent is 18. That said, "underage" isn't needed. Minor, or adolescent, or teenager would do just fine. Derex 22:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the issue in the lede Msalt 02:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved the archivebox, does it look better now? It was bled into by the BLP template previously in my browsers. Kyaa the Catlord 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. I had tried to fix it before, and failed. Derex 04:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Claim of Warnings 5 years prior

Any reference to media accounts that a page was warned 5 years prior need to also reference the former page's recantation of is story. I deleted the reference that was biased and unbalanced.

From the Palm Beach Post at http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2006/10/02/1002page.html  :

"Firstly, as to the ABC "Warned" story, while I may have inadvertently used the word, "warned," in communication, I can assure you it was not intended. The fact of the matter is in an informal situation a supervisor mentioned that Foley was a bit odd or flaky and did not connote by tone or otherwise that he should be avoided.
"Secondly as to talking out in general, . . . I don't think anyone can argue that protecting kids, pages, or whomever from sexual predators is anything but the most important of this whole saga. Nothing comes in front of the safety of the page program, not the page program, a member of congress, no one.

Fox News and AP falsely label Foley as a Democrat

I think this needs to be addressed somewhere in the article. [10] [11] [12] It's potentially relevant to other articles, like media bias and Fox News Channel controversies, but since it directly references the Mark Foley scandal, I figured this talk page would be the best place to bring it up. Redxiv 22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Regardless of the source's reliability, this isn't really notable--especially not in an article on a sexually explicit IM scandal. Trivial mistakes like this happen all the time. And don't forget Foley was Democrat at one point in his life. --Bibliophylax 22:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I realize that, Kyaa. I was just pointing out another source. Like i said before, this infomation is nothing more than an interesting piece of trivia. by the way, if anyone cares, here's a youtube link. [14] dposse 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What is wikipedia's stance on using youtube as a source? It seems odd that we should use it as a source since the material on it often is taken with utter disregard for copyright. Kyaa the Catlord 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
We should not cite YouTube as a source. Rather simply cite the broadcast with the program name, broadcaster, day, and preferably time. Not all references have to be accessible via the web. We cite plenty of books for example. The YouTube reference is useful at the moment, so that we can verify the accuracy. But, it should not be used as a permanent in-text reference. Not that it really is important enough here anyway. Derex 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a "trivial mistake" or even a mistake at all, at least on Fox's part, given that they repeated it several times. And the blogs aren't relevant, the screenshots, videos, and Google caches proving the so-called errors are what's relevant. Redxiv 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I said trivia, not "trivial mistake". dposse 22:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is probably too tangential for this article. I also don't think it was a mistake. Fox knows perfectly well who he is, anyone paying the least bit of attention does, much less a news organization. And they posted it twice to their website and aired it once more _after_ they were informed of the "error". At the least they weren't in much of a hurry to fix a fact that's absolutely crucial to the story. Derex 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Systematic misrepresentation of the basic facts is a notable event, especially THIS mistake by THIS network. Haiduc 23:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, POV-check Haiduc. Kyaa the Catlord 23:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
POV does not mean ignore the facts if they do not present a party in a positive light. cacophony 03:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Likewise. Fox is pretty blatant about providing conservative-flavor news, and makes their bias an issue by trumpeting "Fair and Balanced". I don't think it requires a strong POV to say this choice/mistake of theirs is notable, especially given the major political stakes. One doesn't have to interpret the event to note it. Msalt 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Let's see if it gets any play in the major media. If so, then it's relevant. I think it was a dirty trick, so do blogs, but that's not enough here. Derex 23:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This link seems like a sufficient source - we should be careful to not just parrot what the big boys say.
Also, I do not think we should discard this info if a media outlet finds it sufficiently significant to mention: "Reynolds is thought to be vulnerable on this account, especially since he apparently contributed $5,000 to Foley's re-election fund even after finding out about his behavior with minors.[1]" Haiduc 02:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Crooksandliars.com should NOT be used a source for this article due to its blatant, obvious agenda. Please review WP:RS. Kyaa the Catlord 08:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Was just reported by the Daily Show. cacophony 03:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The Daily Show, like SNL, only parodies that which is notable (otherwise people wouldn't get the jokes). Therefore, it is notable. Put it in. Thesmothete 05:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

TDS is enough. It has a huge audience. It's also the only real news on TV ;) Derex 06:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has been deleting this section, against what appears to be consensus here. Please watch for that. It's a short paragraph under "Political Impact" now. I did reword it to lead with the facts (3 mislabellings) and follow with the conjecture (deliberate), rather than vice versa. More NPOV.Msalt 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Contributions to NRCC and Other Republican candidates

Foley contributions to NRCC and other Republican candidates

This is approaching a revert war. Your last deletion of this section says " even better, this is redundant data except for the last unsourced claim. See political impact for prior inclusion."

You deleted it from the Political Impact section!!! First you delete this saying it's unreferenced. When I change it to citation needed, you delete it within 10 minutes saying it's redundant. I am going to reinstate it with at least one citation, a correction on the dollar figure and I'll provide the other citation ASAP. Msalt 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No need for the slams. You have a disagreement. Keep your comments to that, not personal aspersions. Derex 23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, read the whole section Msalt. You're adding material which is already posted, sourced and included. This isn't about a revert war, its about removing redundant material from the article. Kyaa the Catlord 23:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, I mispoke. This information is actually contained under Thomas Reynolds.
"Reynolds is thought to be vulnerable on this account, especially since he apparently contributed $5,000 to Foley's :re-election fund even after finding out about his behavior with minors.[48] That sum, however, is dwarfed by the :$100,000 which Foley gave the NRCC at the end of July 2006.[49]"
You've readded the material again, but I'm not going to remove it this time. I'll ask you to do so. Kyaa the Catlord 23:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry for the hot head. I totally misinterpreted your actions, in part because I couldn't find the redundant text you cited. I've removed my aspersions - if any one reading is wondering what Derex is talking about, just know he or she had good reason to chide me.
I actually left the paragraph I re-added, since I think the broader issue of returned donations is an important part of the political impact, both because many candidates are being challenged to do so, and because of the actual effects of the lost money. Furthermore, the section on Reynolds did not mention the $2.7 million that the NRCC has pointedly encouraged Foley to donate to the NRCC; that is a non-trivial amount of money to add in the last few weeks of a campaign. Someone has filled in the citation in the meantime too, thanks.
Instead, to remedy the redundance (is that a word?), I removed the reference to the money in the Tom Reynolds section and replaced it with the issue that, today, has emerged as a much more serious vulnerability of Reynolds: That he encouraged Foley to run for re-election after Foley expressed a desire to retire precisely because of the strain of being a homosexual Republican (or so he said, apparently.) I think it's fair to say that this threatens Reynolds position far more than donating $5,000 to Foley's congressional campaign; Reynolds is chair of the NRCC for heaven's sake, it's his JOB to raise and donate money to campaigns. I guess it's also his job to recruit good candidates, but you see my point. Sound fair? Msalt 01:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I also added back in the $5,000 donation as suggested elsewhereMsalt 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ambiguous?

"Foley has issued a statement saying he has never had sexual contact with a minor, was himself molested as a teenager, is gay, and is an alcoholic" I'm not a native speaker but I came to this page not knowing anything, and on first sight it was unclear to me wether the negation also is valid for the rest of the sentance, i.e. "F. is *not* gay". Maybe someone could phrase this less mistakable ? thanks. 85.178.16.224 23:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

done. he's gay. 150.203.23.30 23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: IGNORE THIS ITS ALL WRITTEN ABOVE thanks. Maybe I could have inserted that "that" myself ;) ... but I'd rather not interact with something this controversial. Anyway, I was lead here by boingboing ( http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/04/fox_news_identifies_.html ), I'm not sure this is should be in wikipedia or not, but I found it interesting that apparently Fox News features him as a Democrat now (twice). 85.178.16.224 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor matter

As we now know the page was 18 at the time of the emails and neither a minor nor under the age of consent on DC. Why do some editors here keep reverting the more precise description of him as an 18year old to "teenager?" This looks like deliberate biased political posturing and appears to be intended to confuse the reader into thinking the page was a minor. If we can't resolve this I'm going to add a POV template to the article. --138.162.5.12 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below under the header "Multiple pages, multiple ages" JoshuaZ 16:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This text: " This is now in doubt, as the age of consent for sexual offenses in Washington, D.C. is 16. [2] " is besides the point since there was never a question that he had illegal sex, but that he engaged in illegal seduction via the internet. Haiduc 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was "never a question." As noted by the existing text I provided a citation for, the headline of the Brian Ross report that really broke this story says "Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors" (fn 5). I have seen many, many references in the press to minors, underage, etc. and I think it's important to clarify it. The point about his internet seduction vulnerability is well take though, not to mention an incredible irony.Msalt 02:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's be careful when clarifying since the fact that one was not a minor does not alter the others' status. Also, significantly, if that had been an excuse it would have been used, but he never disputed the claim that he corresponded with minors. Haiduc 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree with the fact that there is no issue within the confines of Age of Consent, it should be noted that such actions can still fall under 'corrupting a minor' if they're still under 18. I do feel this should be brought up in the article, to clarify any media reports which may have attempted to confuse readers into believing that he performed an act against someone under the age of consent, which up to this point, 16 is the lowest age mentioned. LogicX 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I presume Foley is being investigated under the Internet Safety Act, part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. That, as far as I can make out from http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/L49HR4427ChldprotBB072006.pdf , refers to acts with minors, i.e. those below 18. If I'm correct so far, then the age of consent in DC or anywhere else is irrelevant. The article should focus its legal discussion on 18 as the key age, use "minor" as a standard US legal term and give actual ages where appropriate. Bondegezou 16:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Good research, thanks. However, given that this IS an encyclopedia, don't you think a paragraph stating some basic facts about this murky issue -- such as how being a minor differs from the age of consent, how federal rules differ from state rules, etc. -- might be appropriate? I think that for us to make a decision as to what the proper standard for age in this case, when no one from the FBI to the House Ethics committee appears to have done so, is way beyond our role and verges on OR.Msalt 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The most NPOV way to do things is to give the pages' ages and to note that there is relevant legislation concerning under-18s (i.e. minors). It is verifiable that Foley is under investigation and he is under investigation because the individuals were under 18, so that should be said. A wider debate about ages and different legislation pertaining to different ages seems irrelevant here and can be handled by linking to minor (law) or age of consent. (Although an expansion of what is said under minor (law), to explain how in some areas of the US the age of consent can differ, seems a good idea.) I don't think there's a need for the article to explicitly tackle a misunderstanding of events unless that misunderstanding is widely reported and I haven't seen any reporting that talked about acts illegal because of the age of consent. Bondegezou 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Matter (Drudge)

a citation of "www.drudgereport.com" is not a sufficient source, and since the community has agreed not to identify the victims, saying that "he is 21 now and was 18 then" is inappropriate. Furthermore, the reports (from Brian Ross on) have ALWAYS referred to multiple pages, not one person, so the change is misleading. Msalt 02:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this, if the recipient of these emails was above the age of majority at the time of receipt, this revelation will destroy the calls by politicians to have Foley investigated for criminal activities. If ABC is falsifying evidence by not revealing that these emails were legal communication between two adults, we should include this since ABC was the primary national news agency which exposed Foley's alleged "crimes". I do agree that the sourcing of this was terribly bad and we need something more than a flash on Drudge's website since it does not meet WP:RS on its own. Kyaa the Catlord 08:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
How would it destroy those calls? The IM conversations alone theoretically violate the laws that Foley himself helped to pass related to sexual solicitation and contact online. FCYTravis 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If the sex talk was between adults, the laws regarding solicitation of a minor do not come into play? The whole basis of ABC's argument was that these naughty emails and IMs were illegal and it is being suggested that they weren't anything of the sort. Once again, I'm pointing out that this needs sourcing before it is added to the article and that Drudge's flash does not meet WP:RS, but if a credible source comes forward with evidence, it should be included as the entire basis of this scandal would be falling apart. Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue of minors and age of consent is in fact NOT the main point of the scandal, as I discuss below. But we've been dancing around the meaning of the denial in the lede of this article, which was actually from Foley's lawyer, Mr. Roth, not Foley himself. I corrected that and replaced the summary with the exact text of the denial, which may help clarify the significance of some of the points.
The most interesting thing is that Roth actually did NOT deny Foley had sex with minors. He said that he didn't have any INAPPROPRIATE sex with a minor; and of course Foley and his attorney may have a different view of what is appropriate sex than others of us. Certainly there is no clear legal definition of appropriate.Msalt 09:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
All the evidence we have indicates that many of the IM conversations were with pages under the age of 18. FCYTravis 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
All the evidence except for this little nugget posted by Drudge. Again, I'm not suggesting we include this material, but if it comes to pass that reputable sites DO verify this claim, it certainly should be included. The jury isn't even seated yet, for chrissakes, there's a mountain of evidence that hasn't been revealed except by media commentators. We should continue to edit this article keeping in mind that Foley hasn't even been charged with a crime yet. Assuming Foley's guilt in this scandal breaks NPOV. Kyaa the Catlord 09:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
For chrissakes, rumor-mongering Drudge posts one thing up and you're ready to flip this whole scandal around into "what left-wing activists pushed this false story into the media?" For the record, the Drudge rumor is specifically about ONE of the several dozen IM conversations which have come to light. It says nothing about the others which have been reported to be with pages under the age of 18 - including the one quoted in this article. FCYTravis 09:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Where have I said or done that? I've simply stated that if these allegations are true, they should be included. If the Drudge allegation is true, it shows that ABC is misrepresenting the material it has used as evidence and THIS is why it should be included. The misconduct of the MEDIA would be notable and relevant, especially when this news agency is the one that "broke" the story to the vast majority of people. Again, I've repeatedly stated that this should wait until it meets the guidelines of WP:RS and am not jumping up and down screaming about this... Kyaa the Catlord 09:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, I have posted sections on the age of the pages and relevant statues concerning consent, and you and Derex have repeatedly removed them.
Nonetheless, I don't think your point is well taken. The only reference in any of the ABC reports to "minors" that I could find was the headline of the first Brian Ross resignation report (as I specified in some of the text that was deleted), and I corrected that. However, headlines are often written by someone other than the author of an article, and they may have simply misread the article. Nor did I see reference to "crimes". one of the New York Times' first articles described the "gray area" that this behavior falls into.
My point is, whether the pages or former pages in question were minors or able to consent is not the point at all. Pages are all 16 or older, and thus by definition NOT underage for sexual consent (as, again, I added to the page earlier.)
However, I think you're dreaming partisan dreams if you belief that makes the scandal go away. Please try explaining that to a Christian right activist who has worked to fight gay marriage for two years. Aside from personal feelings of many Republicans, there are serious issues of sexual harassment given Congresscritter's position of power over the pages, and I have read (though I don't have a source handy) that laws written by Foley himself may have criminalized seduction through the Internet at the federal level for anyone under 18.
Most importantly, there is not just one page involved. I have seen statements by at least 3 who gave their names describing unwanted approaches from Foley, and from a dozen or more who were anonymous.Msalt 09:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Most pertinent here are those very Internet laws making it illegal for adults to engage in essentially any sort of sexual conversation with a minor through any form of interstate telecommunications (there's that pesky Commerce clause again). I am not a lawyer but it would seem to me that the contents of many of the IM conversations that Mr. Foley admitted to having with under-18 pages, at best come dangerously close to that line and at worst are overtly sexual. FCYTravis 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And if the conversations took place with people above the age of consent, there is no crime, no foul. The glove don't fit, Judge Ito. Kyaa the Catlord 09:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
No. There are specific laws against certain types of communication. These laws concern minors (under 18) and are separate from the age of consent laws. Even if someone is over the age of consent locally, if they are under 18, these laws still apply. Bondegezou 16:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are specific laws. But 4427, the oft noted Adam Walsh Act, requires a local crime to be committed before it comes into play. If the participants are of age, there is no crime so Adam Walsh doesn't have any bearing. I know, its complicated, but that is how the act reads. If there is no crime, there is no jurisdiction. Kyaa the Catlord 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not the job of Wikipedia to determine whether Foley has committed a crime or not. It is verifiable that he is under investigation by both state and federal authorities, so that should be said. He is under investigation because of actions involving minors which may contravene the aforementioned legislation, so that should be said. Whether Foley's actions are sufficient to constitute a crime, we don't know: the article should neither claim he definitely has, nor conclude his innocence. Of course, Kyaa, you are entitled to your opinions on the matter, but this is not a forum for discussing the issue, but somewhere to discuss what is said in the article. Bondegezou 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of the conversations took place with minors under the age of 18. That is not in dispute. Please read the linked article. To wit:

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys who began their exchanges with Foley at the age of 16 and 17, and continued through the age of 18. This message was dated April 2003, at approximately 7 p.m., according to the message time stamp at a time when the teen had been 18 for just six weeks. (Some sharp online readers spotted that the boy was technically legal when the exchange took place).

There you have it - Drudge's "scoop" is a non-story, as often happens with his stuff. The conversations began at 16 and went past their 18th birthdays. One particular quoted conversation was taken after he was 18. This doesn't mean all of them were. FCYTravis 09:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're jumping to conclusions. I'm done talking at you, since it doesn't seem that you bother to listen. Kyaa the Catlord 09:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear things up -- it doesn't matter who or how old the recipient is. It could be a prankster or an undercover cop. If Foley's intent was to make sexual advances upon a child, it would be a crime.

Which is not necessarily relevant to the article, and is definitely OR at this point.
In any case, I sincerely doubt that the Drudge Report meets WP:RS given its POV. •Jim62sch• 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

family research council

Why on earth do we have an entire section on what _one_ group had to say about the matter. Cutting way down under undue weight provision of POV. Derex 05:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe that is entirely your POV, Derex. The fact that these are major political organizations specifically chartered to promote 'family values' political action (they do not fall under US IRS 501.3.b non-profits) should be reason enough to include them -- the absence of any condemnation by these organizations of the GOP leadership, for not dealing with a potentially criminal act (under existing US federal law) is newsworthy.wayfarers43 12:02, 5 October 2006 (CST)
I've added more of the actual statement by the group for accuracy and NPOV weight. Kyaa the Catlord 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting Sections

Derex, you keep removing sections relating to 16 being the age of consent in Washington, DC. Do you seriously think that is not a significant fact in this case? Your edit heading says "What does Washington DC's age of consent have to do with anything?" Are you kidding? Do I even need to state that Congressmen and pages live in Washington DC?

The one meaningful point you raise is the distinction between being a minor, and the age of consent. Fine, change it to "age of consent" instead of "minor." I think that is much better than simply removing the section. (Note: I removed my charges of partisanship against Derex, and I apologize.Msalt 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)) Msalt 08:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusing Derex of being partisan is not cool, especially since he's got a track record of hundreds of positive edits on this article. If you disagree with his edits, please post diffs and discuss the changes here without leaping to attack. Kyaa the Catlord 08:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I have posted actual text several times, which he (and you) keep(s) removing for reasons that keep changing, and without responding to simple questions. Such as.... do you really think the age of majority is not relevant in this case? That's an absurd statement. And the vast majority of people I've talked, and read articles by, are surprised that the age of consent is only 16.
Look at my contributions here (dozens anyway of positive edits) and elsewhere. Do you see partisanship? I'm not repeatedly removing other folks' statements without comment.Msalt 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kyaa. Msalt, usually I get accused of the reverse :) His criticized contacts were with former pages outside DC. He said minor. That's 18 in DC. I cited the statute. Derex 08:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Not true. For one thing, Foley didn't say anything, it was a statement by his attorney. For another, the term minor is used differently in different contexts. His lawyer is clearly referring to the age of consent when he denies that Foley had sex with a minor. Why would he refer to the page's ability to vote, serve in the military or do time for felonies? I clarified the lede to quote the exact text of his attorney's denial and provided a reference. This should help clarify the issue. Roth is an attorney, and it makes sense to quote and pay attention to his precise wording.Msalt 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
(a) We can say his _lawyer_ issued a statement (b) It is _your_ opinion that he was referring to the age of consent. i can assure you that lawyers choose their words very carefully. you can interpret however you like, but that's not going in the lede. we should wikilink minor, and you can run over there and edit it however you like. but you'll be wrong. (c) He said Foley had never screwed a minor. period. He didn't say in DC. He said never. That's pertinent since he met with a lad in San Diego, and in CA the age of consent is 18. It sounds like he met with others as well. Also, do you know where he lives? A great many Congressmen live in Virginia. A page met him at his house. Where is that? (d) The lede is a summary of the story, not a catalog of facts. If you insist on putting it in, despite that no one has accused him of ever screwing anyone, then put it in the text. Pulling it. Derex 09:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I later put the exact quote from the lawyer in the lede, which I think is the best solution here given we all agree he chose his words carefully. Note that he did NOT deny sex with minors -- he denied INAPPROPRIATE sex with minors, which implies that is is allowing for sex that is appropriate in his opinion, either because the youth was above the age of consent (16) or because the type of sex is more appropriate than others (for example, cybersex vs. live nude boy in person sex).
Big picture here though, I think we should create a section not in the lede to discuss the age of consent/minor issue because it's obviously important to the story, and (I think we can all agree) has been repeatedly muddled -- whether deliberately or not -- by the press and politicians involved.

Agree that 16 as Age of Consent in DC is relevant and should not be repeatedly deleted. --Robb0995 08:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not blank, I moved some text into an acronym. 12.25.236.196 20:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You unintentionally did blank. It wasn't a big deal. Kyaa the Catlord 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Scandal as Fabrication by the left

Radar Online has posted the results of an investigation of the StopSexPredators blog which calls into question whether this blog was created to push this story into the media by activists on the left. Since I posted about this on the article and it was subsequently removed, perhaps someone wiser than I can add this information to the "political impact" section as the story, as crafted by Brian Ross and ABC, seems to be falling to pieces in the media. Here is the url of the investigation. [15] Kyaa the Catlord 08:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like an extreme example of POV. The story was not "crafted" by anyone, including Brian Ross and ABC, except in a far-right daydream. Have you forgotten that Foley resigned without disputing the charges? Since when is Radar Online a more reputable source than ABC news?Msalt 08:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the new revelation that it was a Republican Capitol Hill staffer who leaked to ABC News. Some liberal activist conspiracy that is. I didn't realize the left-wing anti-American cabal extended so deeply into the GOP. Ya learn something new every day. FCYTravis 09:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Amazing examples of the left's ability to remain NPOV. Those who live in glass houses.... Kyaa the Catlord 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You promulgate the fringe claim that this story was pushed into the media by left-wing activists, I respond with the fact that it was a Republican who leaked the story... and I'm supposed to be the one with NPOV issues? Uh huh. FCYTravis 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
A fringe claim that seems to be supported by journalist investigation. I cited a source, made a content suggestion and got flamed for it. I'm so glad we can all discuss changes to this article like rational human beings. Kyaa the Catlord 09:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, speaking as a journalist, the real point is that who pushed the story and why is totally irrelevant. The fact is, abusive behaviour was exposed, a Congressman has resigned and dozens of very pointed questions - "who knew what, when" about Mr. Foley's behaviour - are now being asked. It is in the public interest that light be shed in the darkest corners of America - even if those dark corners are in the halls of Congress. FCYTravis 09:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The alleged abusive behaviour, sir. The investigation is ongoing, there are no charges filed, and no judgement passed by a court of law or even a result returned by the ethics committee. Foley is innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty as proven by the kangaroo court of the internets. Kyaa the Catlord 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
No, sorry, this isn't a court of law. There is really nothing alleged about the fact that Foley engaged in unethical and abusive behaviour with subordinate pages. He has all but admitted it by offering no defense and not denying the actions - "He continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct," said his lawyer in a statement. What possible conduct would he have no excuse for? What is still in question is to what extent, if any, his behaviour constituted criminal acts. What is in question is what the Republican leadership knew, when. That will be the tipping point, whether this remains a disaster for the GOP or turns into a full-blown implosion. Speaking with my political journalist cap on, it's way, way, way, way, way too late to pull out the "omg allegation" card. Those horses escaped a few days ago now. All one can do is sit back and watch. Ah, gotta love those sex scandals. FCYTravis 09:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Pulling it out? I've been beating people over the head with it since this scandal broke. This is all allegations, smoke and mirrors. We don't have the evidence, the investigation is barely begun and you suggest we take the libelous stance that Foley's guilty of a crime he may not have committed. WP policy trumps your personal beliefs, sorry. Kyaa the Catlord 09:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Libel? Excuse me? I specifically said he's guilty of unethical and abusive behaviour. If you think that's libelous, you haven't taken a media law course. It would be libelous to say his acts were criminal, which is why I specifically said it's unclear as to whether his behaviour was criminal. WP policy says we report the verifiable facts as reported by reliable sources, and we have plenty of those. Regardless of the criminal question, Mr. Foley's behaviour was morally and ethically indefensible and that is why this scandal has exploded. Not some left-wing media conspiracy. Just good, old-fashioned public outrage that a sitting Congressman would engage in cybersex with teenaged subordinates. I wonder where your "allegations, smoke and mirrors" defense was hiding when Clinton got a blow-job from a 22-year-old intern in the Oval Office. FCYTravis 09:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it hilarious you'll make mention of this being a vast left-wing conspiracy when it's mentioned on some website, and then in the next breath say that the investigation is ongoing, there are no charges filed, and no judgement passed by a court of law or even a result returned by the ethics committee. That takes a level of class. Class and hypocrisy, but mostly class. You seem to see fit that reporting any and every innuendo repeated on the internet is acceptable, even when it libels democrats but OH MY STARS AND GARTERS! heaven forfend we libel Foley with endless transcripts of pedo-fishing, you damn dirty liberals. Like I said, class. Professor Ninja 23:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyaa, your fixation on whether this is criminal is completely misguided. Most congressional scandals are NOT criminal -bouncing house checks, the first page scandal, etc. None of which makes the scandal a fabrication. Look at Foley's own words: in his statement on Monday, he said that he accepted “full responsibility for the harm I have caused." Tuesday, his lawyer said Foley "has acknowledged full responsibility for inappropriate e-mails and IMs."

Do you see ANY admissions of wrongdoing there? 99.9% of humans do. It's verifiable and well-sourced. Wouldn't you agree that the words of Foley himself are a good source on this point?Msalt 10:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The circumstances under which the story was broken are interesting, but only if backed up by a reliable sources. (For example, Drudge is an important part of the Monica Lewinsky scandal story, and "Buckhead" is an important part of the Killian document story). My personal guess is that "stopsexpredators.org" is a democratic activist trying to affect the election, but without a reliable source, my personal guess doesn't matter to the article. (In any event, the scandal certainly isn't "fabricated" -- at most, somebody on the left chose the optimal timing for otherwise true facts to break publicly). TheronJ 13:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I read the Radar piece. They don't have anything, except the fact that 1) whoever created the website has not updated it, and the posts before these blockbusters were lame, and 2) someone added it to Kos 12 minutes after the post, and it might have been the stopsexpredators.org editor.
What!? Self-promotion by bloggers!? It can't be! The facts must be untrue, despite Foley's resignation and admission of "doing harm."
More seriously, yes, I think common sense says this website was created to push this story. But that does not mean the thing is a Democratic setup by any stretch. We know that it was a long-time Republican who was unsuccessfully flogging the story all summer, and in fact back to 2005. We know they had close contacts with teenage pages. We know that many members of the Republican party are upset about gay marriage and feel that there is an invidious "homosexual agenda." And we know that several prominent Republicans, at the level of the political operatives that, say, a page would come in contact with, are closeted homosexuals. (Kirk Fordham, Ken Mehlman, Scott McLellan, all allegedly, etc.)
Doubt Scott McLellan, White House spokesperson for Clinton, would have come in contact with pages, since he didn't work on Capitol Hill, but in the White House. Doh. That's a libelous statement...Wayfarers43 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)1050 , October 6, 2006.
So to me, Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is that a Republican house page or friend of one became aware of Foley's behavior, was disgusted that it continued for years and no one would listen to them, and so they created a website knowing that blogs love blogs and reporters are often lazy and willing to accept a website as a reality that a verbal tip is not.Msalt 15:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not a crime was committed is entirely relevant as to the actions taken by Hastert and the Republican leadership. If there was no crime, what could Hastert have done? Nothing more than he did. If, based on all reports to date, Hastert did not have the allegedly solicitous messages, there was nothing he could legally have done. It is not unlawful to have friendly email conversations with former subordinates, even if they are youngsters. Kyaa the Catlord 18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox news passing on the story

Derex removed the reference to Fox News being given this story and passing on it, along with the two Florida newspapers, without any justification except this odd summary:

"(Oh MY. That's got to sting, Denny. (From context, I think Fox was actually in this round))"

Because of the flood of edits, I couldn't find the previous change to the section, who added Fox, who Denny was or why Derex is taunting him. Much less why Fox was removed.

I added it again, with a reference from the International Herald tribune. Please explain yourself here if you feel the need to remove it. Given Fox's strong POV, defending them without explanation is pretty suspect on such a hot-button issue.

Furthermore, adding info on media knowledge of the scandal is actually on the To-Do List for this page, and FNC (Fox News Corporation, presumably) is listed by name. So deleting that info should be doubly shaky.Msalt 09:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To Msalt. First, the main edit was _inserting_ the citation that there was a Republican source. I imagine that did sting Denny. Regarding FOX News, that was a minor secondary edit that followed from the main insertion. _I_ originally inserted that. The NYTimes does not specify the timing for FOX, though it does for the others. The context of _my_ cite showing the Republican source indicated that only the two Fl. papers got it last year. By pulling FOX from there, I was able to cleanly state that was 2005. It sounds like FOX probably got them in July. But again, it's not clear. And, we don't know what other groups got them. So, it seemed best to just not single them out since we don't really know the timing. So, in sum, I deleted my own insertion, and I did it for good reason. That enough talk for you? Derex 09:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly more clear, thanks. Is my reinsertion of Fox with a source that lists all three good enough for you?Msalt 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate less sarcasm from Derex and more explanation when he does wholesale deletion of material. I don't think that is too much to ask. Goading "that enough talk for you?" is sarcastic.Wayfarers43 10:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)0547, October 6, 2006 (CST)
Was I talking to you? No, I didn't think so. Do you know the preceding context? No, I didn't think so. Is deleting exactly one sentence "wholesale"? No, I didn't think so. Msalt and I sorted it out very amicably, thank you very much. As for lectures on manners, I'd appreciate if you didn't scream "rm vandalism by DEREX" in edit summaries, when I had actually continually been making the edit that you wanted made, and which was actually the first to make. So, if you want to play Miss Manners, maybe you ought to have some yourself? You should probably get your facts straight too. That enough response for you? Yes, I thought so. Derex 11:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, touchy. You will note that I have not "screamed" since you requested me not to. And I had a right to complain of your totally deleting my section on the Family Research Council, which you will note has been reverted by a moderator. . You deleted the references to the Family Research Council without figuring out why it would be there in the first place. In the future, I would think it would be better to alter, not delete contributor's writings. Fair is fair. However, your comments in general do seem to be glib, condescending and sarcastic. (playing "Miss Manners?")I don't care if you are addressing me or not, that can be my POV, my friend. Wayfarers43 16:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC),10:59, October 6, 2006 (CST)
I checked the IHT article that I added as a reference. It is not crystal clear on the timeline when Fox was given the story, but it certainly implies that it was at the same time as the two newspapers.Msalt 10:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what I initally thought too. But, there is an asymmetry in the phrasing that seems possibly intentional. I thought it best to be scrupulous. Certainly, if we can learn when a few more media groups learned, I would be happy to discuss that more. My problem is that Fox doesn't necessarily go with the 2005 refs. It then seems strange to single out FOX as having them at some unknown point. That's because we know from the refs, and it's in the text, that several media groups got them in July. So, my concern is that it looks like a smackdown on Fox. Since we all know they're right wing I'm concerned about that. I don't want the article to seem spun at all. Absolutely scrupulous. Because people will instantly ignore anything that smacks of spin, unless they already believe it. So, that's my concern.
Now, I do see where you're coming from now that they're trying to blame the Dems (god knows how) and the media. If you want to put in there that FOX knew in _that_ context, that seems fair. I don't think it plays well in that particular spot though, for the reasons I expressed above.
It's interesting that the NYTimes has now scrubbed Fox, because that's where I got the information. I've noticed an awful lot of that going on when I recheck cites that I made myself, so I know what they said. You'll see it on Google News too. You can search on a phrase, part of a quote for example, and Google will pop up a bunch of news articles showing the hit in bold. Then when you actually read the article, it's gone. Don't know what to make of that. But I will say that the deleted material is usually unfavorable to the Republicans. (I guess that's not saying much though, because almost everything is) Derex 10:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's very interesting the the NYT scrubbed Fox. The phrase "including Fox news" has always bothered me, too, since of course I want to know who the others were. I always took it to mean that Fox was substantially more well known than the others, or the only national news organization, but obviously detail would better. Good job threading the needle on that paragraph, whoever did that.Msalt 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources differ on "an email pic"

The final excerpt at the stopsexpredators posting differs from the version of that message at the bottom of the citizensforethics pdf even though both look like images of pieces of paper with email headers blotted out.

The citizensforethics image says

how are you weathering the hurricane....are you safe…send me an email pic of you as well....

but the stopsexpredators image capitalizes "How" and says "send me a pic of you"

What's the deal? --NealMcB 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, maybe they were e-mails to two separate people? :) Ashibaka tock 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Studds precedent

Not a single reference to Studds in the whole article...how telling. 75.2.216.63 16:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You can add it in if you want, if you can find a relevant area of the article. It is listed in the "See also" section at the bottom right now. Ashibaka tock 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Telling in what? It's fine in the see also section, as Ashibaka said. We don't go into the articles of every hurricane and link them to the "precedents" set by every other hurricane. Jeez. Oh no wait, sorry, you're right. See Also is just a euphemism for vast left-wing conspiracy. Professor Ninja 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Why not keep the political scadals seperate? Different time, different person, different scandal.

Not really, the Studds scandal was the Democrat version of the Foley scandal. It's really neat to compare the aftermath of the two, but we don't have a reliable source to base entry into the article of this type of comparison yet. I look forward to someone in the media doing exactly that. But I don't hold my breath.... Kyaa the Catlord 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Studds

Could we please stop adding the contrast between Studds and Foley? The claimed source doesn't say what is claimed and it has OR and POV issues (since no one else but on Wiki has made the comparison). JoshuaZ 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, until a reliable source picks up on this obvious dichotomy, we need to avoid adding this information. Source first. Kyaa the Catlord 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you would kindly remove it then, since I'm at my maximum number of reverts. (and before anyone comments, yes I know 3RR is not an entitltement). JoshuaZ 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Its not there right now. If I see it, I'll remove it. Kyaa the Catlord 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To talk of Studds as a Democrat version of the Foley scandals is silly, as if such incidents have a partisan affiliation. Anyone who tries to cast aspersions on Republicans in general because of what Foley did is an idiot. Besides, the two incidents aren't the same anyway; Studds had sex with his guy, Foley sent e-mails to his guys (in fact, we don't know yet exactly what Foley did, another reason to avoid comparisons). And in any event, it should be called the Crane and Studd scandals, and as Crane was a Republican, you miss out on drawing the whole Republican/Democrat constrast. What Crane and Studd did was also legal in the sense that 17 was the age on consent at the time. And Crane's congressional page was female. - Matthew238 05:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple pages, multiple ages

Some people keep trying to change the article to say it reflects interaction with "one 18-year-old page." This is factually inaccurate. The contacts are with multiple pages and occurred when they were various ages--not just 18, but from 16 into the 20's.--Bibliophylax 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, on this point--we should reach a working consensus on whether to describe the pages as "underage," "minor," "teenaged," etc. in the lead at all. It doesn't seem necessary at that point, and none of these phrases seems to accurately capture the fact that they ranged in age from 16 to in their 20s.--Bibliophylax 16:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibly "multiple pages, of varying ages, some minors"? or "pages ranging in age from the 16 to the early 20s"? JoshuaZ 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
One of the pages was 16 at the time, which is a minor. Let's just find out what the media calls it and report that. dposse 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
All House pages are in their junior year of high school (16/17). Those in their early twenties would have to be former pages that Foley met as minors but remained in contact with. And the fact that he met the boys as minors while in a position of authority over them is of course the central issue of the scandal, and it's absurd to leave it out. DanB†DanD 16:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Except that not all of the people referenced by the media are minors. We cannot blanketly assert that the emails and instant messages were sent to minors when factually, some of these recipients were above the age of majority. Kyaa the Catlord 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Clarification of the minors issue will be forthcoming as the arrest warrants and criminal charges are processed. I suggest being as specific as possible--refer to the e-mail as going to a 16-year-old minor, the IM's going to those who became acquainted with Foley when they worked for the House as 16 to 17-year-old minors. The mainstream media are actually the ones messing this up, let's be more specific here.wayfarers43 12:12, 5 October 2006 (CST)

Let's combine both of your ideas. You two, look up some news articles and find out what the media is reporting the ages to be. This story is still ongoing, but as far as i know, the pages were 16/17. dposse 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just heard a news report that ABC confirms that the instant messagess it once stated were sent to minors were not sent to minors. I'm looking for more information so we may accurately describe the messages and clarify which were and which weren't sent to minors. This has implications on whether or not there was any crime committed by Foley as well. (Mind you, I won't be making any changes until I find RS for them.) Kyaa the Catlord 17:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If the age is in dispute, as you note even ABC admits, this article should not be stating anything about ages until we know the facts. I already removed "who was 16 at the time" from the Mark Foley article. It isn't hard to put it back if it turns out to be correct originally. Crockspot 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article that came out today. [16]. I have not been following this saga in great detail, but it seems to dispute that the page whos chat was published by ABC was not in fact 16, but was either 17 or 18. Someone with more of a grasp on the details should verify that the wiki article is stating fact, and if the facts are still hazy, that the article states nothing until we know the facts. Crockspot 17:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the article currently says that in 2005, Foley sent 5 e-mails to a "16-year old former page." Although it's not impossible for a "former page" to be 16, it seems very unlikely. Someone should take a good look at the sources and see if the issue has been resolved. TheronJ 17:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*Whoops - looking over the sources, it's clear that Foley apparently did e-mail a 16 year old former page in 2005. Should we create a timeline section to clarify what happened when? TheronJ 18:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently pages serve for 6 months, so it's not that crazy that someone could still be 16 and a former page. On the other hand, since the age of consent is 16 in DC, I'm not sure there is any legal distinction between a 16 year old and a 17 year old as far as behavior in the district is concerned.Msalt 18:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest that we remove all reference to age (other than maybe using the term boys instead of men if necessary, or "young" if you have to) from the lede, and moving it to a separate paragraph. In fact, I'll do it in a second. There are a couple of reasons for this.
First, the reporting and the statements of people involved have been confused, probably out of a mix of carelessness and design. For example, the Brian Ross story on Foley's resignation does not say anywhere that the pages were minors, or underage, or any such -- except in the headline, which says "minors". Headlines are often written by different people than the articles, and not infrequently contain inaccuracies like this.
Second, the terms are not that clear. Minor technically is used to refer to someone below the age of majority (18) for voting, taxes, serving in the military, being sued, etc. But the age of consent is often different, and obviously is more to the point here than the pages' ability to vote. It determines whether there was a crime of statutory rape. In Washington DC age of consent is only 16, a fact that was not widely known at all before this scandal. This means that you can legally have sex with a minor (who is 16 or 17), to be precise. But that's certainly not how people will read it.
Third, the age of consent varies from state to state. In California, it is 18 (Foley apparently contact a youth in San Diego, though the latest IM's reported in the Washington Post have him saying "I was good" in SD, ie didn't have sex when he apparently contacted a youth. Given that he was an expert on, and author of, bills about sexual predators, it would make sense that he would know to be careful in different states.). Incidentally, the age of consent in Hawaii is only 14.
Fourth, contact with a minor over the Internet is a murky area covered by federal law with different standards for age. Apparently some of these laws -- including ones crafted and championed by Foley himself -- might cover minors over the age of consent, but I have yet to see a good clear discussion of those laws online or in the press.Msalt 17:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I strongly feel that the section Msalt added was off-topic both in its existence and in its content. Thanks for deleting it Wayfarer, and please lay off the POV-pushing as much as you can, folks. DanB†DanD 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
How is that section off topic? I cut and pasted the text you just put back into the lede. If it's off topic, it certainly doesn't belong in the lede. Please educate me as to what my POV is, then. Do you seriously think that whether the pages were minors or under the age of consent is not relevant to this scandal???Msalt 18:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I think there's enough ambiguity here that we should pull back for a sec. FCYTravis 17:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Until the media gets the ages right, i agree with removing them for now. we could just say that they were pages. dposse 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I created the new section, up near the top but not in the lede, and moved this information there. Please help me provide an overview of the issue. A user named Wayfarer keeps reverting my change and putting age info back into the lede, without comment or justification. I don't have time to watch this (have to get back to work), could use help monitoring it. Thx. Msalt 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


I REALLY disagree with some of the changes here and I think we need to step back and see it instead of relying on media reports. I think that I am getting an understanding of this now, and WHOLESALE deletion of our attempts isn't helping, (taking all references away regarding age, Dposse). We'll get there. We need to ignore the media's casual use of "underage" and "minor" and be accurate.
There are two issues:>>> an under-the-age of consent person in the state that they live in, at the time of the incident<<< and the term of>>>"minor" under US federal law, at the time of the incident.<<<
Someone "under age" has not reached the age of consent for sexual relations in the state in which they reside, and so this varies from state-to-state. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm (That said ,when people are under the age of consent, state laws vary, but ban criminal sexual activity "with a minor" for the most part. That is language that we can't change and people use it everyday) The issue is confusing for readers but if we are specific, they'll get it. We should just state that they are under the age of consent in the state that they live in...
A "minor" is someone, under US federal law, under the age of 18; they cannot vote, and cannot be held to a contract. (They can enter into contracts such as buying a car, or filling out a credit card application, but they are always" voidable" by the minor, due to his/her "not understanding" it under case and statutory law. That's why banks demand a co-signor.)
As for the 16 year old, **at the time** of the email to the boy in Louisiana, it was from Foley to a 16-year-old, considered under the age of consent in the state of Louisiana, and a minor under federal law. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm/. (Foley may have violated more than one law if he is considered to have solicited someone "under age of consent" under Louisiana law, and was a predator of a "minor" under Federal law. That is for the courts to decide. I do not know the language of the Federal law).
As for the other individuals, they may not have been "under the age of consent" in their states **at the time** of the IM's-- BUT they may have been considered "minors" (younger than age 18) under federal jurisdiction and then Foley would still be culpable under federal internet predator laws, if there is language in the federal Internet law which uses "minor" and bans sexual propositioning over the internet...hence, under 18.
The fact that the individuals are now older has nothing to do with it , it's the age of the person at the time the act was committed, and whether they were under the age of consent and a minor, or just a minor.
Why not just state that, "at the time of the email to the boy in Louisiana, that it was from Foley to a 16-year-old former page, considered to be under the age of consent in the state of Louisiana, and a minor under federal law. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm/." (Since ABC stated that he was 16 years old at the time, and Reynolds office did not dispute it, and Foley didn't dispute it, and no one else has disputed it, just say it...)
In the case of the others, state that "the ages and states vary, and that various state laws may apply if the IM's took place when the recipient was under the age of consent in his state, or a minor under federal law." (We can say that this information is not known due to the ongoing investigation.)
My view is that an attorney, if available, can look over my hopefully, simple analysis of the situation. Obviously, Mr. Foley may be tried in state or federal court, depending on which jurisdiction takes precedence. The Louisiana email, I'm guessing, isn't illegal. If Foley had a relationship with someone in another state, IN THAT STATE, under the age of consent, he may be tried there. However, if he was having a sexual internet conversation with an individual and they were under the age of consent, he may or may notl be tried in the state, dependent on any internet legislation in the state. Or, if he was having an internet conversation and they were older than the age of consent, but a minor still, he will be tried in federal court. I don't know which court will take precedence. It all has to pan out. In the final analysis, it may come out that Foley had a sexual relationship with someone under the age of consent in California, Florida, or wherever, and then he's in deep trouble. wayfarers43 13:58, 5 October 2006 (CST)
Some one else needs to clean this up, but I no longer have the time to deal with it, as my changes keep getting changed. What I think is clear other people are deleting in a wholesale manner. The whole thing could go under a section of "legal implications" if someone is willing to research it. wayfarers43 13:58, 5 October 2006 (CST)


In fairness to us all, the laws and the facts are murky at best. It's always good to be concise, but given the emotions and stakes, I think that when an issue like this is so murky, it's good to spell out some of the context and bigger picture. That's what encyclopedias do best. Of course, they usually have more than an hour or two to digest the information, but that's why we all chip in. (also, don't forget to sign your talks) Msalt 18:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
someone , again is doing wholesale changes to my work . I put together a "Controversy, Legal Issues" section to deal with the age of consent, minor , etc. Changes did not correspond to the links. Please lock out this article, it's driving me batty to deal with inaccurate changes or bad grammar wayfarers43 15:54, 5 October 2006 (CST)

Wayfarers43 is right on the legal issues of age, as far as my research goes (IANAL). However, I question whether we should be getting into legalities. He hasn't been charged with a thing. We don't know under which statutes he's being investigated, and neither does the media. A discussion of potential legalities is purely speculative. I think we should simply report the facts, and leave the quotes in from the FBI consultant, that simply say he might be vulnerable under a range of statutes. As for ages, I think we should report and cite them where they are specified. If they are not specific, then we should use exactly the term that the cited report does, whether it be teenager, adolescent, young man, or whatever. As to the aggregate description at the top, we should simply say "some of them teenagers", because we know that for a fact, and it gets the overall point across. Derex 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, labelling these pages by editors is not a good idea. There just aren't enough details about them to generalize about them without being innaccurate or wandering into OR. We should only use terms that appear in direct quotes by sources. Kyaa the Catlord 00:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I agree that "some of them teenagers" accurately describes what is known. It incorrectly creates an impression that many, if not most of the boys involved were 20 or older. The ONLY indication that any of the youths are NOT teenagers is Drudge's unsourced claim that one of them is now 21. All evidence points to a very clear pattern of Foley approaching pages immediately after graduation from the page program, when all of them are 16 or 17. At the very least, "most of them teenagers" is much closer to the evidence provided. In every case where I've seen an age -- aside from the one Drudge report - it is 16, 17 or 18. And the 18 is someone who was approached earlier when he graduated. Msalt 00:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think "including multiple teenagers" would be more accurate, while sufficiently indicative. We don't know how many IM's are out there with twenty year olds, because no one (of us) has made an index of them. And I don't think we should be going there, because it's OR. Derex 01:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

New report

Just to keep people abreast of the developments, another page, Tyson Vivyan, has stepped forward to say that he received sexually suggestive messages from Foley as early as 1997. Ex-Page Says He Got Messages From Foley. "Vivyan, 26, told The Associated Press that Foley began sending him instant messages about a month or two after his nine-month stint as a page ended in June 1997." FCYTravis 18:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For background, the age of consent in Georgia is 16 and Vivyan was over this age. [17] Thus sex with this boy in Georgia or Washington DC (the two locations in the press article) would not have broken any local law. Kyaa the Catlord 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct, but legal and ethical are two different things entirely. FCYTravis 19:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If the majority of this was due to ethics violations, I'd be cool with it, but it isn't. People are wrangling over the legality of his emails and instant messages. They're calling for him to be tried and have already done so in the media. Kyaa the Catlord 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
No-one is claiming that Foley had sex with Vivyan, so the legality or not of such an act in any state is irrelevant and does not need to be brought up. Foley is under investigation by the FBI and Florida state authorities, so it's not just "People" or "the media" but law enforcement agencies and absolutely should be reported. Bondegezou 20:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

Since there don't seem to be any specific points that are in dispute, I'm removing this tag. If there are disputed points, perhaps they could be listed here and we can fix whatever is a problem. Lee Hunter 18:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll start this:

1. Fox News's total of 45 seconds of "oops, we mislabelled Foley as a Democrat." This is not notable. Fifteen seconds of screen text over the span of 24 hours is nothing. It certainly isn't a subliminal attempt to make people think Foley's a democrat, that's sheer speculation. Also the source of this is a blog which quotes another, terribly POV blog as its source. Kyaa the Catlord 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems quite tangential to the article. I've removed that paragraph. --Lee Hunter 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Chats were a prank?

Drudge has the siren up. This article may need a major rewrite soon. - Crockspot 18:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote a meme: "Someone set us up the bomb!" Kyaa the Catlord 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Teh Rove is a genius, eh? Get rid of a RINO congressman, AND make the Democrats look like homophobes in a single stroke. I'll have to slip a twenty into his Fitzmas card this year. Crockspot 19:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you meant AND make the Democrats look like homophobes anti-child molestors? Surely the political kiss of death. Whether the IM's are true or not, the leadership's failure to investigate Foley make them look like the party of pederasty. Derex 00:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Teh Rove? I don't think Comrade Karl had anything to do with this one. There is a great number of Log Cabin Republicans out there as well. And quite a few libertarian gays who find the Right more friendly overall to their views. But this is terribly off topic. Kyaa the Catlord 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I know, I was just looking for an excuse to post "Teh Rove". It makes the moonbats bark in the distance, like Frau Blucher in Young Frankenstein. :) Crockspot 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Should be interesting few hours. --198.185.18.207 19:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, but I'm a bit skeptical. If this were accurate why wouldn't Foley's lawyer have said so earlier? JoshuaZ 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibly because Foley was unaware that he was being played? He may know as much about this breaking story as we do. Time will tell, so I suggest we all take two steps back, and three deep breaths in regards to this article. Crockspot 19:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Savvy lawyering? Foley may have just been handed a libel suit in a gilden envelope. Kyaa the Catlord 19:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
So, we are to believe that Foley resigned because . . .? And all the other messages? And all the warnings to the Republicans over the years? All pranks?! How convenient!. Haiduc 19:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
He was finally freed from the closet? He was freed from the obligation handed to him by the Republican leadership to run when he didn't really want to (see Thomas Reynolds). He didn't have to lie anymore about his orientation? This may be a godsend for the man. Kyaa the Catlord 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Doubtful, Foley is a public figure and this easily meets the criteria necessary for it to not be libel. Furthermore, it is hard to see why he would have resigned if Drudge's claim is accurate unless there were yet other emails or issues. We also don't know the circumstances of the "prank" even if it were a prank, if Foley typed the IMs not knowing that the page in question was joking that would still be pretty serious. But this is getting very offtopic. We should probably wait it out and then modify as necessary. JoshuaZ 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The guy was outted on the National news. You don't think he's going to freak out and isolate himself? Seriously... Kyaa the Catlord 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And don't forget that Foley did not even want to run for reelection. He was basically arm-twisted into running again by the party leadership. He probably wasn't even aware of the "prank" until he read Drudge an hour ago. - Crockspot 19:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying he didn't participate in the chats willingly. I'm saying that maybe he was goaded into some of them by pages who were getting a chuckle out of it. What I am really enjoying is the possibility that this will eventually play out in the press as Foley being run out of Congress by Democrats for being gay. Crockspot 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
To the majority of republicans, being gay is innapropriate. We shouldn't read too much into Foley's lawyer's remarks. Kyaa the Catlord 19:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what everyone thinks of Drudge, he often breaks news before everyone else... so this might be an issue soon. But it might also fall to the wayside without any verification or coverage by anyone else. As of now, I don't think it is a strong enough claim to be included.--Bibliophylax 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a more common sense notion; this conservative republican 21 year old finds to his horror that his IMs with Foley, which are pretty gay sounding, are now known world wide thanks to the wonderful Mr. Drudge. He doesn't want everyone to think he's gay. so he says it's a prank. Of course! Then he woke up and it was all just a dream. A horrible nightmare, where everyone in the world knows he's gay, and his political allies are threatening him with death for being preyed upon...Msalt 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been 0 edits concerning this report on Drudge. It doesn't appear like we're jumping to post information posted to what is basically a blog to the article, we're patiently waiting it to be sourced reliably. I don't need to point out all the other blogs which have been used as sources on the article without this nod to WP policy. Kyaa the Catlord 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely no blogs should be used as sources. They should be ruthlessly rooted out. They are not reliable sources. "Blogs" by major media organizations are an exception, so long as they are pitched as they present news rather than commentary (as with the Washington Monthly for example.) Those aren't really blogs in the traditional sense of the word, they just use the name as a marketing device for real-time news with a more informal presentation style. Derex 00:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
For sources, I still say these should not be used. If they want to be taken seriously and with the same credibility their mainstream news stories are taken, they need to undergo editorial scrutiny. A blog is a blog and we should refuse these ones just like we refuse blogspot, livejournal, myspace and all the billion other blogs out there. Kyaa the Catlord 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The general reason for us to refuse blogs is that A. they generally don't have editorial scrutiny, as you mentioned, but also B. there is often no way to tell who is behind the blog - anyone can fire up BlogSpot in 15 minutes or so. However, a blog operated by a major news organization such as a reputable newspaper or television network can be a reliable source, because we know who's behind the blog (posts are signed with real names) and we can generally assume that there is a level of editorial scrutiny put into their postings. FCYTravis 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Deeeenied. Derex 07:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Legality

Just to clear things up -- it doesn't matter who or how old the recipient is. It could be a prankster or an undercover cop. If Foley's intent was to make sexual advances upon a child, it would be a crime. Or has nobody seen that "To Catch a Predator" show on MSNBC? :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.120.185 (talk • contribs)

Yes, entrapment is justice. Sensationalism is news coverage. War is peace. Kyaa the Catlord 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Crack? Foley is still a sick, sick, sick man... --198.185.18.207 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
So far the only solid evidence of Foley's "sickness" is his admission to being gay. The ethical violations, the legal violations are still simply allegations. There have been no charges brought, no hearings held, no judements issued. Kyaa the Catlord 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I take it you didn't read the IMs he sent? --198.185.18.207 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of discussion on this talk page about what the laws are and whether Foley's actions were crimes. The age of consent laws don't apply because there was no sex, consensual or otherwise (as far as we know at this point). Besides, the scandal really isn't about the legality of his behavior and never was. It doesn't matter if Foley did nothing wrong--that is not why the scandal is notable. Definitely it seems appropriate to talk about the criminal investigation, especially as that develops, but that is just one small part of the scandal. --Bibliophylax 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The (over)reaction to the scandal is also notable. The vast majority of news networks not holding back judgement and making claims that make it appear that there was a crime committed is notable. The fact that because the news networks are doing this, it is being mirrored in this article makes this scrutiny legitimate. Kyaa the Catlord 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Overreaction ? Regardless of whether or not it is criminal, it is an unethical act and looks like it was covered up by the House leadership. If this took place in a school district, church denomination, corporation, etc. in a lot of states it is a legal requirement to report it to the authorities. And in a school district, church denomination, corporation the person would lose their job...these organizations simply cannot be open to civil litigation anymore....it's unethical and is not tolerated in society.Wayfarers43 16:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)11:19 October 6, 2006 CST
Is that opinion citeable to a notable source? I mean Hastert, for example, not Drudge or Limbaugh. Derex 01:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
On that same point, I think the following section is speculation and not particularly relevant to the article until criminal charges are actually filed. If someone thinks it is relevant and isn't speculation or original research, feel free to put it back (I pasted it below in case anyone wants to do that)--Bibliophylax 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

==The Age of Consent, Minors, Solicitation, and Alcohol Use== Press accounts of the scandal have been unclear about precise ages and legal issues concerning the congressional pages. House pages are in their [[Eleventh grade|junior year]] of high school while on stipend with the [[House of Representatives]]; they are all at least 16 years old. The age of consent for sexual relations in Washington DC. is 16 years old. Other states have different ages of consent, such as California (18) and Louisiana (17).<ref>http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm </ref> Age of consent governs whether sexual relations with the person constitutes statutory rape, under the laws of the state or district in which the relations occur. Status as a minor means under 18 years of age, under US federal, case and statutory law. For example, it can be legal to have sex as a 16 year old in Washington DC, or a 17 year old in Louisiana, as long as it is consensual, even though said person is a minor. One email in question which does not contain any explicit content<ref name="emailpdf">{{cite news|url=http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/FoleyEmailExchangeUpdated.pdf |title=Text of the initial emails| publisher=Provided by CREW|accessdate=2006-10-04}}</ref> was from Foley to a former page from Louisiana, 16 years old at the time, and below the [http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm age of consent] in Louisiana and some other jurisdictions. Some of the alleged communications (internet chat messages) that gave rise to the scandal took place some time after the boys had left the page program and were no longer [[minor (law)|minors]]. {{fact}} It should be noted, however, that solicitation of sexual relations, to offer to have sexual relations with someone for money, is illegal in most jurisdictions in the United States, regardless of minor status. In addition, in the District of Columbia, persons under the age of 21 cannot purchase, consume, or possess any alcoholic beverages of any kind. If they are found to be operating a motor vehicle with any measurable amount of alcohol, they will be placed under arrest and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI).

Again enough people. This has ceased to be productive. Any conclusions we draw here will be OR anyways. Let's wait to see what happens. JoshuaZ 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is nicely done. I removed the assertion that "there have been no allegations of sexual activity", because it's undocumented and because I've read such allegations, of cybersex (appearing to discuss mutual orgasms -- the "did you think you'd have that affect on me" IM.)Msalt 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right that cybersex and masturbation could be grouped as "sexual activity." What was meant by that sentence is that there are no allegations of any sexual relations--i.e. no physical, sexual contact between Foley and any pages. Age of consent ONLY applies to physical, sexual contact--so by discussing it, the article implies there are such allegations. I think it is important to avoid such false, negative implications by noting there haven't been any allegations of sexual contact.--Bibliophylax 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. However, I think there are laws on the books criminalizing cybersex with -- and here I hesitate, which is exactly the point -- minors? 16 years olds? I had the impression that these laws are federal and may use 18 as the age, but obviously I don't really know. Wish someone who did could spell it out -- or I had an encyclopedia I could look it up in.  :-) Msalt 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jordan Edmund

We now have a stub on Jordan Edmund one of the pages in question. I had initially deleted it due to WP:BIO concerns but undeleted it when more mainstream sources seemed to have picked up on the name. JoshuaZ 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian (sort of) behind it...

See Special:Contributions/Edmo for more info. Ha. Only two edits though. --198.185.18.207 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

huh? dposse 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That is Jordan Edmund. Just thought it was interesting that he edited Wikipedia... well, only twice, but it will be there forever. :-) --198.185.18.207 21:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Er, what exactly is your evidence? "Edmo" is hardly revealing as a username; and as he only made two edits, substituting "Mormon" with "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", this is hardly compelling proof that it's the same guy, even if both were to Ernest Istook. And was this really necessary? --Saforrest 00:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also interesting, but slightly off-topic: Wikipedians gossiped about his sexuality in 2004 (from the second edit to his article): [18]. The IP is from DC. Inside tip? Also started the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal article. Also, that IP signed as User:Acsenray [19] and edited his user page: [20]. Also added quite a few "sex scandals" to various articles (oops, almost said "pages"). Also, started the Istook article: [21] At least I found it interesting. --198.185.18.207 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Tasks at Hand

I'm updating the cite formats for the references in the article. Most of them use the fancy cite news format, but the splattering of blank refs seems to be causing some problems in the references. Kyaa the Catlord 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, the new cite style sucks (you'll pardon the profanity, but the word choice is appropriate). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It IS a pain in the ass, isn't it? Kyaa the Catlord 00:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Nice to agree on one thing, at least.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

significant development

No one seems to have noticed, but the latest report on ABC/Brian Ross is the first charge I've seen that Foley had an actual, physical, sexual liaison with a former page.[3]

Before this, the closest I've seen is the alleged cybersex while he was on the floor of the House awaiting a vote, and frankly the wording is so elliptical that I'm not sure that's what was really going on there.

I slipped it into the section on Legal Implications, since he specifies that Foley waited until the former page was 18. It seems to fit an emerging pattern that Foley, who was after all an expert on and author of many of these statutes, was scrupulously careful not to violate any laws, but go right up to the edge of them in the spirit of "Barely Legal" magazine.Msalt 00:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What sex? It was all talk. Haiduc 00:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In a blog? Uh, let's wait until this becomes mainstream. dposse 00:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The link you give talks about *cybersex*--NOT an actual, physical sexual liason with a former page. And it actually broke a couple days ago. I removed the line you added to legal implications since it is, as of now, a negative statement unsupported by a verifiable source. There are other conversations where meetings are discussed--but I don't think any even imply sex would happen. Remember, we have to err on the side of caution when inserting potentially negative comments about living people.--Bibliophylax 02:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no. It did not talk about cybersex. It did not break a couple of days ago. It broke today around 4pm PST today (10/5/2006). I will quote you the exact text.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html
"The second page who talked with ABC News, a graduate of the 2000 page class, says Foley actually visited the old page dorm and offered rides to events in his BMW.
"His e-mails developed into sexually explicit conversations, and he asked me for photographs of my erect penis," the former page said.
The page said Foley maintained e-mail contact with him even after he started college and arranged a sexual liaison after the page had turned 18."
Yes I guess it is in a blog. But not any blog, the ABC news blog that has broken 3/4ths of all major developments in this case. In reality, it's the investigative portion of the ABC news website, called a blog because that's the trendy thing right now. I could find you places where print papers have repeated it, if you really like, but I think this is a verifiable source and it's better to go to the source. I'm going to revert your deletion of the text.Msalt 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to revert Msalt's revert, but I do suggest some other editors look at this. My problem's not that it's a blog link (though a blog is a blog is a blog, IMHO, and WP:RS doesn't care for them); my problem is that the content, as it stands, is little more than Brian Ross tossing an allegation out that's completely unsourced on his end. No names, no nothing. Is Brian Ross lying? Probably not. But WP:BLP is stone-cold policy, not a guideline, and it's quite clear that unsourced negative information about living persons is to be left out of articles about them, and that if there's any question about the verifyability at all, the default is to delete it from the article. --Aaron 05:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for not reverting right away, and let's continue to talk. I agree with everything you say EXCEPT the claim that the item is unsourced, which I don't understand. He is publishing a first hand account from a former page, who claims the he himself had a sexual liaison with Foley. ABC News is, I think most would agree, a verifiable source.
It is true that the page is not named. I think it's pretty clear why that is the case, given the lurid nature of the charge (he is admitting to homosexual sex with a man 35 years his elder) and the death threats against the Louisiana page. While a named source is always more verifiable than an unnamed source, I just reread Verifiability and BLP, and I don't see a statement or even implication that anonymous charges held out as reliable by a reliable mainstream news source would be unacceptable.
I'm one of the newer people around here though, so I'm open to education. I would say though that large portions of this article are similarly or less reliably sourced.
Final point -- note that the charge as I wrote it is as much exculpatory as it is accusatory for Foley, both in the statement and where I placed it, and this is by design. It really does appear that Foley was scrupulously careful to avoid breaking the law, and that is actually the point I'm making here.Msalt 06:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've hit my limit for the evening, actually; I'm off to bed, so you don't have to worry about me changing your edits. :) I do agree that ABC News is a reliable source; I'm just saying that since Ross didn't himself offer up any direct evidence to back up his claims (and that we can't in any way verify that he didn't just lose his mind and make up the whole thing himself, as extremely unlikely as that possibility is), some editors may find that a bit iffy from the BLP standpoint until there's independent confirmation somewhere. And believe me, I am in total agreement with you that there's cites in this article that are way worse than this one. Best, --Aaron 06:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Let's call a sleep truce, I was up way too late last night too. I do think that Ross sources this one quite well though -- a long, unedited direct quote from one of the two people who were (allegedly) there. Short of a video, or the same quote with a name attached, or a confession from Foley, it doesn't get much better proven.Msalt 06:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an allegation of physical contact there. I see an allegation of solicitation for oral sex. Am I missing it or have they scrubbed it? Btw, it's not just a blog; it's an official ABC News report, with their name on it. If they put any other label on it, no one would question the citeability. That's also the source that has reported basically all the allegations. If it's not credible very few of the allegations are. Derex 06:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts

Is it really necessary to have so much of the chats included in the article? It seems a little explicit for an encyclopedia. It's not like the texts aren't readily available through an external link. - Crockspot 03:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is. Necessary that is. It's really very little, considering. But, I'll give you credit for being a Republican who cares about teh children. Derex 04:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Come on, Derex. You've been around long enough to know that's WP:NPA material. This mess is contentious enough as it is.--Aaron 05:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a personal attack there, unless Crockspot's last name is Hastert. But I was bad further up, so your point is well taken. Derex 06:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh heh. Just trying to keep things down to a low boil. Here, have a cookie. Be a good boy. I'm going to bed. (On second thought, I'm not sure I want to type the word "boy" anywhere near this article. Just have the cookie as a responsible citizen of the world, or something. --Aaron 06:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Mmmmm

I think it needs to be made clear exactly what is meant by "age of consent", if that phrase is going to be used. What it means will depend on the jurisdiction. An age of consent of 16 could mean they can have sex, but only with those between 16 and 18. The age of consent is different from the age at which statutory rape laws no longer apply. What precisely is meant in this article? - Matthew238 05:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed, in the section Controversy, Legal Issues. (I plan to change it to Legal issues, as every scandal is controversy by definition.) If you think it's unclear, well have at it.Msalt 05:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What makes this a bigger legal mess is that local ages of consent are irrelevant once you bring teh Interwebs into it. Federal law prohibits the use of any sort of electronic communication to solicit sex from anyone under 18. It wouldn't matter if Foley was in one room in the Capitol building, the page in the next room over, and the age of consent in DC was six. Once they started using AOL Instant Messenger to IM each other, those communications were being routed through Virginia (at least I think AOL's servers are still mostly in Virginia), which means the data was crossing state lines, which means the Commerce Clause kicks in, which means the feds can go after you regardless. --Aaron 06:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. If you can cite the law and write that up concisely, please pop it into the Legal Issues section of this page. I think that is important and classically encyclopedic information.Msalt 06:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, except for the one during the vote, we have no idea that these conversations or possible contacts took place in DC. Plenty of top officials live in Virginia or Maryland; I know this personally. Foley may well have also. Derex 06:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The legal issues mention the age of consent, but, I don't know, the age of consent for DC could be 16, yet a 50-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old could still be statutory rape - statutory rape could mean anyone over 18 having sex with anyone under 18, regardless of the age of consent, which in itself simply refers to the age which the minor will no longer be prosecuted eg. two 15-year-olds having sex might be illegal - the two could be sent to juvy or something. A 17 y.o. with a 16 y.o. is perfectly legal. BUT, a 19 y.o. with a 17 y.o. is statutory rape on the 19 y.o's part. - Matthew238 09:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No one has alleged any sexual contact in DC, or anywhere else for that matter. This consent business is tangential, speculative, and unfairly suggestive of a particular crime. I strongly feel it should not be included. Derex 09:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Drudge update

"There is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way" - per the lawyer for Jordan Edmund. FCYTravis 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A family response

Surely, we don't need to quote the entire letter? We don't quote Hastert's entire press release, or Pelosi's resolution for an investigation. A brief summary and a link would do nicely. Derex 07:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I summarized it. Derex 08:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Instant Messages

Hey how were the instant messages authenticated by ABC? does any one know? How can be sure they were not fabricated? Was this done using microsoft messenger? or some other IRC program? was it done from a congress IP address? How do we know?

I doubt they have been, or can be, authenticated beyond personal affidavits. We must therefore be careful about asserting it as fact. It's possible that AOL keeps logs of IP addresses involved in IM's, but I doubt they would release those without subpoena.
Nonetheless, it is suggestive that at least 5 pages have come forward about explicit IM's, at least 3 about suggestive emails, and several more have stated that his behavior in DC was highly suspicious and gossiped about. Moreover, the sources seem predominantly Republican. He also has not issued a denial of these very public charges.
But no, I don't think we can be sure they aren't fabricated. I was very concerned about that possibility when it was only one set of IM's. I'm not any more. Derex 09:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/09/reynolds_knew_b.php
  2. ^ http://www.lewin.com/NR/rdonlyres/e3d7lvkcstaiyubdifbbbr7azimi4of52xm5bld7kppnaewt3cmjv6oc4ox4oyrp7772tvp6qyhlrg/3068.pdf
  3. ^ http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Foley_scandal/Archive_2&oldid=1155096957"