Talk:Sex scandal

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Talk:Sex scandal/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brandynblakely, Rgira003, Chelsea.asare220, Tcervi, IsabellaForth, TylerCresser50, Ty Tedford. Peer reviewers: Mvanb003, Brandynblakely, Rgira003, TylerCresser50.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DiaEdie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lambton

Added him, having been reminded by his recent obituary. Are we ordering these things by date or alphabetically ? WMMartin 17:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Order

Seems to make more sense to me. I moved some things, but someone moved them back. We need to talk. Paul, in Saudi 04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing list

I've removed a very poorly sourced list of sex scandals that violated WP:V and WP:BLP. Only a very small number of entries were sourced, and those sources were largely unreliable. Had I left a very small number of entries, that would have given undue attention to them, so I decided to remove the whole lot with this edit. (adding) Should anyone wish to resurrect the list, they can grab the entries from that diff and find references for a significant number of the entries. When adding to an article, the burden is on the one doing the addition to provide sources if the material is likely to be challenged. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being discussed at WP:BLPN. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gutted, stubbed, too much OR

I've emptied the article down to this version, from this previous state it was in. Too much original research. • Lawrence Cohen 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]