Talk:List of federal political scandals in the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Pentagon Papers

The Pentagon Papers Case seems part of the larger scandal that was the Nixon Administration. What this article lacks is a definition that would allow distinction between scandals and crises of different sorts and between major and minor scandals. Where are the thresholds? Unless that can be determined anything politically controversial falls within the ambit of the article.

The Pentagon Papers Case was a constitutional crisis and not a political scandal.

I removed Panic of 1873 because there was no indication in the linked article that it was a scandal. Sure it was an unhappy time for the US - mistakes even may have been made, but that does not make it a scandal. DJ Clayworth 16:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also removed an entry alleging that the FBI was investigating teddy bears with Anti-Bush slogans on, and an unexplained entry about Gorge W Bush (sic). The teddy bears is mentioned only by one website, which means that even if it is true then it isn't much of a scandal. The other one is just plain incomprehensible. DJ Clayworth 19:59, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Will whoever put back the Panic of 1873 please explain why they think this is a Federal scandal rather than just an economic downturn. DJ Clayworth 20:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To the anon who keeps changing the article without discussing:

You write, in the edit summary, that there is no standard for deciding what is a scandal and what is not. You are right in saying that there is not hard and fast rule about what constitutes a scandal large enough to be reported here. Also please remember that what we mean here is a nationally recognised scandal. There are some guidelines about how we should judege these: I would suggest

If nobody has heard of the matter, it's not a scandal
If no mainstream press has reported the matter, it's not a scandal
If coverage appears to be limited to only a few websites, it's not a scandal

Your teddy bear, which appears to be reported only by one web site, doesn't meet these criteria. May I suggest contemplating the magnitude of this teddy bear by comparison with the other items mentioned, most of which came close to bringing down a government.

Opinions of others are also welcome, fellow Wikipedians. DJ Clayworth 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) ____________________________________________

Hello DJ Clayworth. I fear that your suggested criteria are too vague and too subjective to of any use.

Who is this "nobody" that you refer to? Perhaps you mean yourself? I have heard of the dangerous Teddy Bear investigation.
Would mainstream press include Fox News or The Sun? They are both big but suffer from rather obvious problems of journalistic quality. Remember the risible Geraldo Rivera?
News coverage can't be used as a practical criterion unless there is some systematic quantitative analysis of relative its frequency and depth intensity.
What is the threshold for identifying when a government is "almost" "brought down"? Please be more specific.

These are matters of judgment. As free women and men we ought not be blinded by what the corporate news media tell us is important. We are capable of critical thought and some of us but not all of us also have a will to be free. We can make judgments that the likes of Rupert Murdoch might not approve.

To Anon:

First, it is good Wikipedia etiquette to sign your posts on talk pages. It helps everybody reading this to know who is talking. You can do this by putting four tilde characters at the end of what you write, like this ~~~~ .

You are right in saying that just because mainstream news carry something doesn't mean its important. However what we are looking for here is significant scandal - the sort of thing that might bring down a government or cause politicians to resign. Watergate, Lewinski, all these are the sort of things we are looking for. This teddy bear you insist on re-inserting looks extremely unlikely to have this effect. The fact that the mainstream news media are ignoring it - and not even Fox News or the Sun are carrying it - means basicly that it is insignificant. If the unexpected happens, and this teddy bear causes the downfall of the Bush administration feel free to add it back. But not until then please. However, let's also hear what other Wikipedians think. For now I'm going to leave it in, just until somemore people have been given a chance to speak. DJ Clayworth 13:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just read the Smoking Gun article. There's no scandal here. Not even a hint of one. The FBI investigated not because of the anti-Bush slogan, but because a bear with the message "Bush Kills Arabs Dead" was delivered to an Arab-American lawyer. It turned out to be a gag gift from some friends, but it would have looked like a possible death threat. I will remove this quite ridiculous listing now. Isomorphic 13:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kay Summersby, "wartime mistress" of Dwight D. Eisenhower

Who wiped the Kay Summersby article?

Not sure what you mean by "wiped". The article's still there, although it's in need of attention. Whether Summersby had an "affair" with Eisenhower is disputed. Summersby herself conceded that there was no "sex" -- i.e. not even in the sense that Clinton did not have sex with Monica -- although she attributed this to Ike's being impotent. Those close to Eisenhower have maintained that the platonic love affair took place only in Summersby's mind. Ellsworth 15:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The more research I do, the more I am convinced that this does not fit the definition of a "scandal". I am dropping it from the list of scandals but obviously it's open to discussion and possible putting back in. Ellsworth 21:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

organizing the list

I tried writing an introduction to, and some scope notes for, the organization (and classification) of this list of major American political scandals. I think the introductory discussion helps and hope others agree. Even though it isn't the final word, it might suggest some improvements. [As a quick comment on the discussion above, I would emphasize, as you probably already know, that although the Pentagon Papers business SURFACED during the Nixon administration (with its paranoid insistence on secrecy), the events actually chronicled in the scandalous Pentagon Papers took place mostly during the administrations of JFK and LBJ.] 65.223.141.108 17:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kerik

Considering that Kerik was an announced nominee for a cabinet post for only about one week, do the revelations about his past really count as a federal-level scandal? It seems to me that whatever he did that was scandalous was at the local level. Also, Zoe Baird isn't there, so I'm not sure if it is a federal scandal every time a cabinet nominee drops out quickly due to a troublesome past. Kerik was dropped like a hot potato by Bush when the news came out, and no sign of a coverup. There is a possibility that the Kerik affair may develop other angles in the future, but so far it has reflected more on the administration of Giuliani than of Bush. -Willmcw 07:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zoe Baird is in fact listed, which is what made me think of Kerik. "Nannygate (1993) President Clinton's Attorney General nomination of Zoe Baird and near-nomination of Kimba Wood were derailed by information about the illegal hiring of aliens"

Also, there has been quite a storm of criticism in major newspapers about the failure to vet the Homeland Security Secretary nominee. Allegations of violation of immigration laws, corruption, incompetence, mob ties, abuse of authority, bigamy, multiple simultaneous extramarital affairs etc have all come out in the newspapers last week. Now whether there is much to it, who knows? There doesn't actually have to be much substance to make it a scandal, see Whitewater. But Bush has undeniably taken a lot of heat over this nomination in the last week or so.

That said, I don't much care one way or the other. Just seemed at least as noteworthy as Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood. Michael Ward 07:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. I see that Baird is there, under Nannygate. I agree that the federal aspect now appears to be the lack of vetting, but that's not reflected in the existing text. It's kind of long already, so maybe I'll just say the Bush was criticized for nominating Kerik without knowing that Kerik had been accused of various improprieties. -Willmcw 07:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some consistent standards need to be applied here. An anon just restored mention of Kimba Wood, who was never even nominated because a nanny problem was discovered during the vetting. Maybe Wood was a scandal, but if so we can't also argue that Kerik was only a federal scandal because of poor vetting. Also, I applied Willmcw's same wording for Kerik to Baird. Wolfman 16:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here are a few thoughts: Although Kimba Wood's nomination hadn't been formally transmitted to the Senate before her illegal conduct was revealed, she had been publicly announced and was all-but-nominated, so her "Nannygate" problem was perceived as compounding the Baird scandal so I think Kimba Wood should definitely not be ignored or removed from the list. In the press coverage at the time, the Clinton administration wasn't given credit for imrpoved vetting in the case of Kimba Wood; even if this news coverage wasn't fair, the typical "vetting" aspect of the story was not "kudos to Clinton for having caught an error in time," but was instead, "How could this candidate have gotten so far in the process? Why are scofflaws being considered for the nation's top law enforcement job?" The Kerik nomination seems clearly an example of Federal-level scandal (if we want to keep this category); part of his underlying problems go beyond Nannygate and involve actions in connection with improprieties in his earlier work, including his work for the federal government (and not just his NYC work). The problem with this particular high-profile appointment scandal does go a bit deeper than simply a vetting flaw. But in any case, I would think the appointment (or intended appointment) to high federal office automatically puts a case within the "federal" realm, even if the underlying scandal is not necessarily based on actions in connection with federal office-holding. As a longer range project, we might want to discuss developing a new set of categories.68.239.118.207 16:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly disagree. However, we should treat the Kerik & Baird scandals with some even-handedness. In my opinion, restoring both the original description of both scandals would be suitable. If these had come up after confirmation, they clearly would have been considered federal scandals in their own right. Nomination is really the crucial step, and Kerik/Baird had passed that hurdle.

Point of order on Wood: she was not publicly announced [1]. I don't think she belongs here. Wolfman 17:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think Wolfman is mistaken, about Kimba Wood not having been publicly announced at the time her own Nannygate scandal broke. She was certainly being treated as the nominee for AG, regardless of whether confirmation hearings had begun the Senate. The LA Times (MIT-site) news report cited by Wolfman does not establish that Kimba Wood had not been publicly announced (indeed, it says that she is the front-runner at the time the story was published), but there'sa problem with the timing of the story because that early story appeared BEFORE the controversy came to light. For example, the 1993 report by FAIR (which aims to counter right-wing bias in the media) discusses the Wood nomination this way: "The controversy over attorney general nominees Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, both of whom had to withdraw after acknowledging that they had hired undocumented immigrants to care for their children, elicited a wide response in the media, particularly in the pages of the New York Times." http://www.fair.org/extra/9304/nyt-immigration.html (The FAIR report deems it "scandalous" that female nominees were being scrutinized in a discriminatory way on this type of domestic issue, and this point is not without merit.)

I suppose Kimba Wood's Nanny problem was a federal-level concern in any case (without regard to the stage of nomination she reached), also because Kimba Wood was a sitting federal court judge. I think it's important to keep in mind that being listed on the Wikipedia "scandal" list does not necessarily imply any special degree of legal or moral culpability, on the part of an appointing administration or anyone else. 68.239.118.207 14:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, in her role as a federal judge, Kimba Wood was a Reagan appointee. President Clinton wanted her for AG because she would be embraced by the Republicans in the Senate and because of her publicized "toughness" on the bench against white-collar criminals, and because women's groups were complaining that he was falling short on appointing women. The fact that she was a Reagan appointee shouldn't matter to a neutral report, but it might help put things in perspective.

Look this is all off track. Kimba Wood is simply not important. In fact, she never was nominated, but that is only relevant if you buy into Willmcw's hypertechnical definition of a scandal. All these cases, including Baird, Wood, Kerik were "scandals" because they were treated as such by the mainstream press. That ought to be a working definition. And the exact improprieties were important parts of the scandalousness of it all. So, Nannygate ought to mention nannies. And Kerik ought to mention nannies, plus allegations of corruption, harrassment, abuse etc. The original writeup for both entries was quite appropriate, brief, on-point, and not a whitewash. By the way, we are missing Linda Chavez, Bush's labor secretary nominee who also had a nanny problem. Wolfman 18:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hypertechnical? I am not saying it isn't a scandal. I'm saying it really isn't a federal-level scandal, except for the lack of vetting. The scandalous activity occured at the city-level. If you look through the section on State and Local-Level Scandals you will see others which have a federal connection more substantials than that of Kerik. As for how long to make the descriptions, this is just a list and the text should be as short as possible, and reasonably consistent from entry to entry. Anyway, not a big deal. -Willmcw 01:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleaning up edits=

Please try to show some restraint when editing an article. Editing in itself is fine, but try to be sure you are done before saving the page. We have 10-15 consecutive edits with only a comma or wikilink difference, this is ridiculous and its wasting space.--63.167.255.30 20:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SaNtO DoMiNgO

I removed an undated entry

Santo Domingo

It could be that this entry intended to refer to the 1937 Trujillo massacre of Haitians, but there was no way to tell, the entry was not chronologically in that order, and the link to Santo Domingo provided no information about a scandal.

If some event concerning Santo Domingo actually belongs in the list of U.S. FEDERAL SCANDALS, I hope someone will restore it, with explanation.

Now I think this probably refers to controversy when the Senate rejected a treaty of annexation with Santo Domingo, in Grant's administration.

Can someone research this and add it back in?160.253.0.248 7 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Bolding of "D." and Removal of Enron/Lay and Karl Rove

A user 70.218.125.50 the other day decided to make "D." (for "Democrat") BOLD, and to remove information about Kenneth Lay and about Karl Rove. It might make sense to delete from the list the party affiliation(s) of all of those mentioned, but in any case it doesn't seem NPOV or helpful to bold only the Democrats. I will probably remove the bold marks and restore the deleted information about Lay and about Rove.160.253.0.248 20:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Perspective of History?

I was noticing how many of the scandals of the previous two administrations were left out, probably because they've simply been forgotten over time, or perhaps sometimes because they aren't on par with those worth mentioning, in hindsight.

This makes me wonder...though I'm no defender of either Clinton or Bush...how we should plan on dealing with similar perspective in the future.

The 2000+ category, for example, is filling not solely with big -gate scandals, but with almost everything the Republicans or Democrats appear to do wrong, right when it happens.

The difference between the really long 2000+ list, the mediocre 1975-2000 list, and the relatively sparse preceeding lists is NOT that there is more wrongdoing now, nor even solely that more is reported.

It's simply that we have FORGOTTEN most of the earlier scandals. And, even if someone reminded us of the whole Billy Carter thing, or other stuff of that kind, it would no longer seem worth padding the list with, now.

But it will be VERY hard to, in five or ten years, go back and remove the minute scandals which honestly seem like such a big deal today.

How can we plan ahead to deal with perspective, with the way that, were we to START this article in 2015, most of what we're adding now on a day-to-day basis would not bear worth mentioning...yet removing it once it's already here will be harder than not adding it 10 years later would be? Kaz 21:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"International Court of Justice" Does not count for anything at all, they have Absolutely No legitimately other than a bunch of cronies. Anything and everything they say has Absolutely NO meaning to anyone with half a brain, as far as I am concerned, their just a propaganda outlet. There is No Such thing as Justice form that court, anymore than you would get justice form a Saddam’s former court system, its just a political tool.

And as far as I am concerned it add nothing to this article beyond take even more credibility away from it, in just referring to that so called “justice court.”

The above comment seems very much not based on any knowledge. The International Court of Justice is constituted according to its "Statute," an attachment to the United Nations Charter. The legitimacy of the ICJ is accepted around the world (including by the United States, which took Iran to court there about 27 years ago and won the Diplomatic Hostages case). So, it's not clear what the above gripe is getting at, with charges of "bunch of cronies" and "propaganda outlet".

Organize state/local by date

I organized the state/local scandals by date. I did not make any edits to the list (at this point) other than arranging them by date as was done already with the federal scandals. Note that many of the scandals don't have a date given. I put these at the bottom of the section. They're pretty useless without a date, so unless somebody wants to do some research and find dates (even approximate ones), we should cut all of them. A10brown 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How is the Monica Lewinsky Scandal not included here... 201.232.139.87 00:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Organize scandals by 'size'

Suggestion: How about a list of the most important/worst/biggest scandals? There is no objective way to quantify and sort, but someone who knows a lot about each scandal would be able to say that some are bigger than others, which suggests it is possible to make an informal "top 10" list. It would be a useful overview for many, because realistically, most of us aren't going to learn enough about each scandal to feel confident in setting up our own list. 201.218.197.185 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

recent sex scandal

Who was that fundementalist gay-bashing leader of numerous evangelical groups who got outed by a gay prostitute for using crack? I didn't see his story listed here even though he consulted over the phone on a weekly basis with President Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.65.82 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Which one? Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals? Jimmy Swaggart in 1986? TBN televangelist Paul Couch? Televangelist Jim Bakker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Should this list list the scandal as such?

If this list also list the scandal, and not only the article to find it in, we will for each scandal have two places to update events instead of one. I'm not sure this really is a good idea? Greswik (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Even though the falsified records in question were only a tiny part of the evidence and were corroborated by other testimony and documents, the focus suddenly shifted from the alleged dereliction of duty on the part of Mr. Bush, to Dan Rather's irresponsible, improper, and possibly biased, authentication of a particular set of records. Similarly, an official investigation into alleged wrongdoing can itself come to be viewed as scandalously wrong if it appears to be politically motivated."

this sentence is bullshit it's totally bias and has no citations yet it is allowed to remain here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.218.36 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Diebold Voting Machines and the Republican Party's Electioneering 2000, 2004 & 2008

I think th article needs a brush up on the relevance of Premier Election Systems formerly a Diebold business, there are numerous instances of voting fraud perpetrated with the said voting machines, one can see the relationship of Diebold executives and the links to the Republican Party. The security holes in these voting machines do put the legitimacy of the elections in serious doubt.

See more in Hacking Democracy --220.239.179.128 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

political scandals needs help

I’ve been thinking about this site for a while and I’ve come to believe that it is too long, the term ‘scandal’ is too broad, and the whole thing is upside down.

I propose opening a new site, separate from ‘Scandals’ entitled ‘Political Corruption in the United States.’ This would separate out all of the sexual scandals. For instance, Wilbur Mills cavorting drunk with a stripper may be scandalous, but it is not corruption. No laws were broken.

It would also help separate civilian behavior from political behavior. Betty Ford‘s alcoholism is now listed as a scandal, but considering her husband was out of office for several years when the story broke and she herself never held public office, her scandal should not hold the same importance as, say Richard Nixon.

Similarly, Political Corruption would also filter aside the deeds of civilian contractors, associates and consultants, who though they may be important to the corruption of public officials are not themselves, elected. People such as Sinclair, though he worked with Hardings' Secretary of the Interior Falls, was not himself elected. He deserves to be mentioned, but should be listed somewhere else.

Also, I believe a distinction should be made between those politicians who are actually convicted and those who are merely accused. In today’s partisan politics it is easy to paint a politician as corrupt merely by calling an investigation or making public charges. Thus, when Bill Clinton and five of his cabinet were indicted, many people to this day believe them to be guilty of something, even though none of them was convicted of anything. Similarly, though Colonel Oliver North certainly had a role in the Iran-Contra Affair, the fact that his conviction was overturned, (rendering him innocent) must be mentioned.

To further streamline the data, I would create a division between the branches of government. Executive, Legislative and Judicial. And then subdivide each of those branches into Federal, State and Local. To include all the crooked congressmen alongside the crooked executives makes it too hard to find either. And by giving Local its own section would encourage people to include their own crooked aldermen and mayors, rather than burying them alongside Nixon.

Finally, the current listing system is upside down. It takes a long time to get to the William Jefferson (D-LA) scandal, and I believe most visitors to Wikipedia political sites may be more interested in current events than ancient history, therefore the most recent scandal, which may be the Alaskan Attorney General refusing to cooperate in the Palin investigation (September 17, 2008) should be at the top of the page rather than at the very bottom .

I propose something like;

POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

Executive Branch

  Federal
    Present -2000
    2000-1994
    1994-1990
    etc.
  State
  Local

Judicial Branch

  Federal
  State
  Local

Legislative Branch

  Federal
  State
  Local

Sexual Scandals

Other Scandals

And no, I don't know how to do this exactly. I've already switched around the Present - 2000 paragraph, let me know what you think.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

This article, like other articles in Wikipedia, must follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. This manual says that subheadings within an article should be written in "sentence case", not in "Title Case", i.e., only the first word and proper nouns (Personal names, places, organizations, etc.) should be capitalized. Under no circumstances should subheadings be in ALL CAPITALS. All caps is harder to read, and is considered the internet equivalent of shouting. A pace between paragraphs can be placed by using two hard returns. Using more than two creates excess space that serves no purpose but to make the article harder to read. Please see WP:MSH and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). Ground Zero | t 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

- - What about Sarah Palin's recent investigation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.91.165 (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

- - well, for heavens sakes, put it in! richrakh, PS. thanks for the formatting help.

- - November 18, 2008, Will whoever deleted most of this article please put it back? At least long enough for me to make a copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Federal-Level Scandals

Many places on the page reference this, suggesting it is also on this page, but it isn't (or I can't find it) nor does it turn up under wiki search for "Federal-Level Scandals".

Suggest correcting the references to point to the correct page or section of this page, with correct matching name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.129.194 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anon, the term "Federal-Level Scandals" is used so much because there is a huge section of the article missing. Wiped, I think, by Wittydude. Where it went, I can't tell. But I spent a lot of time researching and rewriting this site to be more logical and informative. See note at the bottom of this page. I divided the site into 1.Federal Level, 2.State and Local, and 3.Sex Scandals. Personally, I think Sex Scandals, deserves its' own site, but I was busy and just left it as I found it. Federal Scandals included the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 22:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sort order

Any reason why the federal dates of events are in the opposite sort order from the state and sex dates? What would be the best order for everything? Hmains (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think people come here looking for scandals they just heard about, which would probably mean the most recent dates should be at the top like the sex or state scandals, rather than making people wade throught 200 years of federal history to find a recent story.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merger completed based on concensus (the material was duplicated into the political scandals article anyway). --Happyme22 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I was not the original person to suggestion this meger. I don't have an opinion on the merger of Reagan administration convictions into this article. I felt that this missing discussion here, was needed to follow the guidelines for a merger. The original merger suggestion was made in November 2008. MJSplant (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

merger seems like a reasonable way to go. Hmains (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
As I see everything at the moment, Political scandals of the United States is nothing more than a list. Currently, the list seems to be lacking decent organization beyond the Second Level (e.g.3.1). If it were to be re-sectioned further (e.g. 3.1.1., or "Federal government scandals/ 1980-1990/ Executive Branch: Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)" [the Legislative Branch would then be 3.1.2, ect.]), then I would favor merger also. However, if moving in material is done with little attention to a need for better organization, I suspect merging will provide only jumbled chaos.--Dixie Hag2 (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is also Category:Political scandals in the United States. I think that this needs to be taken into consideration as well in the organization of this article. Other than "in" and "of" and one being a category, these two are related and need to be addressed. Unfortuneatly, I do not have enough experience in categories to determine how or what to do with this. MJSplant (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

more comment I believe that you hit the nail on the head squarely when you identified these two areas:Category:Political_scandals_in_the_United_States, and Political scandals of the United States. In the former, the linked-page claims to have 6 subcategories, which are then subdivided into various subheadings, most of which end in "dead-ends". However, there are numerous "pages" listed below the "6 subcategory subheadings" which do not appear in any of the subcategory subheadings. Thus, I would say that the page '"Category:Political...in" is just a messy, unorganized page which needs much attention.

Arriving at that page is also a peculiar roundabout procedure. It appears as if the only two ways to arrive there are: (a) to click a link at the bottom of an article's page which lists that article as being in that Category, or (b) to surf into the "Category...in" page from another thing called: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Past_Political_Scandals_and_Controversies.

On the WikiProject page there are two members: User:Remember and User:ukulele; both appear to have organization within their scope of awareness. I believe that we should attempt to engage them in this conversation. Thus I will attempt to draw their attention to everything by speaking out on their talkpage.

It is my impression currently that the subject of organizing political scandals WHATEVER and WHEREVER may be of the utmost importance.--Dixie Hag2 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While I set up the Wikiproject:Political Scandals and Controversies project, it has largely been defunct with little to no one participating in it. I believe that this is a good wikiproject because these articles need more organization, standardization, and monitoring. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to take on this large task. So I can not be much assistance to this discussion except to say that this whole area needs a lot of work. Remember (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for coming over, but Remember, don't run off too quickly. :) It looks as though a good place to start would be on the Wikiproject page. Perhaps we should try to organize both pages (in and of) into the same category with the simple procedure of a merge. Would that be your opinion also? __Dixie Hag2 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me.Remember (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything in the Reagan administration convictions seems to already be in Political scandals of the United States. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

comment I am glad that creating this discussion on the talk page did some good. I didn't think that I would input anymore, but I will. It seems that an article on this topic is seeming more and more not correct. I think recreating or expanding on the category that exists (setting semantics of "in" and "of" aside), would be the format we want. Then articles or pages with lists can reference the "scandal" category. Thoughts? MJSplant (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by what you say. "Political Scandals of..." is not a Category per se; it is a List. As I understand, as long as it remains a list, other relevant items should be added in; and the governing criteria should be the words political scandals. As I understand the "category-page" which exists (i.e. "Category:...in"), that too is merely a listing of things. Consequently, it would seem on the surface that the two lists could be combined into one. Am I misunderstanding or failing to see something which you recognize? —Dixie Hag2 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

MORE—In reading through the discussion on the "Political scandals in the United States" talkpage, it is my impression that the originators intended that category to be about scandals and not about scandalous behavior by individuals—For instance, the "Teapot Dome Scandal" verses "Bill Clinton's scandalous behaviour while in office". One of the originators even went so far as to say that he was about to begin eliminating some of the names from the category. In looking over the various names listed in *(asterick)— R, I began to understand what the originators had in mind. They seemed to suggest that they wanted Bill Clinton's name to be inserted in the subcategory heading "Monika Lewinsky Scandal", but NOT separately listed as one of the 194 pages into the "Category:Political scandals in the United States" . Unfortunately, the originators failed to understand that editors are going to insert the template for "Political scandals in the United States" if they find no reason not to. Thus, the originators (of the "Category: ...in") need to clearly define exactly what should and should not be included. (Unfortunately, even if they do, someone is going to come along and stick Bill Clinton back in after they have yanked him out because it's human nature to look for something convenient such as the word scandal.) Personally I think there is too much Wikipedia categorization going on; and I suppose I also really do not care. What seems to be more important to me are the articles. Where they end, or in whose list...seems insignificant.—Dixie Hag2 (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sex scandals

There is a list at the top of this section that is entitled A list of America's Top 53 Political Sex Scandals It seems dated, does anyone know where it came from?```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 07:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This segment states that John Edwards fathered a child with Rielle Hunter, but that is not proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.197.84 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is now. richrakh```` March 15, 2010

Chicago Aldermen

I don't believe Chicago City elections allow party affiliation ( at least not on the ballot ) though I could be wrong. Unless someone could confirm that they are democrats, to label Aldermen in Chicago democrats is presumptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.84.121 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to burst your bubble, but you are wrong. Chicago Alderman are definitely affiliated with a major political party, and the city elections does allow it. For example, The mayor is a democratic as are quite a few of the alderman. The towns and villages in the surrounding suburbs of Chicago, however, may not be. They often have smaller local party affiliations. Although this is not always the case. MJSplant (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced scandals

Though most of the article is not cited much of it is verifable. Just got off the Wikipedia Citing Resources page and I'm sorry to say I didn't understand most of it.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 06:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a long list dealing with a lot of living persons. There are few citations. Every scandal involving a living person should either have a citation on this page, or be removed. Otherwise, it's likely that there's an unsourced scandal or two hiding in here: any particular scandal is not easily verifiable. Michael Belisle (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Spin off pages?

Any thoughts on spinning off some of the state-level lists? For example, I know Pennsylvania could easily take its own page.--A. Gorilla (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. This list is getting way too long. We need fifty new pages. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richrakh (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Judicial Branch scandals

I propose to separate the Federal 'Judicial Branch scandals' out so they are not placed in the date range sections where they currently exist. The date range sections are generally presidential administrations, which have little to do with judicial scandals. Without objections, I will do this in a couple weeks. Hmains (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we had that many, but it sounds like a good idea to me. Depending how you do it, whould we seperate legislative out too?````

Well, I did not do this in a couple of weeks, but I finally got around to separating the Federal Judicial Branch scandals into its own section. I did this not because there are so many (there are very few recorded here), but because the scandals often have little to do with the current presidential administration. After all, federal judges serve for life (or until they resign or are impeached and convicted), so their misdeeds can occur long after their initial appointment. I did not pursue your suggestion of separating legislative though it could be done. What time period would it be based on however? If presidential spans, could we use the congressional numbers, such as 84th congress? I just don't know. Hmains (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Supreme Court Justices serve for life. All the others are elected rather haphazardly for 2, 4, or 6 year terms depending on the state and district. Linking them to the congressional elections might be better, but it to wouldn't fit right either. These are hard to keep track of and easy to loose if not tied to a presidential administration, even though the fit is not perfect.

For example, I was thinking of the "lawyergate" scandals linked with the W. Bush administration and also his nomination of Harriet Miers. Surely, it is pertinent to connect federal prosecutors and other court nominations to the administration that appointed them? Open a seperate section of the Judicial Branch and that information would be lost, or at least hard to find and correlate.

Think of the controversy and possible scandal over Judge Clarence Thomas' nomination, Robert Bork and several others. Surely, they should be included with that presidents' administration rather than independent of it.

I don't think the site is quite ready to be seperated into the three branches yet. People come here looking for what happened to that guy that did something under Bill Clinton. Or maybe it was Reagan. The current organization makes that research easy. Seperate them and you would force people to determine what branch he was in first. Hopefully, this artical will never get that full.

On the other hand, pulling the local scandals out and making 50 articles, one for each state, makes a lot of sense. That way, little known corruption and scandal in smaller towns would get greater recognition.````

Edit note: (Hmains) replaced the current exec scandals/legis scandals/judicial scandals which are roughly organized by presidential terms into a single Judicial Scandals section on the grounds that judges are not bound to presidential terms.

I disagree with him. Though the Supreme Court Justices ARE elected for life, they are appointed during a presidents term, which is as good a way to keep track of them as any other. Federal District judges ARE appointed by each president and serve at his pleasure which led of course to the famous lawergate scandal of George W. Bush's term. Further, many lower court justices are elected for terms roughly equal to those of the president or legislature. Placing them in their own catagory somewhere, only makes them hard to find.````

If you disagree with something and write it down, then give time for a discussion to see if anyone agrees with you. Instead, you are too eager to revert without discussion. And no one has agreed with you yet. Apparently, you do not read the talk page either. Hmains (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Did you write it down and allow discussion before you changed it? Did anyone agree with you? You are too eager to reorganize without discussion! But let's not fight. WHY do you think executive and legislative branches should be combined and judicial should have it's own section?````

Keeping judicial, excutive & legislative scandals under each administrations dates is a good idea.76.181.87.85 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)pawpaw27

I find it interesting that User:Richrakh (who signs as ````) who was the only person who agreed with my proposal back in May 2009 to separate out the Federal judicial entries is now so much in argument against it. It is also interesting that his argument is based on false information. It is a fact that all Federal judges are appointed for life; it is only state judges who are often not appointed for life, yet it is only Federal judicial scandals that are being discussed here. It is also noticeable that he discusses events that are simply partisan disagreements and are not listed in this article as political scandals--nor should they ever be. Unfortunately, this user seems to want to "own" this article, which neither he nor anyone else is allowed to do with this or any other WP article. His time would be better spent adding citations to the entries in article, which are otherwise subject to deletion as not supported by 3rd party sources--a requirement of all WP article statements. Hmains (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

All edits should improve the article. Even yours.````

Air Force One photo op incident (Apr 2009)

Anybody interested in adding the Apr 2009 Air Force One photo op incident to this? I haven't worked on this page before and am not sure how it works. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a political scandal, since neither Obama or another politician had much to do with it. It sounds like a candidate for a page entitled "typical military screwup"

Clinton pardons

Why are Bill Clinton's pardons included on the Political Scandals page? These pardons were certainly controversial, but is anyone claiming that they were illegal or unethical? If the pardons are scandalous because there are accusations of quid pro quo, then I think that charge needs to be included on the page. Otherwise, including the pardons here implies that a president exercising his power to pardon is a scandal just because his opponents are unhappy with that political decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's a scandal when people do something wrong. Sometime's its a scandal when people do something right. Sometimes it's a scandal when people do nothing at all. In answer to your second question, is anyone claiming they were illegal or unethical?, the answer is yes. Lots and lots of people claimed they were BOTH illegal AND unethical. You may recall, these were the same people who accused him (passionately) of murder, drug running, bribery and stealing the White House furniture. They got lots of press at the time. Limbaugh was all over it and still is.

In my opinion there is little difference between a controversy and a scandal. I feel this page should provide a quick thumbnail guide to all the broohaha in politics and point researchers in the right direction, so it's better to list too much rather than too little. I do not think including the pardon here implies that it WAS a scandal. Inclusion here only means that someone else thinks so and in this case there were lots of them, misguided or not. ````

As I recall, the Republicans made this (and everything else the Clinton's did) a scandal by suggesting the actions they took were unethical, illegal, unusual or all three. In this case it was the NUMBER of convictions which they took acception to, NOT the fact that they were all in the last year. They were implying that he was giving away the store before he was kicked out. In fact, many Presidents, including H. W. Bush gave pardons in their last year. richrakh````

comprehensiveness

Perhaps there should be some text warning the reader that the list is far from comprehensive. For example, if you take the list literally, aldermen serving in Chicago at the same time as Barack Obama were alarmingly corrupt, while every single other alderman in the history of the United States was squeaky-clean. Hmm.Gruntler (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point and this list is getting too long anyway. what say we just get rid of all the local scandals and keep only the state and federal ones.````

I changed the lead to say that it's an incomplete list (previously the lead said it was a list of major political scandals, which is clearly wrong as a description.) Gruntler (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Enron

I'm removing the Enron "scandal" from the list because, while Enron's collapse was a scandal, it was not a political scandal, and the article itself says that "Attempts to link individual politicians with Enron malfeasance have not been particularly successful" (read: nobody found a connection between Enron's collapse and politics). The article then then states unequivocally that the lack of a link is "due to the fact that so many politicians of both major parties received campaign contributions (including 158 Republicans and 100 Democrats in Congress)." Just that politicians received campaign contributions from Enron doesn't automatically mean that is why no link was found. Furthermore, as stated in the article, no political link was found, so Enron does not belong in this article. Wharrel (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As it says in the opening paragraph on 'scope,' most corporate scandals are not included, such as Lockheed, Harken and Madoff. However, those that show significant political involvement should be included, such as Veco, which allegedly tried to bribe Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, and Enron. Though it’s true, no direct link was found, none is needed to be a ‘scandal.’ That’s the difference between a scandal and a conviction.

In Enron’s case the very size of their political donation base makes it noteworthy. Many corporations donate to politicians, but I’d say that a total of 258 congressmen (mostly Republicans) ‘on the payroll’ so to speak is a little large, wouldn’t you? Clearly, no direct political link was found, but it obviously exists none the less. Further, Ken Lay was the 1992 RNC Chairman, he was also the co-chair of the committee to re-elect President Bush as well as being on Bush’ short list for an appointment as Secretary of the Treasury. This leads one to surmise that what he did for Enron, he might have done to the country as well.

Also, #2 man Jeff Skilling donated $160,750 to Republicans and only $9,750 to Democrats. Again showing a decided Republican bent, which is NOT, as you say proof of anything, but taken all together this is clearly a scandal with significant political overtones. richrakh, 12 August, 2009

Joe Wilson (R-SC)

The paragraph about Joe Wilson's shouted comment of YOU LIE! during the President's speech was removed by Hmains because he considered it not to be a scandal but a "mere breech of ethics leading to controversy."

I disagree. A breech of ethics leading to a controversy is a perfect definition of a scandal. All that was lacking was a large amount of press, which this story certainly has. Though others have disagreed with presidential speeches by turning their backs, booing, waving papers, etc, Mr. Wilson's act was controversial because he made a personal attack on the president, not his ideas, which hasn't happened in decades. A scandal indeed.````

It looks like it didn't work because you reverted the wrong version. I fixed it. Gruntler (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did no such thing as remove the Wilson entry. I have put it back into the article several times after others deleted it. Author with no name needs to become familiar with WP history entries. Hmains (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times does not refer to any "scandal". Does this article last all of the many similar resolutions, or just this one? All or none seems the correct approach.

The issue is not what we think is a "scandal", it is (1) how it is specifically defined and (2) how it is supported by reliable sources. If for example the rebuke to Wilson contains the word scandal, that is support. Claims by advocacy groups certainly are not reliable sources to assert a "scandal" by wiki policy.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.60.221 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC) 24.23.60.221 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Bernard B. Kerik

"Bernard B. Kerik (R) former NY City police commissioner who was nominated by George W. Bush for the position of Secretary of Homeland Security, plead quilty on Novemeber 5th to two counts of tax fraud and 5 counts of lying to the federal government. Mr. Kerik had withdrawn his name from consideration due to the charges. (2009)^[1]"

Kerik was never part of any administration, so nothing he did was an executive branch scandal. If anyone wants to revert my deletion of this, first please support the reversion with a reliable source that Bush (or an executive branch official) committed a scandal by nominating him. 24.23.60.221 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

2001–2008 Executive Branch scandals

Few of these are supported by a reliable source and for this reason should be deleted. Reversion of these requires that you first offer a reliable source. Some or all of these should be supportable, the issue here is not their inclusion but there inclusion without a reliable source alleging not only that they occured - but that they were in fact a "scandal".

Be careful to implement WP policy regarding sources, if an advocacy group you can only say something like advocacy group x alleged "..." 24.23.60.221 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Lay

"Enron collapse (2002) leading to investigation of Kenneth Lay (R), a top political ally and financial donor to former President George W. Bush. Lay was found guilty of 10 counts of securities fraud, but died before sentencing. Attempts to link individual politicians with Enron malfeasance have not been particularly successful, due to the fact that so many politicians of both major parties received campaign contributions (including 158 Republicans and 100 Democrats in Congress (as of 2001) ^[2]"

This is not an executive branch scandal. Lay held no office, so was not part of the executive branch. Further, why the (R) after his name? Do private citizens as well as elected officials carry this designation. This is a highly partisan material, a violation of Wikipedia:neutral point of view. 24.23.60.221 (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Ken Lay, the very size of the political donation base makes it noteworthy. Many corporations donate to politicians, but I’d say that a total of 258 congressmen (mostly Republicans) ‘on the payroll’ so to speak is a little large, wouldn’t you?That's HALF of the entire congress! Clearly, no direct illegal political link to any one of them was found, but in total it obviously exists none the less. Further, Ken Lay was the 1992 RNC Chairman, hence the designation of (R). He was also the co-chair of the committee to re-elect President Bush as well as being on Bush’ short list for an appointment as Secretary of the Treasury. This leads one to surmise that what he did for Enron, he might have done to the country as well.

Also, Enron #2 man Jeff Skilling donated $160,750 to Republicans and only $9,750 to Democrats. Again showing a decided Republican bent, which is NOT, as you say proof of anything, but taken all together this is clearly a scandal with significant political overtones. richrakh, 7 November, 2009

WP Policy for The Lead are not followed and must be

Please read Wikipedia:Lead and bring this into compliance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.60.221 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Much of this article violates the Wiki original research policy, please review Wikipedia:original research. This orgininal research is fine in most places, but at Wiki it must be deleted. Please read Wikipedia:bold. When orginal research is deleted, please don't be offended, it is not personal or an attempt to deny useful the inclusion of subjects, deletion is onlt required because it violates policy. You can restore what you believe to be important parts after you get the proper reliaable sources. 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition of a scandal

"A good guideline is whether or not an action is, or appears to be, illegal. Since we expect everyone, particularly politicians, to be law abiding, breaking the law is, by definition, a scandal."

This is a great example of original research. It is also incorrect. Millions of Americans get cited for speeding every year, how many are really scandals?

Wiki policy requires that this be removed, even without consensus.

Wiki policy also requires that this not be reverted unless a relaible source is cited saying that all traffic tickets are scandals. 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, every last one of those speeding tickets IS a scandal, if taken in the right context. In my house, my last ticket was a great scandal and my wife made no bones about telling me. Consider also the case of Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) the congresswoman who by passed a House security checkpoint and thumped the guard in the chest. Though a minor incident, she was wrong and it received a great deal of publicity. Just ask Rush Limbaugh. Thus it deserves to be called a scandal. Likewise, Bill Janklow (R-SD) ran a stop sign... and killed a man. This too is a scandal and should be included. Finally, take Bill Clinton. Boffing an adult intern is not, strictly speaking, a crime, yet he faced impeachment for lying about it. And yes, it too was a scandal and should be included.

Judicial Branch scandals

"Bush v. Gore On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to resolve the 2000 presidential election by overturning the Florida Supreme Court decision, stopping the Florida vote recount and effectively deciding the election for George W. Bush (R). (2000)"^{[citation needed]}

This is classic original research. Does anyone defend its retention? Going once, going twice ... 24.23.60.221 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's the IMPORTANCE of the action that makes it a scandal AND the amount of publicity it gets. No other Supreme Court decision in recent memory has been as controversial. Leaving out the political machinations of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, the very decision to MAKE the decision was controversial as was pointed out forcefully by the four minority judges. At no other time in our history has the SC taken a case so out of turn. Hell, they even made a movie out of it, Recount(2008.) Regardless of the legality of their actions or the wisdom of their decision, the affair was scandalous because it was VERY controversial and AFFECTED the entire world. ````

Yes, it's unquestionably significant and controversial, and could (somewhat hyperbolically) be said to be "scandalous". But even though I personally think it was grossly wrong, it wasn't a scandal by any reasonable or meaningful definition of the word (for what it's worth, its placement in the article is wrong for violating WP:NPOV, not WP:OR). No one was accused of wrongdoing; regular decisions, no matter how bad we think they are, are not scandals. If the SC justices who ruled for Bush were accused of taking bribes from him that would make it a scandal; as it is it's just another judicial decision that a lot of people see as wrong-headed. If you include that, you'd have to include Roe v. Wade, Dred Scott, and many others as "scandals" as well. KarlM (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that SC decision shouldn't be included. Gruntler (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Don’t get too hung up on the term scandal. Many scandals do not involve taking bribes or breaking the law. Otherwise this article would be called “Convicted Politicians.” As you point out, it is (hyperbolically speaking) scandalous. But not for the reasons you state.

It’s not their decision that is controversial, it’s the way that they did it. Bush v. Gore is practically unique in the history of the US in that the SC stepped in on their own violition and halted the election recount in FL on December 9th. Controversial enough. They then declared December 12th the ‘safe harbor’ deadline, thus ending the election, which they themselves had halted. And you are in error, the majority of justices WAS accused of wrong doing, many times. They called it political favoritism. As you state, judicial decisions, right or wrong, are not scandals. But it's my opinion that by-passing the usual judicial process is. This is the only example of such action I can think of. Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott at least had adequate due process. For the first time in our history Bush v. Gore didn't.

Since we seem to agree that it meets the Severity standard, and the Importance or Publicity standard, isn’t that enough? I’ve always thought this list should be nothing more than a way to point researchers toward more information and so I tend to be inclusive rather than exclusive as to its content. Richrakh

Karl Rove

An investigation is by the article's definition, not a scandal if there were no laws broken and no corruption.

The source describes an investigation and a controversy (that ended without scandal). What is needed is an article that sources this investigation as a scandal rather than a contraversy.

"Karl Rove (R) Special Adviser to the president was investigated in 2007 by the Office of Special Counsel for "improper political influence over government decision-making," as well as for his involvement in other scandals listed here.^[3] " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.60.221 (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the definition says, which is that a (not the) guideline is illegality. The Clinton affair would have been a "scandal" even without the perjury. Gruntler (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Gruntler, you're absolutely right. Richrakh

Habeas Corpus

"Thus, small but salacious scandals, such as Larry Craig's (R-ID) arrest for lewd behavior can eclipse more serious scandals such as suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in time of war." This is entirely original research. Is there any reliable source that the suspension was a scandal? It might be bad policy, but a scandal? The definition does not include bad policies. Without this source this is original research. If you revert it you must then offer a reliable source calling this a scandal. 24.23.60.221 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's merely defining the scope of the list to exclude what might broadly be called "bad policy". (Perhaps it should be worded differently to make this more clear.) Gruntler (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

24.23.60.221, I'm afraid you will NEVER find a source calling ANYTHING a scandal. It's an archaic word not much used anymore. ````

Also 24.23.60.221, the entire article is already flagged as needing references. There is no need to place a citation marker at every entry, it just ends up as clutter. KarlM (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues

Hi guys. The majority of this article appears to be unsourced defamatory statements, many of them about living persons. I am sure the majority of them could be sourced, but have not been. Does anyone have any compelling issue why I shouldn't simply delete all the unsourced statements per the appropriate policies on sources and on biographies, and allow them to be re-inserted when and if they are supported by sources? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the statements are paired with links to WP articles about the scandals, or to WP articles containing information about the scandals. In these cases, the WP article serves as sourcing, which isn't perfect, but certainly seems good enough that deletion would be inappropriate. There are thousands of lists which similarly rely on WP links for sourcing. The scandals which have no associated WP article or independent sourcing could largely be deleted without objection from me. Gruntler (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:RS Wikipedia is never a reliable source. Suggesting "the support for this claim lies in another article" is a difference only of degree from saying "the support for this claim lies somewhere on Wikipedia". Further, the difference between this list and "thousands of other lists" is that by and large those lists contain statements which are non-controversial ("List of 1983 movies") and non-defamatory. This list alleges material that, without sourcing, would constitute defamation; it's appropriate that each statement be individually and directly sourced, or removed - at the very least, for those about living persons. What I'm saying is that official policy at WP:BURDEN makes no exception for lists; can you point me to policy suggesting that deletion of this content is not both allowed and positively encouraged? - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that you should "remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material," my emphasis, and that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." WP:BURDEN seems to conflict with this, interestingly. BLP says that the negativeness of the statement is irrelevant and says that that the material must *also* be contentious to demand immediate removal, whereas WP:BURDEN emphasizes negative statements. I would suggest that WP:BLP ought to take precedence here as WP:BURDEN is presumably attempting to summarize WP:BLP in one sentence. Gruntler (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, not to get WP:POINTy, but I think a large majority of the list examples in WP:STAND rely on WP links, including BLP articles. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that strict interpretation of RS policy was not thought of as important to those putting together the WP:STAND guideline. For example, list of poets is linked to. I certainly don't think it would be appropriate to go and nuke the entirely unsourced list of poets, nor would I approve of someone asking that they all be sourced there. Gruntler (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:STAND envisages lists that contain either (a) nothing but links to other articles, sorted in some fashion, or (b) glossary style lists with links and definitions. (If you look at WP:LIST you'll find it very difficult to support the contention that lists of any sort should contain any form of original or summarised content, although I note the existence fo many lists very similar to this and the tolerance generally shown towards them.) WP:STAND specifically notes that lists are "subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view". See also WP:Source list which states, "In lists that involve living persons, the following from the Biographies of living persons policy applies: unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Both policies strongly suggest that I (or other editors) should immediately delete the vast majority of this article. However, given that I suspect that majority of this article is able to be sourced, I'm in good faith suggesting that editors who feel this article is valuable and relevant make the effort to insert the relevant sources necessary to comply with the verifiability standard; if that process is actively underway I'll hold off from trimming out the unsourced material. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note - I've just consulted the history of the article and a fairly extensive attempt to source the article appears to be ongoing. So how about I just go away and come back in two weeks or so if I still care? :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly which statements do you think are defamatory? - Richrakh

As an example "pleaded guilty on November 5th to two counts of tax fraud and 5 counts of lying to the federal government" would be defamatory, were it not sourced. A defamatory statement is any statement that would allow a reader to draw adverse inferences about its subject which is not provably true. (Some jurisdictions also require it to be made in good faith and/or be of public interest.) The fact that something's easily sourced and provably true does not stop it being defamatory until it is sourced and proved. It's why the BLP policy exists and has such a high standard. But as I said, I note you're doing an excellent job fixing the article so consider my concerns addressed or allayed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, someone in an unrelated context drew my attention to this. To be clear, I'm not saying that any specific person that I know of feels defamed or intends any sort of legal action, I'm saying that the "delete first, ask questions later" part of WP:BLP is based on the very specific concerns of potential unwarranted harm to living persons, one example of which is what is legally known as defamation. Making sure claims are reliably sourced ensures that Wikipedia isn't slandering people without good reason, and where sources don't exist the harm in deleting claims until sources emerge is less than the harm in possiby untrue injurious statements continuing to stand unchallenged. You probably already know all that but I thought it wouldn't hurt to be clear. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Political scandal" != Someone had an affair

Maybe I've been desensitized by European politics, but "someone had an affair with someone otherwise unremarkable and stepped down" is a might low definition of a political scandal, as is "a politician lied during an election campaign". Do we really want this low-level stuff that no-one cares about after 3 months in the article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm on your side. But as long as infidelity keeps making headlines and as long as people feel they have to resign because of one and as long as someone keeps making family values, or traditional values or total honesty a campaign issue, I quess someone will have to keep track of them and keep them in perspective. Remember, Bill Clinton came within 6 votes of being impeached over a blowjob. But you're absolutely right. We should have bigger issues to deal with than this. richrakh````--Richrakh (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Political scandals of the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Political scandals of the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Salon":

From Donna Rice: "Donna Rice Hughes says enough is enough", By Amy Debra Feldman, September 12, 2000, Salon Magazine
From Dan Burton: Baker, Russ. "Portrait of a political 'pit bull'", Salon magazine, December 22, 1998

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Split?

I propose splitting this into 2 articles: Political scandals of the United States (1980-Present) and Historical Political scandals of the United States. This is a reasonable dividing line to separate the scandals of those who may be still alive and/or in politics from the purely historical scandals and would make the 2 articles more manageable. The 1980 line is debatable, but I don't think it should be divided before 1975 or after 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.163.186 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But I'm thinking of politicians with really long careers. Jesse Helms was, what, 92 when he died? A better dividing line might be by century. 1900?

Actually, that's why I split off "Sex scandals of the United States". Sex scandals like rape and adultery don't belong in the same category as bribery and corruption. A better division, I think, would be to break off Sex Scandals AND Local Scandals into their own articles, leaving Federal Scandals. That way, Local Scandals could be subdivided by state, county and city rather than cluttering up Federal Scandals. Another idea would be to break off "Convicted" from "Scandal." "Scandal" is vague at best, but there is no doubt about "Convicted." richrakh````

Censures

I think it's appropriate to put any Congressman censured or reprimanded on this page (excepting those involving in the Civil War, which wasn't a scandal); it's a public condemnation and fits under appearance of impropriety. I believe all but about a dozen of them are actually already here, so it wouldn't make the page too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcsmith (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're getting your info from Wikipedia - censure, that article is not nearly complete. There are a lot more than just a dozen or so. Joe Wilson is included only because he is more recent and people kept adding him in and taking him out. So the 'recent' guideline seems a reasonable compromise. The 'importance' guideline also seems reasonable to me. Take the case of the Keating Five, given the size of the affects of the scandal and the collusion of the participants even though, technically, it is not 'political.' And besides, I don't even want to THINK of all the state, county and city government actions that could flood this article (see above discussion about size.)

What really gives me pause, though, is the lack of definition of the charges of who is rebuked, admonished, condemned, suspended, reprimanded, found in contempt, found to have acted improperly, used poor judgement or expelled by their legislatures. As far as I can tell, it stems from the party of the Committee Chairman depending on who is in power from the last election. I've never seen an objective discussion of these terms. Have you? Same thing goes for charges, investigations, indictments. The Clintons had more than anybody, but they were all found baseless or innocent.

I think we should definately include impeached, expelled or guilty, but is "suspension" more or less important than "censure?" Is "rebuke" more or less important than "reprimand?" The waters become very muddy, very quickly. richrakh````

Censure > Reprimand > Rebuke > "using poor judgement" and whatnot. I'm pretty sure these are a formal hierarchy in the US Congress. Censures should definitely be included, and the Wikipedia "list[s] of censured US Reps/Senators" is complete as far as other I know. Reprimands by congress should be included because they've only been around since 1976, would probably have been censures before then, and they're relatively few in number. I agree that "rebukes" and "poor judgements" go too far (they are much greater in number), as are any admonishments from non-federal legislatures not resulting in conviction or expulsion; state legislators are almost always too small of fish to actually be considered bona-fide major scandals. It's a fine line, but I think that's an acceptable place to draw it. Pcsmith (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just visited Censure which had this: Censure is a procedure for publicly reprimanding a public official for inappropriate behavior. When the president is censured, it serves merely as a condemnation and has no direct effect on the validity of presidency, nor are there any other particular legal consequences. Unlike impeachment, censure has no basis in the Constitution or in the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. It derives from the formal condemnation of either congressional body of their own members.

If that's true, it sounds like the two terms are interchangeble. And after checking Censure in the United States it seems that none of the actions come with any penalty at all except expulsion. I also went to List of United States Representatives expelled, censured of reprimanded which has 36 and then List of United States senators expelled or censured which has 41. These two lists are longer than Censure in the United States, but together they add 77 new items to "Scandals" which seems like a lot to me, not counting the ones who are already there. richrakh````

There is no penalty for censure, but anything resulting in that level is usually a career-ender and I think fits under the category of scandal. It's also much less than 77 entries. The vast majority of those 77 were A)investigated but not disciplined, B)are already in the article for other reasons (i.e. convictions), or C)due to the Civil War, which doesn't count as a scandal. My inventory of the ones that are in debate (i.e. censured/reprimanded, but not as part of a larger scandal) are:

That's 18, of which I count 7 as already in the article. Pcsmith (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. You talked me into it. Don't forget outside references. richrakh````

Removal of Gerald Walpin item

The only Obama executive branch scandal listed as of this date is the Gerald Walpin affair, which I think should be removed. It's not an executive branch scandal. If I understand this correctly after reading his article and a number of its references: AmeriCorps money was misused by some organization, they settled by repaying half their grant, Walpin wrote a report complaining about the settlement, Walpin wrote another report complaining about an AmeriCorps program, then there was a meeting at which Walpin didn't perform very well, and afterwards the CNCS board of directors requested, basically, that he be removed, then Obama suspended Walpin, based partly on Walpin having decided to telecommute from New York, and partly because of his being "disruptive", according to the White House. Walpin disputes most of this, including what occurred at the meeting, and felt strongly enough about it to file his lawsuit.

What is the "scandal" here? This sounds like a mundane HR matter and nobody will recall any of this in a couple of years, especially after a couple of actual scandals will have occurred within the Obama administration. I'll remove the section in a week or so — maybe some other editor can enlighten me about what is "scandalous" about this matter. Whatever "scandal" occurred should be included in the article, if there was any scandal. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The only 'scandal' here is that someone noticed there were no Obama scandals (yet) and decided this was as close as they could come. Everytime someone tried to take take it out, they'd but it back in. But it's old and minor news, please remove it. richakh````

Obama had a a major scandal on day 1 when he appointed a Treasury Secretary who had not paid his taxes--the country was in desperate shape and he was confimed. see [for details]. Rjensen (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama's Secretary of the Treasury is Timothy Geithner, a former Republican who worked under Reagan and now labels himself an Independent. richrakh````

yes indeed. But Obama appointed him to a top cabinet job --Treasury Secty--in early 2009 and it was revealed he had avoided $50,000 or so in federal taxes over a period of years. He had to pay up, and that was a major scandal at the time that is attributable to Obama. A second scandal involved the nomination to the cabinet of ex Senator Tom Daschle--he also had avoided his taxes and was forced to withdraw. Two major scandals. They have been covered at length in the press, and belong in this listing. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

that's setting the standard of "major" pretty low. There are a whole mess of Republicans who will also have to be included with that guideline. richrakh````

Secretary of the Treasury and Secty of Health as "pretty low"?? Daschle was forced out and Geithner was publicly humiliated (but he was too essential to save the economy, so he stayed). The last Treasury Secty to get into that much trouble was Alexander Hamilton. The only Republican cabinet nominee to get rejected in recent decades that I recall was John Tower in 1989. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. The last Treasury Secty to get into REAL trouble was W. Bush's Catalina Vasquez Villalpando (R) who was convicted of obstruction of justice and went to prison in 1992. richrakh````

No I was right. She was the "Treasurer of the United States", a minor job notable primarily because the treasurer gets to sign the dollar bill, while the Sec. of the Treasury controls national financial policies.Rjensen (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops.

Obama birth certificate scandal

Your article about American political scandals does not include any mention of the Obama birth certificate scandal. There were many people who said that Obama was not eligible to run for President because he was not born in the United States,he was actually born in Indonesia. Obama was born in Indonesia,he went to school in Indonesia,later he moved to Hawaii. After he decided to run for President his supporters produced a birth certificate for him that was supposedly from Hawaii. This birth certificate was claimed to be genuine,but there were a few problems with it. It was not signed by the attending physician. In the space marked 'race', Obama's race is listed as 'african'. Can you imagine calling someone an african in the 1950's? It was unheard-of to call black Americans 'africans' in the 1950's. Back in those days,the word 'negro' was used instead of the word 'african'. The word 'african' didn't come into style until the 1970's and 1980's. Since Obama's birth certificate says he's 'african' (instead of negro),it sounds suspiciously modern,like the birth certificate was written in the 1990's,instead of the 1950's. His birth certificate is obviously a forgery.

It is interesting to note that John Mc Cain (Republican senator from Arizona) was born in Panama,and since he was born in Panama,he was not eligible to run for President,either. Only U.S.-born American citizens are allowed to run for President,so in the election of 2008,we had a Democrat who was born in Indonesia running against a Republican who was born in Panama! Neither one of them was eligible to run for President! Mc Cain's campaign team insisted that since Mc Cain was born in the 'canal zone',and since the 'canal zone' was U.S. territory,he was still eligible to run,and Obama's campaign team stubbornly stuck to their story about Obama's birth certificate being authentic. It seems impossible that a major scandal like this could have escaped your attention. Signed,Anthony Ratkov. August 11,2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.122.144 (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What you write is neither a correct presentation of the facts nor of the law. Our article natural-born citizen may help with the later. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories may help with the former. No, this is not a scandal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

==Mister Schulz,how many American hospitals in the 1950's wrote the word 'african' on birth certificates when black children were born? I suppose none of them did. In those days the word 'african' was not used. The word 'negro' was used instead. Since Obama's so-called 'birth certificate' says his race is 'african',it's authenticity can be disputed. The word 'african' sounds contemporary,it does not sound like something they would put on a birth certificate in the 1950's. Signed,Anthony Ratkov. August 11,2010.

If there are any black Americans reading this article,I would like to ask you a question...if you were born in the 1950's,what does it say on your birth certificate? Does it say you were Negro,or does it say you were African? I think that millions of people could truthfully say that on their birth certificates it says they are Negroes,not Africans. The word Negro was commonly used in the 1950's to describe black people. The word Negro was still being used in the 1960's! Martin Luther King was called a great Negro leader,in the 1960's! If you could interview any doctor or nurse who worked at a hospital in the 1950's they would probably say that they used the word 'Negro',not the word 'African' on birth certificates for black babies. If there are any doctors or nurses who worked at hospitals in the 1950's who are reading this article,I ask you to come forward,and I ask you,when you wrote a birth certificate for a black baby,did you use the word 'African' or the word 'Negro' to describe the baby's race? It is most likely that every one of them will answer 'Negro',because that was the common word used to describe black people in those days. The word 'African' (as in African-American) did not become popular until the 1990's. Obama's birth certificate is probably a forgery that was written in the 1990's because it says his race is 'African',and the word 'African' is politically correct in terms of 1990's politics,not 1950's politics. It is impossible to authenticate the word "African" in a 1950's context because the word "African" did not become popular until a much later period,specifically,the 1980's and 1990's. Signed,Anthony Ratkov. August 11,2010.

I'm not a "Mister", and you apparently did not read the articles I provided. Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Unless you have reliable sources, please refrain from pontificating. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call you 'mister' as away to be snotty or as a way to insult you. If I wanted to insult you,I would have simply hurled an insult at you. The name 'Stephen' is a male name,and males are usually referred to as 'mister'. On your user page it says "I'm a Steve",and Steve is also a male name. Males are usually referred to as 'Mister". So,if you prefer to be called Mrs.or Miss,that's a surprise,because men usually accept being called 'mister' without any problem. At least real men do. As far as using Wikipedia as a 'soapbox',I think you've got a lot of gall to accuse me of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Have you read Wikipedia's article about the Million Man March? Your anti-white racial bias is unequaled. I read Wikipedia's article on the Million Man March,and an important fact was omitted. Wikipedia omitted the fact that whites were not allowed to attend the march. If anybody is up on a soapbox,it's you,not me. Signed,Anthony Ratkov. August 12,2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.79.238 (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Steve or Stephan. But if you want to be formal, it's "Dr. Schulz". And I'm not Wikipedia. I don't think I've ever contributed to Million Man March. Again, if you have reliable sources, feel free to add information to the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Should the ACORN scandal be listed here?

I'm not sure what the criteria are for a scandal to be listed here. This scandal is definitely notable, but I'm not certain whether it involves the Federal government directly enough to be included. Does anyone else have an opinion? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no. I don't think just giving money to an organization that may have done something wrong is enough. The Lockheed bailout, the big bank bail outs and most of the oil companies all got government funds, rights or leases in one form or another and they ALL seem to have broken laws somewhere. September 12, 2010, richrakh````

Organizing this material

Because these lists are getting rather long, and especially if we create some new categories, it might be useful to consider preparing an Alphabetical Index that lists hyperlinked personal names, as another access point.

"Nixon Jewelry"

Can someone supply a source for a 1974 "Nixon Jewelry" scandal?

I remember Jack Brooks (I think it was Rep. Brooks) using the word "emolluments" during the committee hearings looking into the impeachment of Nixon, in connection with "gifts" Nixon received (possibly as head of state, but maybe domestic gifts also) and I see that a much earlier Nixon "gifts" event from 1952 in connection with the "Checkers" speech is already included on the list of scandals.

But I'm not sure what the "Nixon Jewelry" scandal in this article's list refers to. After looking far and wide for a source, and finding none, I would recommend deleting the "Nixon Jewelry" reference.

Wisconsin Caucus Scandal (2002)

Does anyone know what this is about?````

Inslaw Scandal

Just re-reading this entry and though the case is very interesting, the use of the terms 'allegedly' and 'may' make me suspect the case has not been proven. I see my insertion of the Casolaro murder failed to meet Hag2's definition of political. If that's the case, how does the conviction of Earl Brian, the CEO of UPI and FNN, both private entities I believe, qualifiy as 'political?' Both Ed Meese and D. Lowell Jensen are political figures, but I don't believe Meese's wife qualifies. And how does Jensen's position as a competitor to Promis rank as a scandal? I'm sure they had lots of competitors. Finally, though it deserves to be mentioned, why so much coverage of a 15 yr old scandal in which no political figures were jailed or even got much press. I've never heard of this one, sleezy as it sounds.````

Payment of Columnists with Federal Funds

This is a scandal not because it is 'unethical' but because it was 'illegal.' Editing and emphasis added.

Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY

The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.

The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation.

The contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

Williams' contract was part of a $1 million deal with Ketchum that produced "video news releases" designed to look like news reports. The Bush administration used similar releases last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers' dollars. richrakh````

^ New York Times, November 5, 2009, "Kerick Pleads Quilty in Corruption Case" by Sam Dolnick
^ [2])
^ Tom Hamburger, "Inquiry of Rove Brings Unit Out of Obscurity", The Los Angeles Times April 24, 2007, rpt. in The Seattle Times, accessed April 26, 2007.

[1] New York Times, November 5, 2009, "Kerick Pleads Quilty in Corruption Case" by Sam Dolnick

[2] [2])

[Hamburger-3] Tom Hamburger, "Inquiry of Rove Brings Unit Out of Obscurity", The Los Angeles Times April 24, 2007, rpt. in The Seattle Times, accessed April 26, 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]