Talk:Minnesota Vikings boat party scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This ain't Watergate folks Smith03 16:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC) but if people have to give it own page you should at least put the year 2005 in the title, so future historians known which "sex Scandal" we are talking about Smith03 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


"Known locally in Minnesota as Danglegate 2005" I don't know that I would agree with that, can't say I have heard many people calling it Danglegate 2005 around townSmith03 19:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Not everyone listens to Barreiro. android79 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought it was called the "LoveBoat" scandal? ColdRedRain 02:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've never heard "Danglegate" before. And why the hell does this need a seperate page? can't it be on the franchise history? Xunflash 00:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

so are we going to post all the remaing games of the season?Smith03 00:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

who is scooter? Smith03 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current event

I'm not sure whether this should have {{currentevent}} as opposed to {{current sport}}. While the event involves mainly athletes on a sport team, the event in question is unrelated to any sporting events. KramarDanIkabu 03:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point, the only part of the event that is current is the legal part. I would not call this a sports-related event either. John 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed name change of page

2005 Minnesota Vikings boat cruise scandal

first add the year of event in case we have future ones also i think using the term sex here is more sensational than it needs to be. IMO the local media here in MSP have for the most part lately be using boat crusise to describe the events as oppose to sex scandal. Smith03 14:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes this needs it's own page

This event brought national media attention and was all over the front page of the Minneapolis newspapers for about a week after it happened. It has since surfaced to the front page over and over again when support for a new football stadium dropped sharply due to this event, when the criminal charges were filed, and when Culpepper's charges were dropped. It is indeed significant enough to warrant it's own page, due to the sheer size of the article at the very least.