Talk:Teapot Dome scandal

Evident

From the article:

Finally, as the investigation was winding down and preparing to declare Fall innocent, Walsh uncovered one piece of evidence Fall had forgotten to cover up. The scandal exploded, with a resounding gasp from the public. Walsh became a national hero and figurehead for the fight against government corruption.

So, what exactly was the "one piece of evidence"? How are we to believe that the entire case turned on a singular bit of unknown evidence? 170.35.208.21 23:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Brittany ROX

• From the article, quote: "Doheny's loan to Fall in November of 1921, in the amount of $100,000" Personal loans from government contractors (or those having governmental contracts with the government as Doheny did) was and is, illegal (because its a kickback, pro quid). In this case, the "evidence" was the loan, and the subsequent fact pattern of the loan, and how the loan was unreported to the government. So I believe that the statement is figuative, not literal. Stude62 22:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Compare the page to http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Investigates_the_Teapot_Dome_Scandal.htm. There were sufficient similarities that when I read the page I just linked, I thought I must have visited it before, until I figured out that I HAD visited it before -- on wikipedia. However, there does seem to be some original information, so I didn't tag it for speedy deletion.

71.126.150.19 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Background section contains this sentence "The U.S Navy would use the land as a training area for Jassou Sou education." What is Jassou Sou, and would the navy have anything to do with it?

I agree that this page has a slight air of plagarism. I did not know that Wikipedia articles usually asked questions of its readers.... -Shini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.213.67 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of the Senate page finds more than a mild odor of plagiarism here.FeatherPluma (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a problem with it being copied? Plagiarism is generally frowned upon, but if it's on a .gov site it's technically in the public domain right? Or are we accusing the Senate site of plagiarising wikipedia?Danbert8 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Map

This map does not show the longitude and latitude lines, or at least I cannot figure out how.

The East Teapot Dome oil field is located at 43°17′19″N, 106°10′22″W, elevation 5,280 ft., in Natrona County, Wyoming. See the United States Geological Survey National Map Viewer for detailed information.

How do we find the actual location?

If you cannot find the location with coordinates that are standardized, I know of no way to guide you to them, save walking you there, holding your hand. I suggest you learn what longitude and latitude measurements mean and then learn how to read a map. The above coordinates are sufficient for anyone who understands such things, which is very, very basic knowledge, to locate that position on the planet. I'm not being obnoxious or condescending, but just being short in responding to ignorance. The cure to ignorance is LEARNING. Need help with that, shoot me a message on my talk page and I'll help you along, but won't do your homework for you, only guide you. You'll be proficient in no time.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusing section

What's this supposed to say?

"Elk Hills and Buena Vista Hills in Kern County, California, and Teapot Dome in Natrona County, Wyoming, located about fifty miles north of Casper, Wyoming, a formation of eroded sandstone looms up out of the bare sagebrush flats- a geologic fault called Teapot Rock. This landmark overlooks the tract of land containing a United States Naval Oil Reserve; men in the oil business have associated the rock and pool, naming the reserve Teapot Dome."

--AW (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references too trivial to mention

The first item listed, There will be Blood, does not even mention Teapot Dome, only the very simple (not "complicated") issue of drainage. This item does not belong in the article. The second item is a very offhand mention in a Simpson's episode, entirely too trivial to mention. Plazak (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

I don't believe commenting on Harding's administration has any real relevance to the article, since that is said specifically on the page about Warren G. Harding (President). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.4.56 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As it is (or was, when I was in school until 1980) recorded in history texts as critical of Harding's leadership of the US during his presidency, I'd consider it worthy of note. Not to mention the term SCANDAL (caps were intended) in papers of the time.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

References, etc.

40 years ago, in March 1969 I wrote a paper for a college economics class RE the Teapot Dome scandal. I did a bunch of primary research -- located magazine articles, geological studies, government reports, etc etc -- as well as secondary (i.e. the published books). I used a 35 mm camera to take B&W photos from journals including political cartoons etc, and then I developed them (photocopiers were just appearing back then). Some are absolutely fascinating including photos from the Oil Weekly and Literary Digest of the Teapot Dome itself. I'll take a digital shot of these and if they're good enough put into the article, if no one has objections. I just came back from Casper about 30 miles south but have never seen "the teapot". Next time I'm out there I'll get a real photo.

While in the Casper Library I saw another book circa 1972 with about 1 zillion photos. But I neglected to find the author and publisher. I'll research . . .. The article, in a quick read, sounds pretty accurate; the scandal was horrible and virtually wiped out Casper financially (I can speak for my grandfather -- it wiped out (more accurately, it facilitated the wipeout of) his bakery). Before I edit the article I will need to research the topic again. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

File:IMG 2511 edited-1 teapot dome Oil Weekly.jpg

[description goes here]

File:IMG 2512 edited-1 Teapot Dome Literary Digest.jpg

[description goes here]

Apparently there are copyright issues with respect to the photos. So if they're gone, that's why. If I cannot resolve the copyright issues I will either wait until next year to re-insert them (when the copyrights expire), plus I have some other photos as well (all of the stuff I have is from 1924, a rather interesting fact in itself). As noted above, when I can get to Casper maybe I can get close enough to take a photo of the teapot. But I find the old photos more fun . . . Bill Wvbailey (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There were copyright issues, so the photos had to go. But now they're out of copyright. There's one in particular that shows the encampment/town inside the dome. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Historic card of Teapot

Actually I kind of liked the historic card, too. It would have been a shot taken toward the south. It looks to me like the spout of the teapot has gone away. The other interesting thing is I've seen an aerial shot (it's on the internet, somewhere) that shows the "dome" to be an oval depression within a ring of mountains -- a spectacular shot. My wife and I actually went up there but missed the folks who work there by about 5 minutes -- they were driving out as we were driving in -- you can go some distance before they want you to turn around. Of course I didn't take any pictures of the "dome region" itself. According to the editor of the journal that has evolved from the old "Oil Weekly" this is a testing station for new drilling methods. There were pumping rigs all over the place. Maybe on a subsequent trip . . . Bill Wvbailey (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I (re?)added what I think to be the historic card, seeing as copyright expired on it. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Retroactive "gate" suffix?

Has anyone ever bothered to call the scandal anything like "Teapotdomegate"? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. The scandal LONG predated Watergate and has been largely forgotten. Were it to occur today, it most certainly WOULD be called that. Personal opinion warning follows: Even money, the next president would pardon the prior president, even if no charges were filed. (Sorry, I have personal memories of Watergate and Nixon's pardon.)Wzrd1 (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the article mentions Stranded Oil Resources. Should that not be STANDARD Oil Resources?2601:3C4:201:3930:8C33:F05D:3DC0:8E0C (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, "Stranded" is correct. I don't think there are any Standard Oil companies any more. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Refs needed

I have restored a refimprove section tag and a cn tag. The refimprove is still needed, for the second and third paragraphs of this section. The cn tag was removed with the summary "The murder suspicion is adequately described and referenced in Albert Fall's own page". That may be true, but we need a citation here, on this page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Title

Consider this:

• Teapot Dome scandal ← the title of this article (which is the name of the event)
• Teapot Dome Scandal ← the title of this event as written in the lead paragraph

So which one is the correct capitalization? See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teapot_Dome_Scandal&redirect=no

Spunionztastic

(talk) 05:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The article title is correct, as it's not a proper noun. The opening sentence should probably be changed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of the historical Tea Pot Dome scandal to Ryan Zinke

Well sourced, and should not be censored. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of Tea Pot Dome scandal and Coolidge presidency Harding presidency ; Ryan Zinke and Trump presidency

This should be included in this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment to 7&6=thirteen: Why are you saying "Teapot Dome scandal and Coolidge presidency"? Are you under the impression that the Teapot Dome scandal was something that happened during the Coolidge presidency? Wrong. It was during the Warren Harding administration.

Comment to anyone else who edits this article: You should know that 7&6 has repeatedly tried to insert this comparison into the Ryan Zinke article, but has been outvoted and his sources discredited on the talk page. I am not going to remove it from here - I am a newcomer to this page and won't presume - but I encourage any of the regulars here to see the discussion at Talk:Ryan Zinke for the back story to this edit. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I misspoke. Corrected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

See the Ryan Zinke talk page for my rationale for removing this content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The baker's dozen of sources are not "discredited." Ipse dixit? If this is to be discussed, it should be done on this page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

In thinking it over, I have decided that this article actually IS the correct place for this information - the use of the Teapot Dome scandal as a benchmark or comparison with later scandals - to be included. So I have reorganized this section to put the sentences in a more logical order, and to match the references to the material they support. Also to delete a couple of references from questionable sources - which leaves more than enough to establish the point. (Noting that the sources were nowhere near strong enough to justify use in Zinke's biographical article, but they are more than sufficient to establish the significance of Teapot Dome as a benchmark for subsequent scandals.) -- MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the text, as it currently stands. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The revisions put the comparison in context.Oblivy (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

How insane is it that this was considered the worst political scandal in history before Watergate? Donald Trump did 10 things worse than this, usually right out in the open, every day of his presidency. It's mind-boggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.200.32 (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Falls sentence not specified in article?

The article says "Fall became the first presidential cabinet member to go to prison; no one was convicted of paying the bribes." and later on " Sinclair served six months in jail on a charge of jury tampering." and in a text under a picture "Albert B. Fall was the first U.S. cabinet official sentenced to prison.".
But nowhere does it say what Falls was actually sentenced for and how much time in prison he was sentenced for. I hope someone with the knowledge of this will add this info. 185.213.154.167 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2019

Change During the Trump administration news outlets compared alleged misconduct by members of the...

to

During the Trump administration, news outlets compared alleged misconduct by members of the...

Reason:Grammar 173.11.202.153 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Mis-spelling

In the posting it says "Stranded" - I believe it should be "Standard" 173.72.39.143 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)