Talk:Page of the United States House of Representatives

Vanity Edit

"Pages Throughout History" seems like 90% vanity edit. There are probably a dozen names there that deserve mention. Anyone disagree? 22:47, 2 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.173.42 (talk • contribs)

Since there are around 200 pages per YEAR, it's absurd to even think about listing them all. I'm going to rename the section "Notable pages" and delete all non-notables. John Broughton | Talk 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A Emilie Kleine keeps getting added. How do we stop it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.80.176 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

True, but given the breadth of all these scandals, it would be interesting to have a master list archived for historical records. Since the Page "alumni" sites seem to be maintained by recently ex-Pages, they're unlikely to provide a reliable, long-term record. Pages are the youngest "officials" in the government, and thus notable in that own right. For one, I'd keep it... but I'm too lazy to put it back in. Izzyizzo - 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's good, because putting the list back would violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, not to mention lack of newsworthiness of the information. As for "reliable, long-term record", why would you think a list that can be edited by ANYONE would be more reliable than a list maintained by an individual with personal knowledge and a vested interest in its accuracy? For example, I just removed Tiger Woods from the list (again). And while someone may find a citation to support that (I'm skeptical), if you're Joe/Joannna Nobody, wouldn't it be cool to put your name into wikipedia, in the middle of a list that no one can verify? John Broughton | Talk 13:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Way to be respectful and civil. Cf. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground. That said, in the spirit of Wiki, I stand by my original post, and my original laziness. That also said, feel free to vanity-add Comic Book Guy. Izzyizzo 05:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Since these people apparently wear uniforms some photos would be nice Nil Einne 15:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue that a picture (at least of one, named, individual) is not needed - the paragraph next to it claims that the "uniform" is self-provided according to specific guidelines that sound similar to standard business-wear. I noticed because it was weird to scan the page and see a picture of a 16 year old boy smiling at me. Janet13 09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a picture of a bunch of pages. It's like a class photo we got. This should give a better idea about uniforms. AdamJaz 5:12, 22 February, 2007 (AZ Time)

Consent

It states that Gerry Studds claimed they were both consenting adults. However the Gerry Studds page claims the page was underage. Can anyone confirm which one of these is true. Obviously we shouldn't remove the claim even if the peer was underafe but we should add the claim to the Gerry Studd page and we should also mention here that the peer was underage Nil Einne 15:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable Pages

I do not believe that either Tiger Woods or Bill Gates were pages. This must be confirmed. 22:40, 3 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman87 (talk • contribs)

Yes, as in - it must be confirmed before it's acceptable to add them back to the article. I think the general rule should be that if a source/citation is not provided and there is any doubt, the name is removed. (It's a bit of a stretch to say that being a page is automatically a negative thing, but I think it's clearly the case here that it's better to have a smaller, fully accurate list than a larger list with questionable names in it. John Broughton | Talk 00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Was John Malkovitch a page? From 2002 to 2003? I don't think so.

John Malcovitch was a page from 2002 to 2003, but he is hardly notable.--Jmalc 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed Mark Pryor, as he was a Senate Page, not a house page (http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/10/03/WashingtonDCBureau/337903.html). I have also added a citation for John Dingell

1997 scandal section

• Note: per BLP, names of living persons in this section have been deleted –

Both of these allegations are false. I was a page this year. X was expelled for stealing a fellow page's wallet from his room. Y was expelled for ordering the book Hitman. The above allegations are false and need to be changed. Acnetj 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material (the article is not a biography, of course, but the same issues arise when mentioning specific individuals). I am putting the text here to encourage someone to find an acceptable source (and to correct any factual errors) and then put it back in the article. John Broughton | Talk 12:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The gun scandals of 1997 included two incidents, one involving explusion and other not. The first involved one page, Z, who was discovered to have been storing a rifle under his bed in the then Page Dorms. At that time, male pages lived on the third floor of the O'Neil House Office Building. Z had apparently hunted in his home southern state and wanted to go deer hunting in Virginia. Nevertheless, rules strictly ban all firearms from the page residences and Z was expelled in the Fall of 1997. The second incident involved X of Hamilton, Illinois. X had made a joking reference about assassinating a specific high ranking government official. X was reprimanded, lost his position as an Overseer Page on the Republican side, but was not expelled.

I am going to provid you with a letter from clerk of US House or Rep. stating that the gun scandals never took place. But I want to thank you for updating the information! I would like a way to contact who ever is in charge of this page to provide them with the copy of the letter from the clerk. 00:40, 5 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondpage (talk • contribs)

No one is "in charge" of this page. And a letter that isn't public fails the Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria - information from it can't be used. Finally, wikipedia articles aren't intended to include things of the nature of "Someone claimed that X was true, but it's not". If Y happened, then the article should simply say "Y happened", with a source. Let the reader figure out that if X (which he/she has heard about elsewhere) and Y are incompatible, and Y is in the wikipedia article and sourced while X is missing, then X is probably not true.

Finally, it's not the end of the world if a wikipedia article is missing information, particularly about two pages being expelled for (apparently) minor infractions - that isn't really something extremely newsworthy. (If it is, then presumably there are public sources.) John Broughton | Talk 12:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Clothing

thought I would mention (but lazily, not fix) that the uniforms they wear are mentioned twice: once under "environment" and once under "compensation and dress". Stevage 13:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest deleting the section under "environment" altogether, and move the picture to the section "compensation and dress". I would do it myself, but I'm still a newbie to wikipedia and I don't want to mess anything up.

Rename?

The title is so long that it is easy to miss the word "Page" at the end -- which is what the whole article is about. I suggest that, in keeping with common Wikipedia practice, the article be named "Page (US House of Representatives). –Shoaler (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current name is problematical. To tweak your suggestion: "Page Program (U.S. House of Representatives)" is a bit more consistent with the introductory paragraph of the article. John Broughton | Talk 13:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds better. –Shoaler (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is embarrassing. I moved the page, then realized that the word "Page" should not be capitalized (it's not the first word in the title), so I moved it back. But upon further consideration (looking at "What links here" to the temporarily new page), I realized other titles should be considered. Then when I ran a google search on "Congressional page program", it returned 57,000 results. Further discussion? John Broughton | Talk 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The word Page is actually a title, and because it is a title, it would be capitalized.--Robertff 12:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

House Pages did not wear knickers (at least in 1940-41 when I was a Page). We wore any suit in the winter and a white shirt and tie without a coat in the summer. Senate Pages wore black knicker suits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seti1 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods

please provide a citation to a reliable source before adding this to the article. —ptk✰fgs 02:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'll give 1000-1 odds that no such source will ever be produced. Tiger Woods was in the middle of winning a series of national amateur golf championships during the years that he would have been eligible (age-wise) to be a Congressional page. What are the chances that his father would have sent him off for a semester to live in a dorm and play little or no golf, in Washington D.C.? John Broughton | Talk 15:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you had bothered to read up on the subject instead of assuming bad faith (which is in violation of wiki policy), you would see it is accurate. Please read: Tiger Woods: A Biography by Lawrence J. Londino. It is discussed explicitly and was one of the factors in him going to Stanford.

Simply because--you--can't fathom it does not make it a valid reason to delete the point. On a side note, he also played a round of golf witht he Speaker of the House while serving as a page. Should that too be omitted?

Instead of wasting your time on here spreading lies, why don't you try to help make wikipedia a better place. Mark 152.163.100.12 17:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of wasting your time here reinserting unreferenced claims, just go find the publication that says Tiger Woods was a page and cite that while adding it here. Then no one will complain. —ptk✰fgs 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. See above. LOL... Mark 152.163.100.12 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A partial citation on the talk page? No. Please insert a full citation in the article. It's really easy. Use {{cite book}} and just fill in the blanks. —ptk✰fgs 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks! see how easy that was? —ptk✰fgs 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you had bothered to read up on the subject instead of assuming bad faith - interesting theory: an editor who doubts an unsupported fact should be the one required to research that fact. Not exactly supported by WP:AGF, however.

In any case, you might have made some serious money if you'd taken me up on my bet. Moot point now. John Broughton | Talk 21:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was recently a House Page. (07-08) And, Ms. Robin Bridges, the secretary of the school (who's been there quite a while), said to me, "We have no record of Tiger Woods ever being a House Page. It is a myth!" Is it possible that Tiger was a page for his state's Congress? Or for the Senate program? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethMPennington (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Woods a House page? That source does not confirm it ...

I checked the source that was being cited to back up the claim that Tiger was a House Page: Lawrence Londino's 2006 biography Tiger Woods A Biography (Note that this source was deleted by User:70.144.50.140 on March 13, 2008).

It does not confirm that Tiger served as a page. Quite the opposite, it claims he "played varsity golf all four years at Western High" his high school in Anaheim (page 8). It doesn't "explicity discuss" Tiger acting as a page, (doesn't even mention it), it doesn't mention him playing golf with the Speaker of the House (who I suppose would have been Tom Foley) and it doesn't cite Tiger's supposed experience as a House page as a factor in his decision to go to Stanford.

If anyone wants to re-insert this claim, please cite the page number of the reliable source you cite, so we won't have any more mix-ups.

Baileypalblue (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone's in doubt about this, I suggest you go to Talk:Tiger_Woods and ask the wikipedians there who have studied Tiger and his biography. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaker Pages under J. Dennis Hastert vs. Speaker Pelosi

I am a former Page from the 109th Congress fall 2005-spring 2006. In Spring of '06 I undertook major updating of the page. My edits weren't always up to wikipedia standards, but prior to my edits, it was sorely lacking in details on the Page workday. Much of the jobs and responsibilities I typed in. When the Speakership changed, somebody (in good faith) changed the Speaker's name to Ms. Pelosi. However, what it meant was, from personal knowledge, both as a Speaker Page for one semester and my best friend who was the Speaker Page the other semester, was what the duties were for THAT office under the GOP. Ms. Pelosi's office is most liely different in structure, though they use the same suite that Speaker Hastert once used. Therefore, the article ought to read "in the 109th Congress." If you feel it is out of date, feel free to remove the paragraph. However, I do think that the duties are similar in Pelosi's office. I am visiting DC for a reunion in mid-February and I can check with the new Speaker Pages in her office on how things may have changed and write those updates then. Unfortunately, most of the things on Pages must come from direct knowledge of the program as there are only about 90 school year pages a year and about 120ish summer pages a year. Sorry this comment is long, but I didn't want someone to revert the change. 216.204.18.2 13:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)John K. Atsalis Former US House Page '06

Quite frankly, the article is far too lengthy (detailed), given the importance of the program. It should be cut at least in half. Details of the program that are known only to the participants (that is, have never appeared in a publication meeting WP:RS standards]] should generally be removed, per WP:NOR. Please don't treat this page as a place to add information that is of interest only to previous and prospective pages. John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you that it is much to long and detailed. That being said, much of the article, including the "non-detailed" parts can simply not be cited because there are few publications dealing with Pages. I reviewed the WP:NOR and much of this article is in violation. Yet, without the violation you are left with the news articles about scandals and the Tiger Woods listing. The only publication that would serve as a source for some (but not all) of the information is only available to Pages who have been accepted to the program. It does a disservice to the public to hide much of the program, and quite frankly, I wouldn't minimize the program's importance. While they may not make any legislative decisions or input, Pages do have an important role in Congress. I don't have a problem with the editors cutting this article down, just you'll find little left if you try to rely on a publication available to the general public. 72.71.254.127 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)John K. Atsalis

I would think that some of the application and program information for prospective pages would be online and useful. Also, sources don't have to be online - if someone (say) published a brochure in the 1950s about the history of the program, that can be cited (and used for information), even though it may be accessible only via a copy in the Library of Congress.

Finally, editors are diinclined, in general, to challenge unsourced information that is non-controversial. ("Controversial" would be something like "prospective pages under 5 feet or over 6 feet are usually unsuccessful in their applications"; how would one know, or verify, that?) That's why I talk more of problems of length and detail of the article than finding a source for everything. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I disagree with the "too-lengthy" argument. This article is the only place online that a lot of this information can be found, and I know that I found this article very useful when I was applying to be a page. In addition, I found this article way more useful than the Senate program article, because it had more information.Postscript2010 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Security related information

I have removed several references to security-related information contained in this article. They really don't need to be in there, and we don't need to make this information more accessible than necessary. I know that deleting them does not completely purge the information, but it at least makes it less visible. Please, please, please do not revert my edits. 63.199.4.144 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

This section needs to be cleaned up before it's put back in the article. Currently it's awful - the fact that it switches to first person at one point ("We would ...", and then later, "My first day of work ...") is inexcusable, and even then nothing here has a reference, meaning it's all original research.--danielfolsom 04:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Miscellanea

When Harry Friedman was a page in 1978, things were a lot different than they are today. Harry had this to say about what Paging was like in the 70s:

I’d be a little embarrassed to think that some of the things we did 20+ years ago would have any relevance to today’s pages. It was a different world then.

At that time:

• No chaperons of any kind. Pages were infamous around The Hill for getting into bars and getting into trouble.
• Female pages couldn’t work past 6:00 pm. No one wanted them walking home in the dark.
• Summer pages had to find and pay for their own housing. Friedman lived on 2nd St., NE, others stayed at Trinity College and most of the female pages were at the YMCA.
• Pages can literally go anyplace within the Capitol complex.
• "Fountain Hopping" was the favorite pastime. As a group (10-15 pages at a time) we would walk around at night and began to loiter around one of the hundreds of fountains in DC, and then at the right moment, we would jump in and swim. We would then, dripping wet, walk to another fountain and start over. The only place off limits was the Potomac basin (no one wanted to get shot). The favorite was at the Rayburn Building and the hardest was at the Supreme Court Building (I was one of the few to "jump" there and not get caught).
• Pages used to be able to sign their names on the rotunda of the capitol.

Dennis D. Embry, a House page in 1966, nominated by Robert Dole, notes some historical tidbits. "The first African American House page was Bruce Miller, who was appointed by Gerald Ford in 1966, then House Minority Leader." Embry served as cloak room page, and was asked by Representative Dole to interview another young person who was seeking an appointment as a page signing only initials for first and middle name. The potential candidate turned out to be a young woman from Western Kansas, like Embry. She was possibly the first young woman to apply. It would take several years more for a young woman to be appointed. In the 1960s, Embry and other pages lived in rooming houses, behind the Supreme Court and nearby locations.

Embry adds another item about being a page that is not widely known. "We are among the only people free to use the restrooms for Members of Congress. My first day of work, the Speaker, John McCormick, introduced himself to me standing next to at a urinal. I was completely flustered."

1983 investigation regard 1979-80

http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/Hrpt98-548.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.204.94 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives Page. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061021180930/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/29/national/w123452D40.DTL&type=politics to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/29/national/w123452D40.DTL&type=politics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)