Wikipediocracy

The Dennis Hastert scandal is all over the news today.

Go to Dennis Hastert (T-H-L), and what does the beginning of the article already say?

John Dennis "Denny" Hastert (/ˈhæstərt/; born January 2, 1942) is an American politician, lobbyist, and member of the Republican Party who was the 59th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, serving from 1999 to 2007. He represented Illinois's 14th congressional district for twenty years, 1987 to 2007. He is the longest-serving Republican Speaker in history.

On May 28, 2015, Hastert was indicted by federal prosecutors, who allege that he evaded the requirement that banks report cash transactions over US$10,000, and made false statements to the FBI about his withdrawals, in a hush money scheme. Hastert allegedly paid $1.7 million to a man whom, according to unnamed federal officials, he had sexually abused when that man was a student at Yorkville High School, during Hastert's time as a teacher and coach there.[2][3][4][5][6]

Sometimes I wonder if certain WPians who deal with political articles are sitting there, waiting to shit on certain politicians who are mired in a public scandal. And if political conservatives are the "first in line" to get said special treatment. Gary Hart (T-H-L) doesn't mention Donna Rice until deep into the text, Bill Clinton (T-H-L) has only a short mention of Monica in the opening paras, and Howard Dean (T-H-L) only mentions the "Dean Scream" deep into the text.

I'd do a proper survey of American politician articles for scandal mentions by party, but I get the impression that no one cares. Just sayin.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-has ... story.html
I think Hastert is about to be crapped on thoroughly.

It looks like he deserves it from the reports.

Indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying a former student from Yorkville, Ill., to conceal his alleged sexual abuse of the youth that took place while Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach at a high school there, federal law enforcement officials said Friday.

Fuck you, Hastert.
Fuck you right in the eye.

EricBarbour wrote:Sometimes I wonder if certain WPians who deal with political articles are sitting there, waiting to shit on certain politicians who are mired in a public scandal. And if political conservatives are the "first in line" to get said special treatment.

I don't think it's just conservatives - the recent troubles with Bob Menendez, a Democrat, were added to his lead section within 24 hours, for example - but I don't think there's really any question that an informal competition exists to see who can be the first to add the latest scandal to each article, and (to a lesser extent) to the lead sections of those articles whenever possible. And there should also be no question that this is not the way a proper encyclopedia should work.

That said, I always suspected Hastert was hiding something... I just couldn't prove it, mostly because I have no talent as a criminal investigator whatsoever.

Vigilant wrote:http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-has ... story.html
I think Hastert is about to be crapped on thoroughly.

It looks like he deserves it from the reports.

Indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying a former student from Yorkville, Ill., to conceal his alleged sexual abuse of the youth that took place while Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach at a high school there, federal law enforcement officials said Friday.

Fuck you, Hastert.
Fuck you right in the eye.

Nothing makes my day like when a right-wing religious conservative family-values anti-abortion anti-gay sleazebag gets nailed for diddling little boys.

video of creepy phone call. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/2 ... 69268.html

Midsize Jake wrote:but I don't think there's really any question that an informal competition exists to see who can be the first to add the latest scandal to each article, and (to a lesser extent) to the lead sections of those articles whenever possible. And there should also be no question that this is not the way a proper encyclopedia should work.

Exactly my impression, glad I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

For an example of both veneration and dumping-upon at the same time, consider Kanye West (T-H-L). What a pile of shit. (The article, not the man. Someone should be given a D- for organization here.)

Vigilant wrote:Fuck you, Hastert.
Fuck you right in the eye.

Er ... you do realise that's an anatomical impossibility, don't you?

Poetlister wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Fuck you, Hastert.
Fuck you right in the eye.

Er ... you do realise that's an anatomical impossibility, don't you?

It depends on the size of the two objects involved.

Meanwhile, WP:BLP specifically applies - WP should treat the allegation conservatively, and not fill any BLP with loaded language. No matter who the person is.

Poetlister wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Fuck you, Hastert.
Fuck you right in the eye.

Er ... you do realise that's an anatomical impossibility, don't you?

With the hate boner I have for this guy, I'dmake Iit work.

Wink for me, Dennis. Wink for me.

collect wrote:Meanwhile, WP:BLP specifically applies - WP should treat the allegation conservatively, and not fill any BLP with loaded language. No matter who the person is.

You can wave WP:BLP around on the talkpage all you want. It won't stop them from abusing it, and it never has.

EricBarbour wrote:

collect wrote:Meanwhile, WP:BLP specifically applies - WP should treat the allegation conservatively, and not fill any BLP with loaded language. No matter who the person is.

You can wave WP:BLP around on the talkpage all you want. It won't stop them from abusing it, and it never has.

Unless it'sa favored viewpoint/person...

I don't think BLP is going to make any difference whatsoever if the allegation is reported in the NY Times.

spartaz wrote:I don't think BLP is going to make any difference whatsoever if the allegation is reported in the NY Times.

Hastert has a 30-plus-year career in politics. He was the GOP House Speaker for eight years. Whether you like him, are indifferent to him, or hate him (and I personally tend towards the latter), should that 30-year career be instantly nullified and overridden by a NY Times report about his long-ago sexual relations with a teenaged boy, and subsequent blackmailing thereby? So long ago that, as has been reported repeatedly elsewhere (the one place I noticed was on Rachel Maddow on Friday), he could probably not be prosecuted for it because the statute of limitations had run out? As media are noting, Hastert is really the "victim", and broke the law only to pay off his blackmailer.

And just BTW, does it say anywhere in WP:BLP (T-H-L) or WP:Notability (T-H-L) that the NY Times "bears more weight" than other references? Since when is Wikipedia an "extension" or "archive" of the Times?

And does Mark Foley (T-H-L) deserve similar treatment? That's what Wikipedia should not be, and does not have an obvious rule for: it should not be a scandal sheet. Try WP:SCANDAL (T-H-L), it forwards to WP:What Wikipedia is not (T-H-L). Which says this:

Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

EricBarbour wrote:[WP:What Wikipedia is not (T-H-L). Which says this:

Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

Yes they should only defame the dead.

EricBarbour wrote:

spartaz wrote:I don't think BLP is going to make any difference whatsoever if the allegation is reported in the NY Times.

Hastert has a 30-plus-year career in politics. He was the GOP House Speaker for eight years. Whether you like him, are indifferent to him, or hate him (and I personally tend towards the latter), should that 30-year career be instantly nullified and overridden by a NY Times report about his long-ago sexual relations with a teenaged boy, and subsequent blackmailing thereby? So long ago that, as has been reported repeatedly elsewhere (the one place I noticed was on Rachel Maddow on Friday), he could probably not be prosecuted for it because the statute of limitations had run out? As media are noting, Hastert is really the "victim", and broke the law only to pay off his blackmailer.

Truly, the pedophile is the real victim here!!

There is probably a very powerful parable about picking your battles you could learn a few things from.

EricBarbour wrote:Hastert has a 30-plus-year career in politics. He was the GOP House Speaker for eight years. Whether you like him, are indifferent to him, or hate him (and I personally tend towards the latter), should that 30-year career be instantly nullified and overridden by a NY Times report about his long-ago sexual relations with a teenaged boy, and subsequent blackmailing thereby?

Given his political positions over the years against gay rights, I'd say yes, this pretty much should overshadow his career.

When you think of Nixon, what's the first thing to come to mind?

SB_Johnny wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Hastert has a 30-plus-year career in politics. He was the GOP House Speaker for eight years. Whether you like him, are indifferent to him, or hate him (and I personally tend towards the latter), should that 30-year career be instantly nullified and overridden by a NY Times report about his long-ago sexual relations with a teenaged boy, and subsequent blackmailing thereby?

Given his political positions over the years against gay rights, I'd say yes, this pretty much should overshadow his career.

So if he didn't have that political position on gay rights it shouldn't?
It absolutely should overshadow, his career. But why do I get the impression that, had his political opinions been the correct ones, he would have been Liberace'd or Assange'd by now?

SB_Johnny wrote: When you think of Nixon, what's the first thing to come to mind?

Futurama?

Notvelty wrote:

SB_Johnny wrote: When you think of Nixon, what's the first thing to come to mind?

Futurama?

Lucky him (?), millennials will think immediately of this when you say "Richard Nixon".

And BTW, why can't more politician BLPs have an opening section as well-summarized and well-balanced as Richard Nixon (T-H-L)? He was a good president and a bad president at the same time, but of course it's all "ancient history" to most Wikipedians anyway. His bio is now 150k bytes with 278 references, as if anyone who Googled him will read the rest of it anyway!

I'd be in favor of a policy that anything that could be considered controversial could not be added to an article for 30 days from the first report in a RS. Also have a banner on the article that something recent has occurred and that Wikipedia articles about living people are intentionally a few weeks behind per policy.

That would satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and at the same time piss off the POV warriors who need to keep the public informed of what a shitheel (if I may borrow the phrase from Vigilant?) some shitheel likely is.

Wikipedia aside, the case poses a lot of questions. The main one is that if the feds have enough to prosecute Hastert for sexual abuse why has he not been charged? Could it be that they have let him be tried by the media?

You may want to read Greg Greenwald's essay on the topic: DENNY HASTERT IS CONTEMPTIBLE, BUT HIS INDICTMENT EXEMPLIFIES AMERICA’S OVER-CRIMINALIZATION PATHOLOGY

So this seems to be a case where federal prosecutors wanted to punish someone for a crime they couldn’t prove he committed, so instead reached into their bottomless bag of offenses to turn him into a criminal for something else. Obviously, “sexual misconduct” with a student is a serious offense, but that still is not part of what Hastert is charged with. In order to punish him for that crime, the government should charge him it, then prosecute him with due process and convict him in front of a jury of his peers. What over-criminalization does is allow the government to turn anyone it wants into a felon, and thus punish them without having to overcome those vital burdens. Regardless of one’s views of Hastert or his alleged misconduct here, it should take little effort to see why nobody should want that.

EricBarbour wrote:And just BTW, does it say anywhere in WP:BLP (T-H-L) or WP:Notability (T-H-L) that the NY Times "bears more weight" than other references? Since when is Wikipedia an "extension" or "archive" of the Times?

Order, order! The honourable gentleman is very experienced. He knows that unwritten policies often override written ones on Wikipedia,

sparkzilla wrote:Wikipedia aside, the case poses a lot of questions. The main one is that if the feds have enough to prosecute Hastert for sexual abuse why has he not been charged? Could it be that they have let him be tried by the media?

You may want to read Greg Greenwald's essay on the topic: DENNY HASTERT IS CONTEMPTIBLE, BUT HIS INDICTMENT EXEMPLIFIES AMERICA’S OVER-CRIMINALIZATION PATHOLOGY

So this seems to be a case where federal prosecutors wanted to punish someone for a crime they couldn’t prove he committed, so instead reached into their bottomless bag of offenses to turn him into a criminal for something else. Obviously, “sexual misconduct” with a student is a serious offense, but that still is not part of what Hastert is charged with. In order to punish him for that crime, the government should charge him it, then prosecute him with due process and convict him in front of a jury of his peers. What over-criminalization does is allow the government to turn anyone it wants into a felon, and thus punish them without having to overcome those vital burdens. Regardless of one’s views of Hastert or his alleged misconduct here, it should take little effort to see why nobody should want that.

If I were guessing, I'd imagine they have issues with using a blackmailer as the star prosecution witness.
They might also have problems with the statute of limitations.

Both of these are avoided by getting him on 'structuring' charges.

sparkzilla wrote:Wikipedia aside, the case poses a lot of questions. The main one is that if the feds have enough to prosecute Hastert for sexual abuse why has he not been charged? Could it be that they have let him be tried by the media?

No federal jurisdiction, and the statute of limitations in Illinois for these alleged offenses ran out decades ago.

For an example of a BLP that is relatively even-handed, consider Mark Fuller (T-H-L).

Then read this Salon article about his charming marital history. Some parts aren't even mentioned on Wikipedia. A very disgusting story.

Following his arrest, Fuller was able to strike a plea deal for a pretrial diversion program with the state court in Georgia in order to have his criminal record entirely expunged after just 24 weeks of once-a-week domestic abuse counseling and a court-ordered drug and alcohol evaluation. He was offered the deal by the judge on the premise that the incident at the Ritz-Carlton in Atlanta — when his wife called 911 in tears, asking for help and claiming that “he’s beating on me!” — was his first infraction. Records from his messy divorce in 2012, however, suggest that there were very similar incidents of physical abuse, as well as drug and alcohol abuse, involving his first wife and their children during the first marriage.

Oddly, the bulk of the BLP was written by two IP addresses.

EricBarbour wrote:Hastert has a 30-plus-year career in politics. He was the GOP House Speaker for eight years. Whether you like him, are indifferent to him, or hate him (and I personally tend towards the latter), should that 30-year career be instantly nullified and overridden by a NY Times report about his long-ago sexual relations with a teenaged boy, and subsequent blackmailing thereby?

"If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy.

Yikes."
Orin Kerr

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... correctly/

He left out that Henry Hyde, the guy heading the judiciary committee investigation into Clinton also had an extramarital affair come out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 091798.htm

This is by no means to excuse how Wikipedia has treated Hastert:

I think that our society is a lot more willing to forgive men who abuse young women than men who abuse young men. Some of these young women look like grown women. Most of the young men seem awkward and disgusting, like they still have a lot of growing up left to do.

Still, I do think Hastert is being treated worse than he deserves to be by something that pretends to be an encyclopedia.