Talk:Gary Condit

Is the South Park reference needed?

Is the South Park reference needed? This article is fairly short and should an article about a controversial congressman need to contain a comment like this? --- Yetiwriter

It's directly related to the controversy. Condit probably wouldn't even warrant a page if it wasn't for the Chandra Levy incident. South Park captures a contemporary perspective that is relevant to the American cultural view of current events. The comment is a link so this paragraph captures a perspective for posterity.

Wikipedia is not a perspective of "American cultural view of current events" for posterity. A U.S. Congressman who serves more than decade in congress absolutely warrants a biography, replete with details (including those related to any scandals). With or without the Chandra Levy incident (and subsequent mockery on an American cartoon show), Gary Condit warrants a page here. The reference to South Park is acceptable as trivia. But Wikipedia does itself a grave disservice if it becomes a clearinghouse for pop culture references at the expense of historical information. Articles are better when fleshed-out with details relevant to the subject, rather than a string of trivial pop culture references. 66.17.118.207 20:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

" with then suspected murderers John and Patsy Ramsey, as well as O.J. Simpson" (empasis added) And they're not suspected now?

No, they were fully cleared by the Boulder DA in July 2008.--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What about Barry Colvert?

Why does the main article omit references to the polygraph examinations privately administered by retired FBI consultant Barry Colvert? It took hours to perform the polygraph test, and even though it seemed to serve his purposes well enough (and was used to apparently good effect by Condit as a public relations ploy), it was never actually admitted to evidence.

Barry Colvert was more than an FBI consultant. He was also an instructor in a class that trained people to administer polygraph examinations professionally, especially in terms of uncovering individuals unsuited for work in classified operations.

How did Barry Colvert become an FBI consultant? What were his qualifications? Under what circumstances did he choose to retire?

I'm under the impression that polygraph examinations are inadmissible in court. Rricci428 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Post Politics

Frankly the post politics section stinks, it's 90% about the finding of chandra levy and Ingmar guandique, and very little about condit.

I added a minor chunk about the troubles he has had running a ice cream franchise.

--Patbahn (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting Police statements?

If I recall correctly, this became Condit's Albatross because he initially gave police conflicting stories about his relationship with Levy. It allegedely took him awhile to admit to police that he had a relationship with her and this is why the police latched on to him as a suspect. Have the police depositions ever been made public? Tbeatty 18:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Guilty or not?

So what's the deal here? Did Condit kill her or not? --StevenL 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody except him knows for sure. Maybe we never will know. Grandmasterka 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. --StevenL 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud, he was cleared a LONG time ago. Condit had NO involvement in Levy's disappearance and murder. This is the problem with sites like Wikipedia; idiotic speculation becomes "fact."--Susan Nunes 14 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.62.9 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary was never cleared. There was a lack of evidence or other information to make formal charges against him. By the same token there was never enough in the way of evidence to say he didn't do it (compounded by his denials and lies around the affair). The case is a cold case, still unsolved. And he remains a person of interest in the case should anything ever turn up to open it again. --WKE235 (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yoo Hoo: "In February 2009, media outlets reported that Washington police were planning to arrest Ingmar Guandique, a prison inmate who had confessed to two other attacks on women in Rock Creek Park." The government allegedly had the DNA goods this time, instead of merely an inflamed press corps. As a "mea culpa", perhaps the press that drove him form office and the voters who voted against him would like to put Condit back in office to continue his distinguished political career? Nah, never going to happen.

I for one would really like to see the press start doing actual journalism again rather than trying to tear down the reputation of anyone unfortunate enough to be in the public eye. Merely making up libel and calling it journalism, as has been the norm since 1972 or so, does not make it "journalism". Lowellt (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Update, Ingmar Duandique was convicted of Chandra Levey's murder. would this article be useful in the main article? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112404515.html?hpid=opinionsbox1--Patbahn (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Propose merging in Anne Marie Smith

Hi, I've proposed merging the article on Anne Marie Smith into this article, because she's really not notable enough on her own to warrent a whole article, and her only relevance is to Gary Condit's life. --JennyRad 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's necessary. --Paulc1001 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote to merge. She is completely unknown beyond her relationship with Condit, and even then, her notoriety is tenuous. CagedRage 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't, The Smith article adds nothing of value. Chris.read

Image copyright problem with File:Chandra Levy.jpg

The image File:Chandra Levy.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gang of Five were blue dog democrats?

the present Blue Dog Democrat article says they are in U.S. Congress, and makes no mention of any outside of Congress. Clarification is needed.75.45.122.222 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

i think the article has been skillfully slanted

against both Condit and Calderon. (I removed some blatant stuff about Calderon.) Slanted articles hurt wikipedia's credibility and can hurt living people.Let's try to be civilized.-Richard L. Peterson75.45.122.222 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Brothers

This section just isn't fair. The various misdeeds they have been doing are independent, and it seems very much like guilt by association. I do not think there is any justification for including the section, and I have removed it per WP:BLP do no harm. Possibly a much abbreviated version could be restored, but not the entire thing. Ditto for the section about his son and daughter. Inclusion of this sort of material does make the article slanted--at their expense. One does not talk about the crimes of someone's relatives in an article like this unless one is trying to write as destructive a bio as possible. I am prepared to block anyone who restores these sections in anything like the present form without prior consensus at an admin board like BLPN. I take a rather narrow view of BLP, but when it does apply, I take it seriously. FWIW, I couldn't otherwise care less about this topic one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gary Condit

Hello. I have to quarrel with the language you reinserted, which was the issue with me all along.

"He was later found to have no involvement, but his exoneration was too late to save his career and he was defeated for renomination to his House seat in the 2002 Democratic primary."

The problem with this is that the statement contains the assumption that he could have saved his career had Guandique been identified and arrested prior to March 2002, which seems unwarranted. The source used for his defeat by the article is Evelyn Nieves' "Condit Loses House Race to Former Aide," which says the damage Condit suffered in the polls was because of his "ducking questions over his involvement with 24-year-old Chandra Ann Levy." In another place Nieves writes: "Although Washington police repeatedly said Mr. Condit was not a suspect in Ms. Levy's disappearance, his refusal to discuss the nature of his relationship with her caused voters to lose trust in him." In other words, it's the obstruction and lack of cooperation that killed his career, not some false belief he was a murderer, which Nieves does not mention and the DC police were already scotching at that time.

I believe that my edit, which removed speculation about whether his career could have been saved if this or that happened, is more justifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.205.14.18 (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 63.205.14.18. I noticed your edit removed the bit about exoneration being too late to save his career by replacing it with text about Condit obstructing investigation and lying to investigators, which struck me as a POV shift in the lede in the article, so I attempted to reform that by keeping both perspectives. I took a look at the Evelyn Nieves article you referenced and saw it contains the quotes you provided above, although reading it in full context it doesn't say he lost his career because of obstruction, it says instead that his opponent garnered support over Condit becoming tabloid fodder for ducking questions about Levy, and that Condit was also hurt in the election by the district having been redrawn. Perspectives will vary. In any event, I think a simple solution is to just flip two of the sentences and adjust the part about exoneration to avoid making inferences. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote in question

There's a quote in the article "Condit's lawyer Bert Fields said, "It's a complete vindication but that comes a little late. Who gives him his career back?" that's attributed to an article. However, the article doesn't have that quote in it. What can be done? Rricci428 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary Condit. 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/20070607150851/http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1602/Richardson/Richardson.html to http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1602/Richardson/Richardson.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gary Condit. 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/20060318222326/http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/07/14/sacramento/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/07/14/sacramento/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211073456/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/07/condit.missing.intern/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/07/condit.missing.intern/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009213948/http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/23618 to http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/23618
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080712014514/http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/08/condit.dunne.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/08/condit.dunne.ap/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704114110/http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12498935p-13215088c.html to http://www.modbee.com/local/story/12498935p-13215088c.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Phoenix Instutute

Although Condit may have folded the Phoenix Institute in Arizona, he appears to have revived it in California. Here's an entry from corporationwiki.com:

Phoenix Institute of Desert Agriculture Overview Phoenix Institute of Desert Agriculture filed as a Articles of Incorporation in the State of California on Thursday, July 13, 2017 and is approximately one year old, as recorded in documents filed with California Secretary of State. Oldsmobile (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Gary condit

Has Gary Condit ever thought of running again? 184.155.159.78 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)