- Mark Foley scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
- Sub article Responses to Mark Foley scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) included.
As there seem to be threats of desysopping should I overturn this without a DRV then I guess I best file one (even though the article hasn't even been deleted). This was redirected because of BLP concerns, but I honestly fail to see them. I believe the main reason for the redirect was because of the word "scandal" in the title - that isn't a valid reason. All the information was well sourced and there was no reason whatsoever to delete the contents of the article, especially without discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:AN#Sigh.... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted under its current title, support a neutrally worded title. Seriously, so many problems with the content and you can't see one? Sceptre (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's seriously not an excuse to delete the whole article. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP ring a bell? Do no harm, and this wasn't. Sceptre (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the point I'm making. Foley might mention it himself. The point is, the article was negative, not the subject. Sceptre (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sceptre, please slow down, calm down, and provide coherent arguments. Comments like "WP:BLP ring a bell?" and "Ding ding ding ding" (at AN) are not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn redirect. There were BLP problems, but we don't delete in such cases. We remove negative unsourced material. As noted by Dragons flight, this article had been worked on a great deal by many people, had over 100 references, and generally didn't deserve to be completely wiped. Having the word "scandal" in the title is not a problem, and at risk of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS I cite every other article we have with that word in the title. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral title and model article is available at 1983 congressional page sex scandal. Good length, well sourced, good historical distance. Let's aim to do the same at 2006 congressional page sex scandal. This would have been obvious if people had taken the time to STOP AND THINK. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Modelling on the 1983 scandal is a good idea. At any rate, the page should not be three times as long as Monicagate and the resulting impeachment hearing combined. We should make a clean slate and use the information from Mark Foley, then merge relevant data so we get a page that's about 15kb, 25 tops. Sceptre (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. But will you help out, or will you carry on and stub other problematic articles at a faster rate than people can keep up with you? Guy did this the other day at Ian Blair. I tried to initiate a rewrite here, but people lost interest. At the moment, the only change has been a list of Ian Blair's titles and positions. Will the same thing happen here? Will people sit on the sidelines and watch others do the work? Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep a watch on the article. And with the Jean Charles case, the proposed rewrite could be shortened even more to a paragraph or two. But what I must stress is that the pre-scorch version should be visible as little as possible from now on. Sceptre (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If one were to peruse the article history, it would be noted that it was originally titled Congressional page sex scandal (2006) (see afd for it), presumably after the 1983 one, but it was later changed to be Mark Foley-centric. For some people, this is both maddening and...folly? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do note that the prior page scandal involved more than one Congressman, and was ultimately about how the page program was managed. This one took place largely outside the page program and was about how the knowledge of Foley's activities was handled. Also note that there was discussion as to whether this even fit the definition of "sex scandal", given there was little evidence of actual sex (again, unlike the 1983 edition). --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per DHMO and, well, most everyone at Wikipedia:AN#Sigh.... We might debate theoretically whether an article's being situated at a BLP-violative title but being otherwise unproblematic is understood by the community providing a sufficient basis for BLP summary deletion, but that broader theoretical debate need not to happen here, where it seems eminently clear that, whatever may have been the good faith of Cobalt and Sceptre, the argument they advance (viz., that the title itself egregiously contravenes BLP) does not command the support of the community. On the upside, summary BLP deletions (or protected redirections, I suppose) of this sort, citing the Bdj RfAr and suggesting that DRV is the proper venue to seek to overturn those deletions, are increasingly seen as inappropriate except in extreme cases, and it may be that the community will soon, as I advocated it do in the wake of the Bdj RfAr, make explicit in BLP that certain principles of that RfAr should not be understood as mandated by or consistent with policy, in order that we address a bit of well-intentioned ArbCom overreach. Joe 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn The argument that this is an irredeemable BLP violation doesn't withstand serious analysis. As someone who edited this article several times, the article was very well sourced. Agree with Ryan ... the claim that an article with the title "scandal" in it is inappropriate isn't even remotely convincing. Blueboy96 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. WP:BOLD perhaps taken a wee bit too far, here, and I'm only saying that because we don't seem to have an WP:OMGWTF?!?! available. HUGE story, covered worldwide, with massive numbers of facets and massive numbers of references to back them up - and it's summarily redirected and protected with no discussion whatsoever? Good heavens. Overturn immediately. Rename if necessary. Just... wow. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, per WP:OMGWTF?!?!. WP:BLP does not mean "Never, ever mention something negative about someone somewhere". A new title for the article sounds fine, but then again.. it was a scandal, right? --Conti|✉ 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Scandal" is a word to avoid. Sceptre (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Wikipedia:Words to avoid is a guideline. It's not policy. You don't get desysopped for not following it. Anyhow, the guideline proposes to use "controversy" instead, which is rather fine by me. The article can still mention that countless sources call it a scandal, of course. --Conti|✉ 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the point. WTA outlines that use of the word "scandal" constitutes, except in rare cases, a NPOV (thus possible BLP) vio. Thus making the article eligible under RFAR/BDJ. Sceptre (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By your reasoning, that would also make the redirect again WP:BLP. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's leniency for redirects: see Dalmatian Kristallnacht, which is given as an example in WP:REDIR. Sceptre (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, quoting the relevant section: "The term 'scandal' should not be used at all in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources ... " This was referred to as a scandal by highly reputable sources--Time, the Washington Post, Newsweek, the New York Times, etc. Blueboy96 01:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible overturn. This almost appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the BLP policy by showing its potential for egregious and anti-encyclopedic misuse. The barely veiled threat to have Ryan Postlethwaite blocked is so far out of bounds I'm left nearly speechless. Mark Foley was an elected member of the United States Congress. He is the very definition of a public figure, imbued with the highest trust a Democracy and free society can bestow upon a human. He's not some fat Chinese kid that badlydrawnjeff read about once on the Internet. He had influence over a budget of trillions, the wallets of billions, and the lives of hundreds of thousands. He was involved in a scandal -- an abuse of a free society's trust -- that forced his resignation from office. We are not a free society, and most certainly not an encyclopedia at all, if we allow the abuses of the most powerful men on the planet to go disguised. If there is a better title than Scandal, so be it. But you do realize, literally, that it is a Congressman who sits two tragedies away from the Presidency of the United States. --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I was thinking the same thing: namely that Sceptre may have inadvertently shot BLP in the foot, so to speak. I would suggest, in order to avoid a community backlash against BLP work, that BLP regulars pick their stance on this issue carefully (BLP still has its grey areas, just like any policy), and that BLP regulars also help to write the balanced BLP compliant article that is needed here, and not leave others to do that work. Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not particularly relevant here, but it should be noted that it is the Speaker of the House who is two tragedies/blessings/heartbeats away from the Oval Office; Foley was a rank-and-file Representative. Joe 03:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully, Joe, you've encountered me enough on Wikipedia to know I'm an educated person. Indeed a Congressman (well, at the moment a woman) and not all 435 of them simultaneously, are two T-bone steaks away from The Football; I don't believe my comment could be read to suggest otherwise :) My point is simply that a seat in the House is not some trivial office in the United States (the Speaker is selected by peers, not voters) and that this protected redirect is itself a trivial skip away from disallowing an article on the Watergate scandal until April 22, 1994. --JayHenry (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, a key aspect of l'affaire Foley was in fact the culpability of the then-Speaker, Dennis Hastert, whose career took a sudden nose-dive by having taken insufficient action against a loyal party trooper. It wasn't just about Foley (who may only have been inappropriate), it was about the House Page Committee's handling of the complaints they received, which were communicated to senior Congressman in the then-majority party. (It really was the exact opposite of how sexual harassment complaints in any organization are optimally handled.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate overturn and discuss the title on the talk page. There was very clear consensus at The Admin noticeboard that the deletion was wrong, and that should be just as good as redoing it here. Frankly, this could have been best cleared up by Sceptre reverting his deletion when it was challenged. given the events, I dont see how the title is the least violating BLP, but perhaps it is somewhat redundant with the title on the main article & should be reworded to Mark Foley sexual abuse scandal or something descriptive of that nature. DGG (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn. Enough to bring me out of retirement. This is a disgusting abuse of editorial privilege. Absolutely, ridiculously, unimaginally ridiculous. I would recommend desysop for any admin which protected this redirect. Unconscionable. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. If Foley wasn't brought down by a "scandal", what, did he just submit his resignation out of the blue? If there are objections to the title then bring them up on the Talk page, but there is surely no question that this was a scandal. Or did BLP rewrite the dictionary, too? --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold a proper discussion. "I'm right, you're wrong, I've deleted it" isn't the correct way to deal with POV problems in an article. --Carnildo (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn redirect and restore article Disucss the title on the talk page don't just delete a well sourced article. As others have said this is the sort of action that brings BLP into disrepute. Davewild (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate overturn per DGG. Clearly a case where consensus was apparent but action was taken against that very rule that is in place to keep Wikipedia going. Further discussion is urgently needed to overturn this discussion, maybe even for the title also, judging by above comments. Rudget (review) 10:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate overturn. Speaking as the author of WP:NPOV#Article naming, Wikipedia:Naming conflict and the relevant guidelines in WP:WTA, I have to say that Sceptre's actions were clearly mistaken, even if well-intentioned. "Scandal" is a word to avoid; to quote WP:WTA#Scandal, affair, "The term "scandal" should not be used at all in article titles on current affairs". "Controversy" has been the preferred term for a long time and it would be preferable if this article was retitled something like "Mark Foley congressional pages controversy". However, blanking and redirecting is absolutely not the right way to proceed. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate Overturn. Quite a horrible decision for reasons outlined above. A title change might be in order and there might well be BLP issues to address: the thing to do in that situation is to discuss those things and work on them. It's really not that complicated. Sceptre's CSD tag was quite ridiculous and I can't believe someone actually took him up on it. I also noticed that Sceptre claims he "almost tagged Osama Bin Laden for summary deletion for the same reason ("terrorist"=POV, always has been used)." I would hope that was a joke, but it does not sound like one. I'm a big believer in the idea that the term "terrorist" is thrown around far too recklessly and is deeply, deeply problematic in and of itself, but it boggles my mind that a serious contributor could actually consider summary deletion of our article on bin Laden. Sceptre might want to step back and take a breath here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and close this, minimise drama, all concerned now know that badlydrawnjeff Rfarb doesn't cover this sort of action, move on swiftly. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
