Talk:Mark Sanford/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gay marriage

A May 4, 2005 edit inserted a statement that Mark Sanford supports gay marriage. On April 28, 2005 the SC state legislature passed a bill that would place a referendum on the 2006 ballot define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Sanford could veto the bill. It seems likely that he won't. Sanford appears to oppose gay marriage. I'm taking the contrary statement out.

• http://www.issues2000.org/states/SC_Civil_Rights.htm

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. Vote on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage. Reference: Amendment introduced by Largent, R-OK; Bill HR 2587 ; vote number 1999-346 on Jul 29, 1999

• Bandy, Lee. S.C. voters to decide on gay union ban. The State. Posted on Wed, Apr. 27, 2005. Retrieved May 4, 2005.

The measure does not need Gov. Mark Sanford’s approval to go on the Nov. 7, 2006, ballot. Spokesman Will Folks said he thought the Republican governor might vote for the amendment next year.“He’s always felt marriage is between a man and a woman,” Folks said.

DJ Silverfish 20:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be really, really strange. I have never heard Sanford say anything to that effect. Sanford is one of the most conservative Republican governors. --Whiteknox 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

critical material and citations

The material below has been removed for POV reasons, evidently. The current text is highly deferential to Sanford and contains no links or supporting citations to news articles of any kind.

I'm restoring some of the deleted material here so that it can be reintegrated with footnotes later.

• Sanford has two declared Democratic challengers in his bid for reelection in 2006. Florence Mayor Frank Willis and State Senator Tommy Moore have both said they will seek the Democratic nomination in 2006. South Carolina is a heavily Republican state. However, Sanford's constant battles and inability to pass even simple legislation seem to be taking a toll on his support. Recent polling puts his approval ratings in the low 50s or high 40s-- dangerous territory for an incumbent Republican governor of a Republican state. Recent polling suggesting that he barely stands at 52% against two as-yet unknown opponents is also a warning signal.

• In November of 2005, Time named Sanford one of the three worst governors in the country, citing a "thrift" that "has brought the state's economy to a standstill."

• Sanford has had a contentious relationship with the SC General Assembly. On May 26, 2004, the Republican-led SC House of Representatives overrode 105 of Sanford's 106 budget vetoes. The following day Sanford brought live pigs into the House chamber as a visual protest against "pork projects." The pigs proved not to be housebroken.

• Sanford was born in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and moved with his family to South Carolina as a teenager. He received a bachelor's degree from Furman University. He was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994, representing South Carolina's 1st Congressional District, and served from 1995 to 2001. While in Congress, he was an advocate for Social Security privatization and restoring U.S. trade ties with Cuba.

DJ Silverfish 06:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a wiki novice, and come at this with a favorable bias (i.e. i probably shouldn't be editing this article) but two things- Sanford is the current chair of the national Republican Governors Association. Secondly, in the conservative community, sanford is seen as one of the best in the country when it comes to fiscal responsibility (the opposite of how we see Bush). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.46.191 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is not neutral point of view because it is too critical of him. When it talks about him misstepping as governor, that is 100% point of view. Jim16 01:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A few critical phrases and facts that need verifying were added by IP 69.15.227.237 associated with the Cathy Cox campaign and Morton Brilliant. Just take a look at the edit history for the main page.--Breenius 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "rock solid Republican convictions" strikes me as something I would hear in an ad, and does not come across as NPOV. I'm editing this to "solid conservative credentials", but other suggestions/changes are welcome. Significant Republican tendencies? Anyway, as I said, "rock solid Republican convictions" sounds more like something a supporter would say than something in an encyclopedia. Aaeamdar (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC). P.S.: Should not have marked as a minor edit. Water, bridge. Aaeamdar (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture

This picture is horrendous. Is there a better one out there we can use instead? Oldkinderhook 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Eek! He sure looked... different... in the Lower House. He's nothing like that today... 68.39.174.238 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture does look terrible! It makes him seem like he's coverd in third degree burns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.17.233 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've

heard on cnn that today he'd forgotten to bring his "voter registration card", which delayed his voting ability.

Should this be added?

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you can dig up the articel and post it here, I'll add it myself. 68.39.174.238 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There's already an NBC article added as a footnote covering him being turned away. Footnote 8. -- fdewaele, 9 January 2007, 16:10

2 No Votes along with Ron Paul

I just added the information that he was often one of 2 no votes in the House along with Ron Paul. The article isn't online anymore, but it's from the May 16 State newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina.---Gloriamarie 03:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stimulus rejection

Has the South Carolina legislature voted on whether to override Sanford's rejection of the money? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nude hiking?

Per news commentary and Google search [1]. See also Google News search [2]. Edison (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's not what he was doing, and we certainly cannot say anything about that based on rumor and speculation, obviously. I don't think it was really advisable to bring it up here, since at this point it's largely a jokey topic in the blogosphere, and not something we at all need to discuss right now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The latest spin is that the hiking story was a lie and a cover story for his having taken a trip to Argentina for whatever purpose, without telling the Lt. Governor where he wasWashington Post, Fox News, AP. Edison (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful of language here; "lie" and "cover story" are unverifiable unless Sanford says that is what he did. We need to use neutral language: the article should say what happened, not what various people (including news reporters) thought was behind what was happening. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is entirely neutral and does not take sides. The state senator's comment is itself verifiable, newsworthy and important, and should be in the article. Ecphora (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so a politician is not entitled to be the sole judge or critic of his professional and personal life. Otherwise they would all look like paragons of virtue. What reporters and authors say is fair game, in labelling a lie a lie or a coverup as a coverup, or spin as spin, if they publish in what are generally considered reliable sources. Edison (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Length of "Absences" section.

I'm concerned about the length of this section. At the moment, at four paragraphs, it's just about as large as I think it should be in order not to violate WP:NPOV, which forbids giving excess space and weight to any aspect of a subject. And I think there are strong arguments that about three paragraphs would be better. We don't necessarily have to remove any sources; we just would need to trim some details out of the section.

If in fact the story continues with more revelations, then yes, the section might justifiably be longer - for example, if the legislature started impeachment hearings related to this. (I have no idea if that's even possible, and doubt much that it will happen; this is just an example.) But otherwise, I think it would be wrong to expand it any further. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Tim Kaine's absences? He has been doing much more fishy stuff.

Obviously events have changed dramatically now that Sanford is admitting to an affair. The whole section will need to be rewritten, with some of the details cut and new material added. I do agree with John's general point though, i.e. that we cannot let this section overwhelm the rest of the article. For most Americans this is all they know about Sanford, but obviously he's been a major politician up to this point and our article needs to reflect that. I tend to think that 4-5 paragraphs are enough to communicate the basics on this. We'll also have to be patient and let the story develop in order to see what we need to say. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think one step, now that the basic story is there, would be to condense the day-by-day timeline into a condensed summary paragraph or two.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles about breaking events get over-referenced, with every successive news development added, and with many references for the same non-disputed facts. This is the encyclopedia everyone loves to edit. It can be pruned later when there is a different sordid tale in the news. Edison (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Absences

Information. He resigned as chairman of Republican Governor's association, as per cnn. Is there an article on Republican Governor's Association? I motion for waiting until more details are released and we put out what we know. Also, I'm confused if he cheated on a woman he visited in Argentina? Bloomberg says he has been to Argentina before. Pigman5 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Do something exotic"

Is it worth going into details regarding the Argentian woman he met? For example, he purportedly met her eight years earlier, exchanged emails, etc. or is that extraneous info? CurtisJasper (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We should probably hold off on that for now, and as this article falls under our WP:BLP guidlines we'll need to proceed cautiously when it comes to all persons involved. Probably some basic info about her - e.g. she's Argentine - will be necessary, but I don't think we want all that much detail. This article needs to be about his whole life and career, not just this one event. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think we need to watch the length of the section. My opinion, a detail or two in a sentence (i.e. ...had an affair with an Argentian woman he'd known for 8 years.) might be acceptable. On the other hand I don't think we need a full paragraph on the development of the relationship.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Cube lurker here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think mentioning those things that Sanford himself admitted to in his press conference transgresses WP:BLP. The key issue is probably how much detail amounts to undue weight. Having a one header section is appropriate weight in my opinion. For comparison purposes, John Ensign and John Edwards each have an "extramarital affair" section. In fact, the Edwards affair even has its own spin-off article, perhaps due to his high public profile. On the other hand, an affair alone probably shouldn't have as much text politician's sexual conduct involving violations of the law or prostitution (e.g. Larry Craig, David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer). -JamesAM (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be kept in proportion. If say 10% of all the press coverage Sanford has ever had in his political career is about his affair and mysterious disappearance, then 10% of the article being devoted to it would not be disproportionate, especially if reliable sources say it put an end to his Presidential hopes. That would be an important aspect of his career. There is a tendency to edit be simply adding every new breathless story. After a time, some pruning back can be done. A spinoff article is one way of avoiding too much of this article devoted to it. Then all the accretional edits and reversions can be done there. If the woman wishes to maintain her privacy, and is in general not a public figure, we should not be at the forefront of printing all her private details. Of course sometimes former mistresses are self promoting publicity hounds and become celebrities, notable public figures in their own right. Edison (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Google News hits for Mark Sanford Sanford June 18 to the present (most about disappearance/affair)[3]:4453. Google News hits for Mark Sanford from his birth until the day before he disappeared[4]: 23,800. So over 15% of Sanford's total lifetime news coverage has been about the recent escapade. The ratio may tilt more in favor of the escapade as the story unfolds. (Many of the earlier stories are about other Mark Sanfords). The article section on his disappearance is now about 14% of the article's words. Edison (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As of June 25, stories about the escapade now total 9523, or 28% of the total stories in his lifetime. Edison (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As of later on June 25, the 11,838 peccadillo stories account for 33% of all the Mark Sanford stories since the date of his birth. Edison (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Google News stories about Sanford since his disappearance now total 25,780, compared to at most 23,800 from his birth up to the day before the disappearance. The affair now gets 52% of all lifetime news coverage of Sanford. Edison (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As to the last comment, that's a pretty rough metric obviously. I don't think we should simply go by percentage of google news hits, as not all sources (by any stretch) are captured in such a search. Additionally, of the 4,453 stories of the last week or so, no doubt many (indeed most) are simply reprints of wire stories and/or stories from major newspapers. This guy had a 15-year political career - serving in two major offices - prior to today, and we could say a lot more about that then we do now, which might help to balance things out as the scandal section gets bigger. I agree though that, assuming this ends his presidential hopes (and indeed perhaps his political career), we do need to elaborate on it in some detail. Not to look into a crystal ball or anything, but I'd say it's likely he ends up resigning the governorship before this is all done, so the whole section will likely be framed not only in terms of the disappearance/marital infidelity but also the end of (or at least major turning point in) his career in South Carolina politics. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the CBS Evening News, The State newspaper in SC has released emails between the Gov and the mistress, including her first name. Edison (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the emails should be included. Emails are inherently private and would not serve as a good source for a BLP. Showtime2009 (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth some of the e-mails are here. These should obviously be treated as primary sources, and as such I don't think they should be incorporated directly into the article. If this becomes a significant part of the story, heavily reported on by secondary sources, it could be worth mentioning with citations to those secondary sources. Personally though I would find that rather distasteful, as indeed is the release of the e-mails by The State (they were private, and presumably not part of a criminal investigation or anything as was the case with this - though obviously if they had been breaking a story about Sanford's affair, as was initially planned, they naturally would have had to release these, now it just seems unnecessary). We need to report fully on this scandal, of course, but I'm guessing the bit about the e-mails will warrant a brief mention at the most (perhaps with a link to the e-mails in the footnotes), and at this point it's better to wait and see how they are covered. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's helpful to look at Google news hits, but let's also remember that a lot of news stories aren't on the web, that current news stories also include background information, and that sensational stories always get disproportional coverage. (Newspapers outside of South Carolina would not, for example, carry stories about Sanford's fights with the state legislature.) And finally, of course, there is little or no contemporaneous coverage of when Sanford was a child or in college or his career before becoming notable, yet all of those are important and are (of course) covered in the article. In short, Google news hits can make a persuasive case that a story should not get little or no coverage, but probably aren't a good guide to the percentage of the article that should be about that particular story. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He was notable as a governor, but relatively few people outside his state could have told you his name before the escapade came to light. Now he is notable as a U.S. politician whose judgment and morals have been called into question, and he is known as such to a nationwide and perhaps worldwide audience. Time will tell if the escapade has any additional political consequences. A potentially career-altering action or series of actions is certainly not a minor footnote to his biography. Edison (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For an example of how such a sex scandal fits into the bio of a politician, see John_Profumo. Edison (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The extremely simple map showing Argentina and a spot for Georgia seems unnecessary and is likely guilty of adding an extreme amount of weight to this incident of simply flying from one place to another. Perhaps a better picture would be of his press conference or something to that tune. Given that there are so few pictures on his page as it is, this one is both ridiculously simple and pointless and as I said gives too much weight to the simple act and not the infidelity issue as a whole, if that was the goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.116.248 (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Congress Section (Not related to today's events)

I came across this line at the end of the congress section. Sanford was listed in the House roll as "R-Charleston," even though he lived on Sullivan's Island. The sourcing is all primary sources. To me it seems to imply that there was some funny business going on, but the article on Sullivan Island says it's considered part of the Charleston urban area. It looks to me like an irrelevant sentance, but I wanted to double check. Was this some matter of controversy? Is there some reason fot this to be written this way?--Cube lurker (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The words used, however intentionally or accidentally, make it sound like something hinky. It's like saying "In college, his wife was rumored to be a thespian." We should avoid phrasing which creates an incorrect impression. The "even though" should go, but his residence and district could still be worked into the text. Edison (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's all already there. Early life section says In the early 1990s he moved to Sullivan's Island, South Carolina with his wife Jenny and their four boys, Marshall, Landon, Bolton, and Blake. and the congress section says In 1994, Sanford entered the Republican primary for the Charleston-based 1st Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. I'm going to pull it out, if anyone disagrees we can discuss further.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maria Belen Chapur

I got here from a prod request for María Belén Chapur (the alleged name of the woman in the extra-marital affair). Rather than delete I have instead redirected that page here (as it will only get recreated again otherwise). I have not put her name into the article yet because I could not find an English language reference - the only one seems to be from the Argentinian paper La Nación. Manning (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added the above information with a Time.com reference. Ecphora (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I can't get the link in the footnote to work right. The url for the article is http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1907036,00.html, but I get a "moved or no longer here" message thru the fn link. Ecphora (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it, it just needed a space after the .html, it was reading .html|Tim--Cube lurker (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gracias. Ecphora (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Google News now has 56 results for this woman's full name. We should proceed with caution under WP:BLP rules for private individuals. We are not on a deadline and should not be ahead of major newspapers and network news. Edison (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Republican?

There's an error in the first sentence of this article. Sanford is a democrat. Source: http://carnivore.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/35/3516e18fc9bbc34150d82a231ddeba42fc2e7edb.jpg

That site states, "You don't have permission to access /files/35/3516e18fc9bbc34150d82a231ddeba42fc2e7edb.jpg on this server." And, he's a Republican, according to the National Governors Association website.

http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb5 01010a0/?vgnextoid=3e28224971c81010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD

I read that he'd voted for the impeachment of President Clinton, but I don't have a source for that.

The person above is making the claim based on an incorrect ID by Fox news (if you reload, the image comes up). The person above is incredibly naive, gullible, or intentionally trying to spread misinformation.

Obviously. Its very typical of Fox, and not the first time they've done so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign my IP above - will do now. Also, here's an LA Times story which quotes Sanford statements on the Lewinsky affair: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/sanford-and-ensign-called-on-clinton-to-resign-after-his-affair.html. Specifically: "But back in 1998, according to the Post and Courier, he said of Clinton, “Very damaging stuff. This one’s pretty cut and dried.” Calling the overall situation messy, he added: “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign]."70.17.159.149 (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Obviously. Its very typical of Fox,"

Please don't use Wikipedia a soapbox for your leftwing pov This is a violation and you've have been politely warned68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:68.40.123.217 - Offhand comments like "It's very typical of Fox" in a talk section are hardly a "violation". It's not "absolutely irreproachable" behaviour but it is fairly harmless and would never attract administrative attention. However accusing someone of "using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your leftwing pov" could be seen as a personal attack and that IS a violation. And so now you have been warned. Manning (Administrator) (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fox also identified Mark Foley as a Democrat. The "warning" seems overzealous in protecting the good name of Fox News. Edison (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate sex article needed

WP needs a even bigger Sanford sex article with all the details. There should be a prominent link to this article. However, we shouldn't turn his biography into a 40% sex article, even though it is juicy to read. User F203 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A sex article has been created with new and more information not mentioned in this article. User F203 (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For those of you new to this, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Summary style, which calls for the daughter article - Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair - to contain the details and the parent article - Mark Sanford to contain a relatively brief summary. But we now have massive duplication of details. If this really deserves a separate article (I'm not taking a position on that), then a lot of the details should be removed from the Mark Sanford article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just want to second John's point here. Based on past precedent, I would say it's very likely that Mark Sanford disappearance and extramarital affair will remain an article (it's not even up for AfD, but if it were I think it highly likely that it will survive). I think we should operate under the assumption that the daughter article will exist, and thus our section on it in this article should be in summary style. If the daughter article is ever deemed unworthy of existing, we could (and certainly would) merge content back to here.

So I think we should start trimming this section down now such that is summarizes the lengthier content in the daughter article. Probably we should re-combine the "disappearance" and "affair" sections as part of that (I don't think there was really a compelling reason to split them up in the first place—they are utterly intertwined). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be more than 30% to 40% of his total general bio. It is most likely to be the main element of his long term notoriety, but it should not be more than 40% of the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr48 (talk • contribs)

As noted above, as of June 30 the majority of the Google News Archive news items about "Mark Sanford" in his entire lifetime have been since he ran away to be with his mistress. 52% or more as of today. Why should it fit the particular percentage you specified? But the existence of the sex article does allow this to be condensed. The basic details should be included. Edison (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said in a previous section, I don't think percentage of gnews hits should dictate length of given sections in this article. Sensational news is always more heavily reported than legislative minutiae and the political positions of prominent politicians, but that should not effect how we write an encyclopedia (for example there is always far, far more reportage about the personal foibles of Hollywood stars than there is about their film or television careers, but we don't let "personal life" sections swamp entire articles). Finally, I think the existence of the spin-off article pretty much necessitates that our content here be condensed, per WP:SUMMARY. I'll try to work on this later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tighten up the writing on this topic, keeping all the sordid detail, but cutting out undue weight and non-essential stuff so that the article is about Sanford and not 1/3 on the affair. I've also added sordid detail in the daughter article to address critics of Sanford. There have been internet reports of anal sex (5th base) but no reliable sources so I have not added this to the daughter article as per BLP. User F203 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mark Sanford/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Someone needs to update the current situation from a neutral perspective, and remove errors. Example: =FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT AP Story states that Jake Knott "went on television after the news conference to sing his praises." The "Lies, Lies, Lies" comment was not about the press conference or the affair, and is thereby irrelevant to this section. This author is only reporting negative news and not reporting all the facts.

Last edited at 00:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Crossing the line

Sanford now says he "had physical contact" and "crossed lines" with a handful other women, but only "had sex" with Chapur. This detail has been covered by several sources [http://www.examiner.com/x-4865-Christian-Worldview-Examiner~y2009m6d30-What-happens-when-people-like-Governor-Mike-Sanford-cross-lines-and-commit-adultery], [5], [6] and should be added, but is there any common U.S. understanding of what "crossing the line" would entail, in 21st century South Carolina slang, short of "having sex?" In the AP interview [7] Sanford said he "let his guard down" during the encounters with other women. These events happened before the disappearance and not with Chapur, so it might not fit well in the spinoff article.Edison (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's probably worth of a quick (half-sentence to one sentence) mention in this article (and possibly the other one as well). I think the only way we can really describe it is the way Sanford described it—news reports specifically said he did not elaborate (which can also mention). Obviously "crossing the line" could be anything from being a bit flirtatious to sexual contact short of intercourse, depending on ones' interpretation. For now we should only report what Sanford said. It might be worth it to wait a day or two to see if more info comes out on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We are "not on deadline" so there is no rush. If his terminology does not map in an accepted way to behavior, then just echoing what he said is the way to go. I thought maybe "crossing the line" was like "getting to second base" in erstwhile high-school sexual attainment terminology. If we use "half a sentence," do you advise omitting the subject or the predicate? Edison (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Crossing the line" might have some secret specific meaning in South Carolina (I would not know, having only driven through there—quickly!—on a couple of occasions), but I doubt it and think he was just being intentionally vague. Obviously we'd need the predicate, my thought with the "half sentence" was simply that we could end up with something like "Sanford admitted he was unfaithful to his wife [from press conference obviously], and later told reporters that he had previously "crossed the line" with other women while married, though without having consummated those relationships." Or whatever, you get the gist. I was just saying it might be combined with another idea, or then again it might not. But as you say we can wait and see how this aspect of the story unfolds. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Readers might wish to know if "physically crossing the line" without "having sex" could still lead to a "happy ending." Edison (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there are different laws in different cities and countries, so I don't think we can say anything definite here given our large and diverse reader base. But off-topic innuendo aside, I think we should still wait and see with respect to the issue brought up at the top of this thread. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is an AP story specifically about Sanford's ambiguous statements and the cultural definitions of "What counts as sex." The issue raised here thus has significant coverage from a reliable source. Opinion polls in the 1990s showed that about half of Americans did not consider oral sex to be "having sex." See "What Is Sex? Americans Can't Agree." AP story published on CBS News site, July 1, 2009. It says "third base" used to be "touching below the waist" but is now oral sex. Edison (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but how does any of this relate to the matter at hand? As of now we have no idea what Sanford was talking about when he said he "crossed lines," and frankly I highly doubt that he'll elaborate on that to the point that we'll know whether or not he got to third base or where he even thinks third base is. The story you cite is not ultimately about Sanford (or Bill Clinton), rather it's about ambiguous definitions of sex in American society, with the Stanford thing a jumping off point. I cannot imagine we would ever cover that in this article, and it's incredibly unlikely we would cover it in the spinoff article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If Sanford continues to grant interviews to news organizations such as the AP about his extramarital sexual activities, who can say whether or not he will provide a blow by blow chronology. Edison (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment

Well, it looks like impeachment proceedings have actually started, the whole mess should be reorganized, don'tcha think?Ericl (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Sanford's refusing to resign he's being selfish. He's only thinking about himself and what he wants. Governor Sanford's office called me last month. I asked him about investing in the cure for MS and he said that he'll look into it. If Governor Sanford agrees to invest in the cure for MS then I don't want him to resign. http://www.physorg.com/news169211700.htmlMultiple/ . Sincerely, ( ~~71.68.211.187~~ )

New Category - Adulterers

Is there a category for Adulterers? "Sex Scandal Figure" is pretty vague. This would be a huge category, especially with 90% of Congress included. Plath81 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There was such a category, but it was deleted per this discussion three years ago which I think was wholly appropriate. I don't think it's necessary or remotely advisable to put Sanford in any category like that, and the speculation that "90% of Congress" should be in such a category is not very helpful, even if one thinks it's true. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a worthwhile category, actually. There is a great deal of interest in people who have affairs. There wasn't a good reason to delete it; the rationale could be applied to Category:Serial Killers as well, which is clearly a worthwhile category. Though perhaps a more narrow category, Category:Politicians who committed adultury, would be a more appropriate one (or maybe a subcategory in the above category). Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Such categories seem like a way of punishing transgressors, and about as unencyclopedic as having Category:Hypocrites or Category:Screaming Assholes. Edison (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that categories like those are subjective. Adultery isn't. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sullivan's Island Residence

According to the InfoBox used in this article, Governor Sanford is listed as a resident of Sullivan's Island, South Carolina, where he and his now-former wife owned a beach house, but following their February, 2010 divorce, his wife retained ownership of the property. Furthermore, according to this November, 2006 article [8] Governor Sanford lists his residence as Columbia, South Carolina. My question is, should the InfoBox be updated based upon this information? --TommyBoy (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

While conducting an Internet search relating to my question, I found an article in which Governor Sanford states that he is no longer claiming residency in Sullivan's Island, and I intend to update the article based upon the two articles I have cited in this discussion. [9] --TommyBoy (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Larry Flynt Endorsement

The Flynt endorsement was sarcastic, and the article does not not it as being such. If that sentence is kept it might need to be moved, as it doesn't really fit in with the legitimate support and would be better suited in a section about critics of Sanford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.200.236.153 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Mark Sanford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512015220/http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120553936399438277.html to http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120553936399438277.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090301040750/http://www.scgovernor.com/news/media/jan_11_2008.htm to http://www.scgovernor.com/news/media/jan_11_2008.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091117174440/http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7511542695 to https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7511542695
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091117174433/http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33964867788 to https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=33964867788

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)