Talk:1983 congressional page sex scandal

Sources

Does anybody have a source for the name of the seventeen y/o page with Gerry Studds? Haiduc 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Needs references

Needs fact check and references for entire article. Unref tag added. --FloNight 10:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you were more specific. All this stuff is very public info. Just Google it. Haiduc 04:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gingrich affair

What does the Gingrich affair have to do with a House page scandal? Gingrich had an affair with a consenting adult. The problem with the page scandal was that the Conngressmen involved had an affair with minors. I'm removing the reference to the Gingrich affair, since it seems superflous. MKil 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)MKil

Foley

Why is there a paragraph on Mark Foley when there is already a whole article on this Mark Foley's scandal? — Linnwood 18:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that 99% of people visiting this page, as well as 1/2 of the sources used in this article are because of its comparison to the Mark Foley case. Obviously the fact that these two scandals have been popularly compared and have many similarities is relevant. Nonetheless, if people would prefer the "See Also" I think that should do fine.--Bibliophylax 21:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you said. I feel that a "See Also" works better, as there surely will be a lengthy article Mark Foley scandal. Also, I've put the link to 2006 Congressional page sex scandal, which is a redirect to Mark Foley scandal, so that the link is clear how the two are related. — Linnwood 00:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wikilink so that while it appears EXACTLY the same to the user, it actually pointing DIRECTLY to the article. John Broughton | Talk 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and agree that the current link is the best. — Linnwood 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a mischaracterization to call the Mark Foley scandal a "sex scandal" and could potentially be libelous. Remember, we have to follow the rules to avoid such things when talking about Living persons. The Wikipedia style manual specifically says to add a description when the relevance of the link isn't immediately obvious from the article's title. I've changed the wikilink to "Mark Foley scandal" so that it accurately describes the article it links to, meets NPOV standards, and doesn't endanger Wikipedia with libel. I see no justification for changing it to "sex scandal" other than an effort to push a POV, so please do not change it back.--Bibliophylax 15:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing "libelous" about calling something what it is. It is indeed a sex scandal. More so, the scandal may move beyond Mark Foley. So please do not change it back. — Linnwood 18:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The scandal does not involve any sex at this point, so calling it a sex scandal is disingenous. After a well-populated debate, the Wikipedia community has settled on 'Mark Foley scandal' as the best description and has made that the article title. Your alternative, in suggesting Foley had sex with underage boys, could be libelous. Since there is no compelling reason to call it a "sex scandal, it's best to err on the side of caution (avoiding libel), neutrality (avoiding loaded words) and simplicity (keeping the name of the article). I think the current "see also" description best keeps a NPOV. It's also the standard protocol on Wikipedia to use the article name, not a piped link. I don't see a compelling reason to ignore the consensus and risk libel, and unless you present one the accurate title and description should remain.--Bibliophylax 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The newly-linked TIME magazine article contradicts "Studds, however, stood by the facts of the case and refused to apologize for his behavior." The article describes Studds's speech thusly:

Last week, in an extraordinary speech on the House floor, he confirmed unapologetically what had long been rumored—that he was a homosexual—and granted that he had made "a very serious error in judgment" in sleeping with the page.

Studds, who is unmarried, said only that he was wrong to have had sex with a congressional subordinate, no matter what the page's age or sex. "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life," Studds told his rapt colleagues. "But these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as am I, both an elected public official and gay."

Studds page was of consenting age

I think this should be included in the article if anyone can find a decent reference to that fact. Not condoning what Studds did but I have heard that in fact the boy was of the age of consent.

Contradictory reports

As can now be seen in the article, two newspaper articles 1983 from respectable sources (AP and NYT) give different data about how Crane acted following the conviction. Should the article be left as is or how should it be changed?

Also, I wonder whether it might be too dense as is or whether we should include parallel data about Studds (He sat, grimly, in his seat in the front row, according to the NYT article). Or perhaps the statement above from the Time article where Studds clarified that the reason he felt he made a serious error in judgement was not because the page was 17 years old but because the page was a congressional subordinate.

If anyone has any opinions about these matters, I'd love to hear them or, better yet, simply see them in the article. Thorn 08:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.house.gov/ethics/Historical_Chart_Final_Version.htm
  • In Edward J. Patten on 2011-03-18 00:10:53, 404 Not Found
  • In 1983 congressional page sex scandal on 2011-05-25 05:07:37, 404 Not Found
  • In 1983 congressional page sex scandal on 2011-06-07 03:38:39, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.webcitation.org/5kkmhxAsH)
  • In 1983 congressional page sex scandal on 2011-05-25 05:07:35, 404 Not Found
  • In 1983 congressional page sex scandal on 2011-06-07 03:38:48, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1983 congressional page sex scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329162353/http://www.house.gov/ethics/Historical_Chart_Final_Version.htm to http://www.house.gov/ethics/Historical_Chart_Final_Version.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101400414.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)