Talk:List of federal political scandals in the United States

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.````

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.

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)

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)

---

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)

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.

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)

"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.

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)

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)

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.

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)