Talk:Mark Foley/Archive 1

Beginning Sentence

Mark Foley's reported behavior is symptomatic of an individual forced to lead a life of secrecy since adolescence. As a means to survive in a society that rejected his homosexuality, he became conditioned to say one thing and do another. His contempt for society's moral code allowed him to abuse its trust without remorse.

The lesson to be learned from Mark Foley is that shaming and harassing teenagers into the closet breeds lies and contempt that ultimately hurt all of us. PaulBurglin 04:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not help but notice that the opening sentence of his early years and inital carreer is flamatory and should be removed. However, i couldn't find where it was located so could not delete it, would someone please edit or remove it?

• ~EDIT~ It appears that while i was typing this, someone removed it already. Thanks.

I think this should be reworded: "an American politician, pedophile, and a former Republican member of the United States House of Representatives", as it seems to imply he is no longer a Republican, and there is no need for the first description of being an American politician if he was in the US House. A suggestion would be "a Republican politician and former member of the United States House of Representatives." Lewie 11:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley was very Liberal

I don't think the article stresses enough how liberal Mark Foley was in his voting record.

Here is what one Blogger wrote about him when he was running for Senate. I appreciate his good stands on most GLBT issues, but respectfully disagree with many of his other positions, so would vote for his opponent whatever his sexual orientation. (Well, and – as I feel compelled occasionally to point out to newcomers to this site – I’m treasurer of the Democratic National Committee.) [[1]]

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Representative Foley voted more liberal on social policy issues than 46 percent of the Representatives.[[2]]

Um, being more liberal than less than half of the Representatives doesn't make him liberal. That makes him... moderate. Thanks for disproving your own point. FCYTravis 21:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Critical Item

Hey! Why was this removed? It needs to be put back in.

Foley was a member of Christine Todd Whitman's It's My Party Too and the Republican Main Street Partnership.

Could someone put that sentence above back in. It is extremely important.

There appears to be a great deal of politically motivated censorship here. The term pro-choice has also been removed without adequate justification by FCYTravis twice. I'll give him a while to come here and discuss his problem with the term before I report his censorship. --Neil Brown 05:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Report me all you wish. You've been reverted multiple times by several different people who believe the term should not be in the lede. If you persist, you may be blocked for violation of the three revert rule. FCYTravis 06:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted exactly once. Why do you compound your problem and earlier refusal to discuss our differences on this discussion page with lies? You have zero credibility. --Neil Brown 06:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

One. Two. Three. Followed by this blatant WP:POINT violation. I shan't bother responding to your other attacks, as I think it's clear who is credible and who isn't. FCYTravis 07:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Those weren't reverts. Since you don't know what a revert is I'll tell you. A revert is where you eliminate the revision of a previous editor and change the article back to what it once was. It is, in fact, what you did. It is not when you insert the same text you inserted before into a new version of the article. Try to keep up. --Neil Brown 21:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neil - what you did is also a revert. Your definition is correct, and is exactly what you did - the elimination of the revision of a previous author. That you were eliminating an elimination is not relevant - you were reverting the article to how you had previously changed it, as you say you did. Whether the reversions are to remove or to re-insert text, they are both in violation of WP:3RR --Mnemeson 21:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I left the edit of the previous author intact and added text to it. That is not a revert. A revert is removing the text of a previous author and resoring it with a different version of text. --Neil Brown 22:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You reverted a removal. At here, you inserted the words "pro choice", which were removed by Friday in the next version of the article, here. Your next action, here, was to revert the removal of your words, and re-insert them as they had been. Whether you wish it to be so or not, what you did is to revert Friday's edit to the article, by undoing his contribution. The fact that his contribution was to remove text is not relevent - you undid it, which is a reversion. You may claim that you "left the edit intact and added to it", but you didn't actually leave it intact, because the edit was to remove the text you had added before, and added again. --Mnemeson 22:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The term revert pertains to the article not a single edit. If a revert has been made two versions of the article will exactly match one another. In none of your examples is that the case. In your first example the 2nd edit prior was made by Derex. FlareNUKE then removd quotes in the article as shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Foley&diff=prev&oldid=79929967

I then added pro-choice to FlareNUKE's edit - not a reversion - as shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Foley&diff=79941305&oldid=79929967

Your other claimed "reversions" are the same case. Words were added to an edit. Nothing was reverted. Is this a difficult concept for MoveOn.Com? --Neil Brown 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing 'revert' with 'delete'. In a sequence of edits, when your edits were 1 and 3, edit 1 inserted text x, edit 2 removed it, and edit 3 inserted precisely the same text x that had been removed in edit 2 (these are the diffs I linked to above, you, Friday, you, in sequence). According to Help:Revert, "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past." You did this, when you undid the change (deletion) done by Friday. Therefore, whilst you have not deleted, you have reverted, whether you like it or not. --Mnsfdgemeson 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No. You seem to be confusing revert with edit. A revert of an article replaces an article with a previous version. If a revert has been made two versions of an article will exactly match. That was the case 3 times for Travis - a violation of Wikipedia policy. It was the case only once for me - not a violation of Wikipedia policy.

In the definition you fetched "To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past." Pay very close attention to the word all. If all changes are reverted then two versions of the article will match. It's very clear. Why are you still having trouble with this? --Neil Brown 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm having no trouble at all with it, and can prove that two of them do match, perfectly - this difference is between the edits you saved at 23:43 on 6 October and 05:14 on 7 October. You'll notice the lack of red text or empty spaces indicating any changes - because the two versions are identical. At 23:43, you inserted "]] [[pro choice" into the article, as shown here. At 23:50, Friday removed that, as shown here. At 05:14, you re-inserted precisely the same text, as shown here. The difference between your two saves is shown here. There are none. At that point, you had reverted all the changes. The versions match. If you still need help understanding why this was a reversion, I'll be happy to help, if you can tell me where you're losing track with, or disagreeing with, the explanation. --Mnemeson 01:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've already stated I reverted once. Wikipedia has a 3 revert rule, not a 1 revert rule. Travis violated the 3 revert rule, I did not. The ponderous lack of depth here is astounding. --Neil Brown 06:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you the Neil Brown who is executive editor of the St Petersburg Times.[3] Just wondering. Thanks. Derex 07:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No. He's a relative. --Neil Brown 21:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. We explain Foley's political opinons in the relevant part of the article. Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs in the first sentence of the article. Friday (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly, you forgot that this is a biographical article not a Foley Politics/Scandal article. "Issues" are for political speech, not biographies. Biographies should center on personal identity. Inasmuch as sexual identity and political philosophy is biographical in nature the adjectives "gay" and "pro-choice" clearly belong in the opening line. --Neil Brown 22:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How about adding the descriptor "straight" to the opening line of every article on known heterosexuals? -- Dcflyer 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead. I wouldn't revert you edits. But that would appear supercillious since heterosexuals comprise at least 95% of the population. --Neil Brown 00:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. What are we gonna do about all those people who haven't publically come out? Their heterosexuality might well be an open secret, but if they haven't told newspapers about it, are we going to have to put "who is widely believed to be straight^{(RS here)}" ? ;-) --Mnemeson 22:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You leave them the privacy they seem to be requesting. As far as Mark Foley goes however, "Mark Foley wants you to know he is a gay man." It's as simple as that. After that request the only reason to censor it would be political. That's a violation of NPOV. --Neil Brown 00:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Who will replace Mark Foley?

add the following bullet to the External Links section:

• List of candidates for the Sixteenth Congressional District of Florida

SheepNot 02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  07:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Early speculation is that Foley's replacement will fail and the seat will go to the Democratic candidate.

Political plans

• Foley's plans hit a snag when rumors surfaced that he was in a longterm relationship with another man. Foley held a press conference to denounce the "revolting" rumors and stated that his sexual orientation was unimportant. 2004 article on Foley gay controversy

I notice that an unregistered editor has been repeatedly removing this information. Is there a reason? It seems verifiable and MPOV. If it is not, how can we fix it? Cheers, -Willmcw 04:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

What's MPOV? NPOV? --DavidConrad 07:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is whether or not one is gay controversial? Michaelh2001 23:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

HRC Scorecard

Interesting piece of information is that Foley was given a score of 88 by Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for 2004. http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Congress_and_Scorecard/Index.htm

How you can help

If you -- yes, dear reader, you -- have any more information on Mark Foley's public life, and can provide sources to verify everything, please add it to the article! This article should be about a congressman's entire career, not just his apparent downfall. --M<sgdf="orange">@rēino 20:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)sdfg

On the other hand, if you have pertinent information about recent events, try visiting Wikinews and contributing there. HsdfgsdffffdfssgTfdH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I am unprotecting, since I see no vandalism prior to protection. Neither protection nor semi-protection should be used pre-emptively. If you disagree, please explain here before protecting. Superm401 - Talk

I was just going to add in here that we need protection for this article. Too bad you got rid of it. Preemption is very apt under these circumstances. Please cite a rule saying you need an act of vandalism first. --162.84.75.61 23:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm still considered a "recently" registered user, because I don't see edit links on the Foley page - all I really want to do is correct the several grammatical errors that are now semi-permanently preserved by the protection... :-/ Beeeej

Please see the protection policy for more information; the page is unprotected now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley's MySpace

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=43489677

not much there. --Kalmia 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone find a picture of Foley alone? His official House portrait, for example? Including a picture with Ashcroft in the background is suspiciously out of place. (unsigned comment).

It doesn't matter if Ashcroft is in the picture - it's been fine up until now. It is pedantic and pathetic to suggest that Ashcroft's presence in the background somehow impugns his reputation vis-a-vis this recent sex scandal. There are many other Wikipedia articles whose subject's pictures have other people of even greater prominence. JF Mephisto 21:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Words like 'pedantic' and 'pathetic' are simply name-calling, not logical arguments. If a photo is controversial or biased, the best course of action is to find a neutral photo that all can agree on.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 21:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that. First, like Ashcroft and 'lady Liberty,' this is a politically-charged photo. The insinuation is that Mark Foley was backed/endorsed by the Republican 'family values' establishment. While that may (or may not) be true, it should be up to the reader to draw that conclusion, not some propaganda placed by a political hack on Wikipedia. There are plenty of official bio's pictures of Mark Foley, as well as news conference photos. Further, for the political hacks, I noted the same politcially-charged picture was used in the 'Congressional Page Scandal of 2006' article.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 21:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with posting a photo of Mark Foley with a blurred out, hardly recognizable John Ashcroft in the photo. Now if it was a picture of Foley and Ashcroft standing together at a fund raiser, then that MIGHT (emphasize MIGHT) be something we'd want to change. But to assert that a photo of him with a blurred out person behind him is POV, or politically charged is pointless. Batman2005 02:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This does seem like kind of a silly argument, but I mostly-cropped Ashcroft out of the picture and uploaded it under a different filename to remove the "propaganda" (?) from the image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 12:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Gay politician

Until he makes a statement openly declaring he is gay, I see no reason to include that category. And just to make it clear, I am not defending him or the GOP by saying that doesn't deserve inclusion. I am not a Republican, and I'll be the first in any political debate to make clear my hatred of the Republican Party. I am gay, and so I see no reason in accordance to NPOV to put someone as gay unless they have publicly acknowledged such.

I agree that per WP:V,WP:OR and WP:BLP we should not list him as a gay politician. However, I disagree with your assertion that we should not list someone as gay unless they have acknowledged it (this would mean for example, that dead politicians who turned out to be gay would never be able to go into the cat). JoshuaZ 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am only talking about living politicians.

sorry that me not logged in

If someone says they are NOT gay, however, it seems to me that the category should be removed, to be in accordance with the policy on biographies of living people. Wencer 02:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me how that would follow from WP:BLP. If we had reliable sources that said the person was gay then inclusion in the cat would be acceptable under WP:BLP (as I understand it). JoshuaZ 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk, but given recent circumstances, are we really arguing that he doesn't at least fall into the LGBT category? -Umdunno 03:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Umdunno, here. Just the thought, is all. "I'm not gay, I just like talking dirty with underaged boys about their 'cute butts' and masturbation on the internet." Y'know? Italiavivi 04:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is out of line because Foley never said 'I'm not gay.' He said 'I'm not going to discuss my private life.'→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean not to offend anyone with my assumptions, but I would assume that any person who engages in sexual acts with somebody of the same sex would be a homosexual or bisexual individual. As for Foley denying that he is gay, Michelle Malkin denies being Filipino or Asian (more GOP hypocrisy), but since she is born in the Philippines, she's listed as Filipino-American whether she likes it or not. If somebody denies that they're gay, but has legitimate evidence proving otherwise (e.g: the transcripts of Foley's conversations), I think they should be listed under gay politicians. If they want to deny or admit it, it's their own private business, but it goes against providing the facts on Wikipedia.--Folksong 06:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Foley has NOT denied that he was gay. Instead, he said that he wouldn't discuss his private life (a la Anderson Cooper) but Foley has confirmed to private individuals that he is gay, and this made its way into the gay press in 2003, at the latest. Emphatically, Foley never said 'I'm not gay.'→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 21:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if he has denied or he hasn't, he hasn't publicly STATED he is gay.

There is undeniable proof that he engaged in sexual acts with a member of the same sex, and that classifies him as being either gay or bisexual. Even if he doesn't state it, it's obvious that he is.--Folksong 20:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no proof that he engaged in sexual acts with a member of the same sex, and even if he had, that wouldn't make him gay or bisexual. This article is a biography of a living person and as such, all possibly contentious claims must be scrupulously sourced and verifiable. He has not said that he is gay - and thus we cannot report that he is gay. We can report that publications have "outed" him and that he has not confirmed or denied their assertions - but we can't say that he's gay. FCYTravis 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, having sexual desire for a child is not necessarily about gayness-- such desires are usually about a lust for power and control, or maybe some kind of evil possession of the soul!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Him having a sexual attraction for a male of any age makes him a homosexual or bisexual. I don't think you can really say that a 16 or 17 year old is a 'child', maybe not legally an adult, but not a child. That doesn't mean that any of his actions weren't innapropriate or hypocritical. 'Innapropriate' and 'hypocritical' are POV that should be confined to the talk pages and maybe quoting someone else on the main article. --Kalmia 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If Michael Jordan has never explicitly stated, "I'm tall," does that mean he shouldn't be described as tall? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.109.41.2 (talk • contribs) .

I feel sure the gay community would not want to claim this sicko. Just because he wants little boys does not make him gay. He is a pedophile if you ask me. GROSS! BaliPearl 16:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Pedophilia is attraction primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Mark Foley made his advances towards teenagers. Whether the "gay community" would like to claim him has absolutely nothing to do with whether he is gay. A number of news sources have reported that it was widely known in Washington that he is, in fact, gay. --DavidConrad 07:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is now moot as his attorney has said he that Foley is gay: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2523738 Moncrief 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Moot point aside, the point that sexual behavior is independent of sexual orientation is still true. Psychologists no longer use a behavioral model for understanding sexual orientation, they consider it a set of persisting sexual, emotional and romantic attractions to a particular sex DESPITE whether or not an individual chooses to act in accordance with them. As an example many gay people start out in the closet, and many (particularly older generations) force themselves to have sexual relationships and even families with members of the opposite sex to hide the truth from themselves and everyone else. That doesn't mean they are all bisexual. It just means they are closeted gay people trying to fit into the world. Conversely, homosexual acts do occasionally occur between people who are not gay, as in the case of prison. And as someone already pointed out, rape and coersion are almost always about power, not sexual gratification. And another problem with the behavioral model is that nobody would be able to claim any sexual orientation until they actually engaged in sexual activity, which I think everyone can see is pretty absurd. Most people are aware of their sexual orientation well before the engage in sexual activity for the first time in their lives. None of this means Foley isn't gay. It just means that outsiders lack both the complete inner knowledge of his thoughts, not to mention the ethical right, to be making that decision for anyone else. And although it may seem like a moot point since it appears he does identify as gay, people should still be aware of how sexual orientation and sexual behavior are defined so they know what they are talking about in instances such as this one. People should not be so quick to judge the next time a public figure is outed.

underaged Congressional pages?

Underaged? How old are they? Kingturtle 04:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

16 to 18.Chaotic nipple 04:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

someone add

—Preceding unsigned comment added by GH45 (talk • contribs)

I'll put it in the article. Arbusto 05:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Th reference to the page's age should be changed from 18 to 16 or just "underage," as the pages were underage went Foley sent the IMs. Otherwise, the sentence impies that what Foley wanted was legal sexual interaction, when in fact it would qualify - at best - as statutory rape.. 66.170.220.214 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)hoyaman

Linking to full conversation he had with underaged boy?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=2509586&page=1

Why was this removed from the Wiki? It absolutely needs to be put back in.

Foley was a member of Christine Todd Whitman's It's My Party Too and The Republican Main Street Partnership.

This link should absolutely be included in the wiki.

a reference

This article has some useful information about his legislative priorities, as well as the recent sordidness. Article would be improved by a broader coverage of his legislative priorities, not that it's bad now. Lots of anti-immigrant stuff for example. Derex 12:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

House Vote

Can someone edit the information about the House vote to give the matter to the House Ethics Committee? Pelosi's resolution was blocked by Boehner, who offered his own (slightly different) resolution. Boehner's was passed 409-0 (not 410-0) as per this CNN article: House to probe resigning Congressman's notes to teen. Rainbowsprinkless 10:23, 30 September 2006

I was about to comment on the same issue. Does anyone have any information supporting the statement that the resolution that ultimately passed was introduced by Pelosi, not Boehner? If not, I think the article should be edited appropriately. - Walkiped 16:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It was Boehner's.[4] Pelosi's called for the scope of Ethics to include conduct of the House leadership. You can imagine how likely _that_ was to get voted on. Boehner resolution wasn't even directing an investigation, it was directing the Ethics Committee to vote on whether to have an investigation. Derex 09:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The vote was 410-0 on "ordering the previous question", the parliamentary maneuver which brought Boehner's resolution to the floor. The vote was 409-0 on the motion to refer. [5] --Dhartung | Talk 12:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I now think the parliamentary gist here is that it was Pelosi's resolution that passed, but on Boehner's motion, it was "referred" instead of "adopted". Essentially the resolution is just something for the committee to consider, rather than a direction to do all the things like a subcommittee. --Dhartung | Talk 15:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

homophobia?

a lot of this talk seems homophobic!

• Well he'd still be in trouble if it was underaged girls he was asking for pictures, or if they made him horny (this guy thinks he's Austin Powers?), or to strip off their boxers.... but that it was same-sex pederasty is important because after all he's a Republican, in a Republican district, and the anti-gay platform of the party makes this a massive hypocrisy!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, a female would still be a big deal. But the cynical old political adage does go: "Never be caught with a dead girl or a live boy". Regardless of the political or media reasons, it's a big story and our job is to report that reaction without comment on its merits. Derex 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I third the original reply. Any politician engaging in sexual conduct with a minor is bound for a world of trouble, no matter whether or not it's boys or girls. And to Pacific PanDeist, the GOP was being so hypocritical over Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, two consenting adults, and now they turn their heads when one of their own is engaged in unwilling sexual acts with a minor. Seriously, do they even care about what's happening to these poor kids or are they just trying to minimize the fallout?--Folksong 20:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think the biggest thing to come out of this will end up being the cover-up. Hastert should have told this guy when he found out a year ago, "sorry, you're not running for re-election." //// Pacific PanDeist * 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone find it ironic that the ones who are always so outspoken about certain immoral acts seem to always be practitioners themselves? (Foley - pedophile , Limbaugh - drug addict, Thurmond - had a kid with a black woman etc etc).

• Hope you're not suggesting that "had a kid with a black woman" is an immoral act!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who Strom Thurmond was? He ran on a segregationist platform, and was widely considered to be a (former?) racist. JF Mephisto 01:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Foley has NOT been shown to be a pedophile. The only thing I see him guilty of is sexual harassment.

Correct, because by the laws of his home state and Washington DC the pages were within age of concent under conditions he could have met. He couldn't even be called an adulterer because he's unmarried.

Actually, in FL the age consent is 18. Mormon_Princess

leadership response

That section doesn't need to be here. It's not about Foley per se, and this is a bio of him. It's well-covered in the scandal article. I suggest a section merge. Derex 09:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If the section does stay, the first part quoting the Associated Press needs a close quotation mark somewhere. Beeeej

Text of online exchange

I think the partial transcript of the instant messages should be moved to 2006 Mark Foley scandal. Thoughts? --Stlemur 12:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. A simple description here would be enough. Derex 12:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As an earlier user pointed out, including an excerpt from this transcript provides a good example of what the conversation entailed. The excerpt included is particularly effective at showing the explicit character of the conversatioon. My point is that sometimes a direct quotation is far more effective at conveying an idea than mere description. Interestingstuffadder 14:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No one suggested removing the transcript excerpt from Wikipedia. The suggestion is to move it to the scandal article, which is designed to accomodate the full scope of detail. Almost anyone interested in Foley is going to read the scandal article, because that's why he's interesting. But the bio itself should be bio-like. Derex 23:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to have a longer excerpt in the scandal article. However, a short excerpt, as we now have in the main article, serves an important illustrative role regarding the incident that, unfortunately, is likely to and up as the most notable episode in this man's life. Interestingstuffadder 23:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else? Derex 08:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Effect on 2006 Election

This sentence has serious NPOV problems:

"This event, along with several other recent scandals, will surely make it very difficult for Repbulicans to maintain their majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate."

I suggest changing this to a more neutral phrase. It should say something like "this has the potential to further complicate Republican efforts to maintain majorities in the two houses of Congress." The phrase "surely make it very difficult" states as fact things that cannot be known with such certainty.

Agree. I reckon they're probably screwed, but it's impossible to be certain at this stage. Umlautbob 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

alcoholism and rehab

Does anyone know of a source to identify the actual clinic he checked into for rehab? The 'blogsphere' is reporting that said clinic is tied to scientology. Hackajar 11:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

opening of scandal

I believe Democrats have attacked Republicans for not dealing with the Foley issue earlier. Are there any sources that say that Democrats have known about the issue as well? This "October surprise" comes down as being carefully planned, so I wonder if there are any news articles about this? Intangible 17:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and us liberals are paranoid?

ABC says its sources were Republicans.[6] Derex 01:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I find his quotes chosen for the article to be quite interesting considering what he himself has engaged in. no? hahaha! Messwemade 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed quotes as they were obviously very POV. C0h3n 22:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is their POV? Please explain. -Will Beback 22:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotes were obviously designed to make Foley look hypocritical, as they both involved ironic comments about sexuality. Ie, clinton let sex destroy his career. C0h3n 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are both issues which brought Foley wider recognition. -Will Beback 00:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Where can I find these quotes? I read them earlier but I would like to find them again.

Obviously there is some potential for abuse in the selection of quotes. But there's a balance. It is notable if Foley's actions form an obvious contrast against his past statements. --Saforrest 05:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Identity of the priest

Foley recently alleged he was molested by a clergyman when he was a kid. Did he ever give a name for the priest? -Northridge23:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a reference for that? Someone added it to the scandal article, but I couldn't verify it on Google. Thanks. Derex 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

AP: Foley says he was abused by a clergyman. The lawyer said a clergyman, so unless more info is provided, then it can not be assumed that it was a priest. ^BlankVerse 23:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that this happened when he was living in Lake Worth, city's website has a list of church so unless he was attending a church outside the city, we know which churches he could have went to. He also claims to be Roman Catholic so the list is further narrowed. I'm not listing them myself because this listing could be imcomplete and/or the claim itself may not be true. --Revth 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A priest of the Roman Catholic church? Ha! It's the old bulls told by some gay organisations. Gays hate the pope, you know. It is an attempt to show Foley's a victim. Zippar 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Father Anthony Mercieca -Northridge22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He is a retired priest living in Malta. He acknowledged "intimate contact" with Foley: "light touching," but denied that he and Foley had "sexual intercourse."[7] -- Dcflyer 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

coming out as gay

It should be noted when making rewrites that 1) although he made suggestive comments to the congressional pages, he had NOT solicited sex from them or attempted to meet them privately. 2) Although he should not have made the comments to people working under him, these are matters of possible sexual harassment and NOT pedophilia. In many first world countries the age of consent is 16 and some laws are as low as 12. and remember that there is NO relationship between ones sexual orientation and pedophilia. Michaelh2001 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Age of consent in FL is 18.

According to some of the IM's he did arrange to meet with at least on page privately. Agree with the rest. Derex 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

pedophilia; noun; sexual feelings directed towards children. Ordinary 07:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley is not a pedophille, his behavior was not related to pedophilia, it was purely homo-sexual behavior.

The word homosexual is not hyphenated, and no, it was not purely homosexual behavior because there was a great age disparity between him and the young boys. I'm not sure if that constitutes pedophilia per se, but he was clearly in a position of authority over the boys, so regardless the relationships were completely inappropriate.

Actually, it's ephebophilia.216.46.92.26 14:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If the victim was younger than 18, he was not adult. Consequently, Mark Foley is a pedophile. Pedophilia is a crime in the US. Zippar 11:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, he's a pederast. A pedophile preys on prepubescent children. The kids Foley was harassing were all kids who were sexually mature. There's a big difference between statutory rape and child molestation, both morally and legally.--Syd Henderson 17:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, he belongs on the Category:LGBT politicians from the United States

Regardless of his involvement with the pages he has been in a long-term commitment with another man in West Palm Beach, according to news reports. Since they weren't married the activity with the pages can't be called adultery, but it was not Foley's exclusive sexual behavior either. -Will Beback · † · 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Relationship to the Church of Scientology

Foley's relationship with the Church of Scientology should be mentioned if it is established that he is indeed staying in a church-affiliated rehab clinic. It would make this[8] less of a coinciedence.--Alex Kozak 03:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is his choice of clinic important for the scandal? Derex 12:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Because he's a public figure and it's public information so thus the public has a right to know.207.69.138.10 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientolgy has its own rehab group. Narcanon or something like that. check it out on the scientology portalThechosenone021 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely this is a typo: After the Foley scandal became public, on 5 October _2005_ the Church of Scientology removed the article boasting of their patronizing Foley from its website.[45]

Why is it that the Cult of Scientology always seems to connect itself to major scandals in one way or another? The Fading Light 18:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this lacks relevance to Mark Foley at all. It's attributed news stories about him. I didn't check the references, but assuming they are published sources, what's the problem?Lotusduck 19:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fox Identifies Foley as a Democrat

While the article notes (in somewhat of a footnote, no less) that Fox identifies Foley as a democrat, it fails to note that Fox made this "mistake" three times on three separate occasions on two separate fox shows. Additionally, while D-FL could easily be mistakenly typed instead of R-FL, this is a bit much: http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/Fox_Foley_3.jpg . cacophony 21:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Big deal. Control rooms make Chyron mistakes by the dozens every single day. Fox knows they have kooks literally taping them 24/7 looking for anything to complain about, so if they wanted to intentionally trick people into thinking Foley was a Democrat, they'd do it all day and night, every day and night. --Aaron 21:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I clearly stated that it was easy to make a mistake, but it's impossible to accidentally type "dems" instead of "republicans". Unless your keyboard has the "dems" key right next to the "republicans" key. Does it? cacophony 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron, this is non-notable--especially not in the article about Foley.--Bibliophylax 21:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. This says more about Fox then Foley. -Will Beback 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Some agreement. This is relevant on the Foley scandal page, not on this general bio page. JoshuaZ 00:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's utterly irrelevant for this biography page. Moncrief 13:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe the meaning behind that was that Fox was discussing whether the Democrats knew about the emails in prior months but waited until right before the election to bring it out. I don't think it was Fox trying to say that Foley was a dem. But either way it doesn't need to be in the article.

NPOV?

The way this is organized puts biased and less relevant insinuation in the first paragraphs. How relevant is it that he served on some committee for missing children? Wasn't this consentual the way the kid reciprocated with information about his masturbatory habits? (Remember Gary Studds anyone? How he defied a so-called "witch hunt"?) Wikipedia is just going to look more slanted than it already is. This was also occuring in 2003. Furthermore, why can't the top paragraph state that he is a gay politician in similar manner to above linked "Studds" article?? (I should mention here, associations with catheters, leather and rhinestone make these surnames blithly mirthful)

Gary Studds was in the early 1980s.

So in the 2000s, it's supposed to be harder now to be a gay man looking for love?

It's relevant because numerous commentators and the Speaker of the House have remarked on that particular bit of irony.

It may have relevance but not priority.

A number of pages have described Foley's advances as "unwanted" and "sick." Also, according to legislation Foley authored, those under 18 aren't capable of consenting, and it appears that a number of his targets were underage.

The chat doesn't seem to support that except "after the fact". And why now instead of 2003 when it was happening? I'm sure there were members in both parties, in the House aware of this at the time.

I would hazard a guess that we're not identifying him as gay in the introductory paragraph because of a need to keep the intro slim and brief, and because the other matters discussed are more relevant to his notability (such as engaging in improper sexual conduct with a minor, serving in Congress, etc.) Captainktainer * Talk 04:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean the need to not tarnish by association the reputations of "politically legitimized" minorities with the taint of politically "illegitimized" minorities? (Legitimate meaning left-wing or party bias?). We're talking about a single three letter word perhaps. If "formerly" this and "formerly" that is relevant, how about moving up the parts about "recently 'open'/'uncloseted' (take a pick) homosexual".

A general comment: can you please, please, please SIGN YOUR POSTS? You can do so by putting four tildes in a row after your post: ~ ~ ~ ~ , only without the spaces between them. Your username and the date will automatically show up. It's very difficult to know who is saying what in the above exchange. Thanks. Moncrief 13:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Gerry Studds should not be mentioned here because this is the page for Mark Foley himself, there are other articles about the Studds and Crane scandals. The reason that his chairmanship of the committee is mentioned is because former Rep. Foley was indeed the chair of that committee. BTW, to those who insist that the Studds and Foley affairs are equal, it should be pointed out that there are two key differences (1) Studds misdeed was with a single page who had reached the age of majority, Foley's IM's, E-mails and such were with what is becoming an alarming number of folks. (2) The relationship described by Studds and the other page was described at all times as consensual, as opposed to Foley's behavior, described as sick and unwanted.UnseemlyWeasel 02:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Was the page 16? or older?

According to a new report [9], the age of the page may have been misreported. Apparently he was 18? The message that ABC was hosting apparently was supposed to have the screen names redacted, but didn't, and someone tracked the page down. I think the age of the page should be removed until this is settled and verified. Doing so now. - Crockspot 17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The first page was 16 at the time of the first messages, see the discussion on the scandal discussion page and the references given in that article. JoshuaZ 17:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? The article I linked above is from today, and disputes that. Crockspot 17:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)-

I think so and I think the above reference was included. However, things are moving very quickly so I could be wrong. Best to look over there. JoshuaZ 17:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking over there, and I still am left with my original impression. The age reference should stay out for now, until the dust settles and we know more. The ABC cite is still titled "16yo", so we aren't hiding anything, just being prudent about Wiki editorializing. Crockspot 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

All pages are in their junior year of high school. The (not explicitly sexual) emails that sparked off the scandal were sent to a kid just leaving the program. However, there's now some talk that the explicit IMs widely circulated online were sent to a former page from a previous year, who was no longer a minor at the time of those conversations - perhaps in his early twenties. However, I have not yet seen a source for this. DanB†DanD 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news on Drudge, chats were a prank

The Drudge siren is up and spinning. Gotta love it. Crockspot 19:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So first it was because he's gay, then because he was an alcoholic, then because he was molested as a child by a priest, and now it was all just a prank... Yeah, right.

It doesn't matter a toss if the boy went into the chats as a joke - Foley's participation was equally abusive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.145.5 (talk • contribs) .

Intro change

Why was the intro changed to sound as if it was only one report of IMs with an 18-year-old? ABC reported three separate pages coming forward yesterday.  ??? Moncrief 21:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The intro is incorrect. The IM that has been the center of the scandal was an exchange on the evening of Feb-02-2003. According to the information on the on the blog "Passionate America" which was 'credited' with
discovering the identity of the former Page in the IM, his birthday is Feb-23. This means that he was 17 at the time of the IM exchange. The ‘18 year old’ claim appears to come from the fact he is 21 now and subtracting 3 years
for the difference between 2003 and 2006. Seriously, this is worse than sloppy, it borders on open lying.

Supporting links:
http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com/2006/10/meet-jordan-edmund-one-mark-foley.html
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html
http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf --Zorakoid 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Foley the Fag from Florida"

Is it worth noting that the pages had a a nickname for Foley, FFF, "Foley the Fag from Florida"?Rabbethan 03:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly depressing enough! God, what a sordid affair.

No, no it isn't. It's a minor trivium, at best, not terribly relevant to his notability. If major press coverage under the headline "Foley the Fag from Florida" appeared, then it might be appropriate to put in the article. Right now, however, it isn't relevant to encyclopedic knowledge about him. Captainktainer * Talk 18:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Bias

Refernces in this article to other more severe sex scandals, such as Gerry Studds repeated statutory rape of an underage male page, are regularly deleted causing this article to lose balance.

References to Foley's moderate Republican nature are repeatedly deleted - clear bias.

References to Mark Foley's being gay are repeatedly censored deleted despite his statemen that he wants us all to know he is a "gay man" - a bizarre stream of censorship. --Neil Brown 18:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't about the page controversy. It's about Mark Foley. Studds can be/is dealt with on the page controversy page. The article states quite clearly that he is gay - the fact that it isn't in the introductory paragraph seems to be what annoys you. Finally, the article has decent coverage of his voting record - if you have additional, notable material that you believe should be added, provide strong sourcing in compliance with our reliable sources guideline. If it doesn't have sources, be prepared for it to be deleted.

In other words, you're substantially wrong. Captainktainer * Talk 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're substantially wrong. Also note, as I have said to you before, the bit about "Mark Foley wants you to know he is a gay man" is already in the article. Your continued insistance that whoever disagrees with you is "censoring" the article is growing tiresome. If you don't have any substantial reasons why you feel the NPOV tag is justified, I'd suggest removing it. Friday (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Under "Social Issues" in the article, it clearly states that Foley's beliefs and voting record was more moderate than that of the Republican leadership on social issues. On the pages of other congresspeople, it isn't generally indicated in the introduction whether they are "moderate Republicans" or "liberal Democrats." The intro is for basic information, with the details later on. For the same reason, there isn't any reason to put in the intro that he's gay. The information appears just below, and again later in the article (i.e., it's not being deleted).

And why on earth should there be in a biography page for Mark Foley, references to Gerry Studds, whose scandal occurred before Foley was EVEN ELECTED TO THE HOUSE? You may (possibly) have a case that such a reference could be made deep on the Mark Foley scandal page to give some historical context to the scandal, but there isn't any reason at all to put a reference to Studds on Foley's bio page. Are you asserting that the two even knew each other? Had anything to do with each other?

I think the NPOV tag is unwarranted, and can be removed rather shortly barring any new evidence beyond what the tagger has written so far. Moncrief 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Appointed/elected?

The article says Foley was APPOINTED to Lake Worth city council, but the cited reference [9] says, I believe, that he "won" the seat (implying election). What's correct?

Is he no longer a Republican?

The opening statement says "Mark [...] Foley [...] was [...] a member of the Republican party." Has he changed his party registration since the scandal broke? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon's post

ALTERNATE PERSPECTIVE

Blogactive.com Mike Rogers has taken an active role in outting Mark Foley since September 5, 2003 in coordination with John Avarosis of Americablog. Blogactive operates under PageOneNewsMedia.com, registered to the same person, Michael Rogers. His Senior Photographer has bragged about the Foley outting as "The Worst Outting Ever" on National Coming Out Day - October 11, 2006. http://www.bearnakedjoe.com/bearnakedjoe.htm. He confesses in the post that Foley isn't a pedophile.

PageOneNewsMedia has several documents on its site documenting the Foley outting from 2003/2004. The documents can be found at http://www.pageonenewsmedia.com/media.

Mike Rogers also appeared on the O'Reilly Factor in 2004 discussing his outting campaign. The video can be viewed on another of Mike Roger's websites, http://www.proudofwhoweare.org/video1.html.

John Avarosis writes for Americablog.blogspot.com. In July 2004, he wrote an article titled: "Cong. Mark Foley (R) is our latest closeted gay hypocrite." which is available at http://americablog.blogspot.com/2004/07/cong-mark-foley-r-fl-is-our-latest.html.

Within an hour of the ABC story breaking on September 28, 2006, Avarosis made the post "GOP congressman admits to, says nothing wrong with, creepy email exchange with 16-year-old page" on AmericaBlog. Although he referenced the ABC story - he used images previously posted from StopSexPredators.blogspot.com on September 24, 2006.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/gop-congressman-admits-to-says-nothing.html

CREW identified the emails and said they received them on July 21, 2006 and had forwarded them to the FBI.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/campaign.php?view=155

Interestingly, in Avarosis' story on September 28, 2006, he made reference to the date July 21, 2006 in regards to Mark Foley. That was the day his child sex predator legislation passed in Congress.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:hSvBuyAELGUJ:www.house.gov/list/press/fl16_foley/072106senatesopass.html+july+21,+2006+foley+child+sex+predator+legislation&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

The emails CREW received were dated July-August of 2005. The Word document that the emails were contained in were dated September-October of 2005. CREW did not forward the emails to the FBI until July 21, 2006.

On September 21, 2006, Http://StopSexPredators.blogspot.com had reported on four emails received from Yahoo! and Hotmail accounts. One of the accounts was "w_h_intern@hotmail.com". In an amazing coincidence, both of the Yahoo! profiles indicated the last updates were September 19, 2006. They were supposed to have been separate emails from different people.

User WHInternNOW appeared twice on DailyKOS.

On September 5, 2006, WHInternNOW stated that Mark Foley touched underage interns.

On September 24, 2006, WHInternNOW attempted to draw attention to the "faked" blog Http://StopSexPredators.blogspot.com.

Radar Magazine ran a story on these posts.

On January 30, 2006, Mike Rogers announced on his site BlogActive that he would out a gay Republican congressman timed to sabotage his re-election efforts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.196.200 (talk • contribs) .

Date

"After the Foley scandal became public, on 5 October 2005 the Church of Scientology removed the article boasting of their patronizing Foley from its website.[45]"

2005? How can this be in 2005 if the scandal didn't break out until 2006? 24.7.97.151 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly it was a typo. It would have been faster and easier for you to correct it.--Fahrenheit451 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Maf54

Maf54 currently redirects to this article, yet there is no mention whatsoever of what "Maf54" means. We should not be assuming that people have already read the page-scandal details enough to recognize this instant-message moniker, but should instead make it explicit in the article text, with a reliable source for the connection. (That's why Wikipedia exists, after all — to inform.) One alternative may be to shift the redirect to Mark Foley scandal, as that is where "Maf54" is most relevant. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say it should redirect to the scandal article as that is what the IM ident is pertinent to. --StuffOfInterest 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done.Crust 21:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Movie role

Maybe an interesting tidbit to work into this article....? http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/11/mr-foleys-opus.php