Talk:Larry Craig/Archive 1

Spouse's Name

The Idaho Statesman: "Craig and the then-Suzanne Scott had their first date on Valentine's Day 1980, when Craig was making his first run for Congress. Craig proposed six months after the scandal, on Suzanne's birthday, Dec. 28, 1982. They married in July 1983." Apparently his wife's married name was Scott, and her birth name Thompson, birth middle name unknown.

Arrest

Shouldn't the arrest be it's own section. Seems like a pretty big event. Should probably be mentioned in the intro at least.--204.253.251.89 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Conviction? I wonder about calling it a conviction. Is a guilty plea the same as a conviction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 21:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. Pleading guilty is the defendant's part of the procedure; the court then, in most cases, automatically convicts the defendant.Wideeyedraven 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Personal heading

The "Personal" section about his immediate family should be moved to the beginning of the article under the current section devoted to his education and both should be called "Personal." It's the typical format for a personal, biographical section covering education and immediate family.

Spouse's birthday

Suzanne T. Craig was born December 28, 1943. I can't immediately find a record of her birth middle name or her former spouse's name.

Children were adopted

If the article doesn't note this, it should be noted that Craig's children are his adopted stepchildren, the issue of his wife's former marriage.

Military Service

Craig appears under the category of US Army officers. If he only attained the rank of E-3, should this be amended?OPen2737 09:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

YES. --Beth C. 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested Protection

I requested that this page be protected from edits from anon users until the truth can be found out about this "outing".--WinOne4TheGipper 22:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the accusation has been made on a well-known national radio program, and the fact that Rogers has credibility in the matter (he has correctly "outed" other politicians in the past) means that the accusation cannot be dismissed, or deleted from this page, out of hand. Joegoodfriend 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it can. I searched Rogers' site and found no evidence whatsoever to support it. The fact that Rogers is a political activist pushing an agenda coupled with his lack of evidence for this rumor means that this charge can be deleted. It's an unfounded rumor and has no place here. Until Rogers produces some evidence, you don't have a case. MKil 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)MKil

It is a violation of WP:BLP to use blogs as sources for this issue, and to insert original research, which the "outing" section seems to contain a lot of. I don't have time to clean it up right now, but will later, unless someone else does. I have reported this article on WP:BLPN. Crockspot 12:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If a blog says something it is not a reliable and verifiable source. But iff national mainstreem news media report on the controversy and the Senators denials of the trysts, that is verifiable and encyclopedic.Edison 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem-- AFAIK, no national news outlet has reported this-- see Source section below. And now someone's added a blog source to it too.... --plange 04:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Craig appeared on ABC News and NBC News in 1982 (when serving in the House of Representatives) to deny involvement in an ongoing scandal involving cocaine and underage pages pressured to have sex. Craig may not have denied being gay, but he certainly denied involvement in the scandal as it was widely described. These are national TV appearances. Why are they deemed un-encyclopedic? Sandover 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not he is, in fact, homosexual is moot. The claim was made, it's been talked about on The Drudge Report, CBS News, Rush Limbaugh, the New York Daily News, and the Ed Schultz Show (the source itself.) It's gotten major play on national radio networks. I think it's at least worth nothing the accusation.Kthejoker 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the CBS report? That would be the only acceptable source considered reliable of the ones you mentioned. --plange 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a CBS News blog. What about the Spokesman-Review, the daily paper of Spokane? Does that count? Sandover 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How is Redorbit.com not a blog? It is shown as a reference, but not for the outing.Edison 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• MSM coverage: http://idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143517.html Updated: 7:30 p.m. -- Larry Craig quits Romney campaign as news of men's room arrest spreads | Eyepiece | Idaho Statesman Rauterkus 11:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Craig said:

"As more and more American scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made by the administration in the Kyoto Protocol are an unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat the vice president himself is caught up in making." [2]

Republican Senator from Idaho opposes Kyoto? I'm not surprised. Unless there's some context explaining that he's particularly notable in fighting Kyoto, this should go. Meelar (talk) 21:02, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention that the source cited doesn't look very reliable. Crockspot 23:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Source

Well, I've now put in a source for the denial, so that section can stay. Some of the particular wording was dreadful though, so I did some pruning - Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Is it appropriate to describe someone as being "outed" if they are denying this? Morwen - Talk 12:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's inappropriate to mention this at all. There was no "outing," since Craig denies it and Rogers failed to provide any proof of his accusation. Right now we have the unpoven accusation of a agenda-driven blogger versus the word of a U.S. Senator. I don't think that there is any reason to include such an unproven slander on this page. MKil 13:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)MKil

How prominent in the media would this need to be before you think it can be added? You don't seem to be placing any weight at all on the fact that his denial of it has been reported in a mainstream press source: now you could say "that's not very much press so far" and indeed it isn't, but at some point this might transition from a blog rumour to an actual news story. Morwen - Talk 13:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You have two blog sources, which are NOT ALLOWED to be used to source anything negative in this article (and will be removed on sight), and you have a LOCAL (not mainstream) press article of him calling it laughable. All mention of this should stay out until/unless there is more mainstream mention, ie. Wash Post, NY Times, etc. Crockspot 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Ok. Glad you agree with me. I'm not really qualified to tell what is and isn't a mainstream press source in the United States, so I will accept your word that local newspapers are not considered reliable sources. But I have not added any such negative material and I resent your implication that I have : as I noted above I tried to find a proper source and removed particularly bad bits. Morwen - Talk 13:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not pointing any fingers, yet. But watch the categories too. I just removed three gay categories, and as soon as I track down who added them, they will get a blp warning. I think in this case, since the allegations can only be sourced on blogs, the local press report is not good enough yet. If there is more, then there is room for discussion. Crockspot 13:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The original claim by Mike Rogers is unsubstantiated by any evidence at all. I don't think it's wikipedia policy to report rumors that are unsubstantiated and that come from political operatives pushing a political agenda. If I'm wrong, let me know, but if that's wikipedia policy, then I'll keep removing this garbage until Rogers (or someone else) produces some evidence. MKil 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)MKil

Sorry, does this mean that if this gets onto the front page of the New York Times tomorrow you will remove it? Morwen - Talk 13:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how it's written, but I'm inclined to remove anything that mentions it until there is evidence supporting such an accusation. Even if the Times ran it that does not mean there is evidence for it. They could merely be reporting a controversy. If this were framed as a controversy about a political activist accusing Craig of being gay without any proof and Craig denying it, I may be more amenable. MKil 14:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)MKil

If the claim of his consensual sexual relations with men is reported in the mainstream media, it can certainly be mentioned here, along with his denial, to maintain NPOV. To delete reporting of coverage by NY Times, Wash Post, CNN etc would be like deleting some Monica and Bill scandal until he was indicted for perjury. If a blogger makes an accusation and the accusation and the subject's denial are reported by reliable, verifiable sources, it is good enough for Wikipedia. No censorship, please. .Edison20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no evidence to back up this claim, there is no reason to put such material here. And it's completely unlike the Monica/Bill story, since Monica came forward with her accusations. As it stands, we have Rogers saying that Craig did this, but he doesn't even produce any written notes from his meetings to back this up. It's merely the unsupported word of a political activist that is slandering a U.S. Senator. That seems to be inappropriate for this site. No libel, please. MKil 20:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)MKil

See: Wikipedia:Let the dust settle. Crockspot 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If nothing comes of this story, then in the future it should quietly disappear from the article. But while it is in the news now, people will come here looking for information and our readers will be better served with the accurate, verifiable info here than what they read in some blog. Gamaliel 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some time after the election, eh?. I agree with KKil's suggestion below me. Crockspot 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case, should we then add information that Rogers has not as of yet produced any evidence to verify his claim? That is an accurate, verifiable description of the situation. MKil 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)MKil

Sounds good to me. Gamaliel 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be absolutely fair and balanced to note that Rogers only says he has statements from men who say they had sex with Craig, and that Rogers refuses to reveal their names. It is thus far less convincing than if someone came forward and said they relations with him. It is just a claim. But Rogers has made such claims several times in the past and been proven right.Edison 20:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

None of this is encyclopedic. The unsourced allegation by one person and the subsequent denial is longer than any other paragraph. ANY vote is more encyclopedic than this and it's just tabloid jounralism to include it. Trivial, un-encyclodpedic material should be removed. --Tbeatty 20:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable and verifiable info can be included. It is POV to delete the most newsworthy and widely covered event related to the subject of the article in recent times.Edison 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's undue weight given to a trivial piece of information. It is not "widely covered" and it is a view held by a total of 1 person. From the NPOV page:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. " --Tbeatty 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Boise Weekly, whatever that is, has picked it up - google news tells me the article is at [3], but i can't connect to that at the moment. This still isn't very much press coverage, i note. How long does it usually take big news sources to pick this type of thing up in the US? Morwen - Talk 21:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Boise Weekly is an "alternative newsweekly" which is print journalism, not just a blog. It has been published for 13 years, has won awards for news stories, and has a printed circulation of 35,000. It shoud be counted as a legitimate prints news coverage in the subject's home region. [see http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Page?oid=oid:3240] Edison 17:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The press already knows about it. THey most likely will not report it until there is verfiable third party corroboration because it is just one persons opinion and they have higher standards for repreating such a charge. This is a primary source (and is another reason why it should be deleted). --Tbeatty 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This was brought up at the BLP notice board and I took the liberty of removing this -- please see Wikipedia:Let the dust settle for my reasonings for removing this. There is a source, yes, but it's a source verifying that there's an allegation, not that the allegation is true. --plange 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is in the news, and there is plenty of precident for Wikipeida articles discussing current news. Gamaliel 23:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you make of the guideline Wikipedia:Let the dust settle? This would be completely different if someone came out and said I had relations with him or the subject said so, but this is hearsay from a third party. Also BLPs are held to stricter standards on sensitive issues... --plange 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this is a bit of a grey area. But this is a current issue, it's in the news, people want to know about it - it is the top search in Technorati right now, for example - and different people have repeatedly added it to the article. Given that the information is properly sourced, identified as an allegation, and tied to a specific person alleging this, I think we've met our responsibilites here in those respects, and I think we have a responsibility to report this information given the interest. Gamaliel 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least wait until it is corroborated by a mainstream national news outlet? Like CNN or NYT? WP's reputation will not suffer if we wait a day or so, but a living person will in the meantime if it stays. --plange 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) - You're right that we report current events but I think the difference in this case is this: Mark Warner announced he's not running for President. Maybe there was a rumor earlier on, but we waited until it was properly sourced so that we weren't 'outing' him unless it was true. It's now something encyclopedic, since Warner was long-time viewed as a contender. This is now of historical interest to his article. In the present case, however, what is properly sourced is an allegation by a third party who says this but won't produce evidence. I can go out and say something that's not true about someone and have it picked up in the papers, but does it mean it should be added? Plus now we're going to be in the position of watching a ping ball match and going back and forth until we find out what's really going on. WP should just wait until it can be corroborated that he's gay. --plange 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to wait for dna analysis of a stain on a blue dress?Edison 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm, not really applicable, since that was in the national news media... Just asking to wait a few days and see what comes of it... --plange 04:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To test fairness, I always try to turn things around: if it were the right accusing Clinton of improprieties, it would have become "encyclopedic" when there were accusations reported in the mainstream news media. If it were Senator Joseph McCarthy accusing 57 people in the State Department of being communists, the widespread reporting of the ACCUSATION would have been encyclopedic, regardless of any need to prove the State Dept people carried CPUSA cards. Craig could defend his good name and sue the accuser, with sworn testimony on both sides, much as Clinton was subjected to. Rogers claims he has evidence, so he can produce it (or not) if a libel trial takes place. If Rogers is lying, Craig could sue him and recover damages. We are reporting the accusation and denial, not truth of accusations. All that has to be documented is the mainstream media reporting of the outing and denial, not the behavior (or not) behind the outing. Edison 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

? I think we're saying the same thing then. I'll I'm asking for is mainstream media reportage. In this case, though, I didn't need to turn it around for me to gain perspective because I happen to be a raging liberal :-) --plange 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no POV as it pertains to this article (I am actually the opposite of a conservative), but as a BLP, I am not sure it is appropriate to list a dubious allegation postedon a blog, even if it was repeated in a radio show. No mainstream media picked up that "story", and that says all what needs to be said: unreliable source. I am deleting than content as per WP:BLP, on the basis of "poorly sourced contreoversial material". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, where it says " If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out. Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source." Therefore if the allegation (or the denial) is reported in mainstream media, it is appropriate to include it in an article about a Senator or other notable politician. It is not necessary for editors to furnish truth of the substance of the allegation, just that the allegation has been reported. So lets see; Politician? Check. Allegation of affair? Check. Denial? Check. Publication? Check. So it belongs in the article, even if some editors do ot want it there.Edison 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that, in the example you gave (and in your earlier posts) you mention national mainstream media as the hallmark of when this should be included (New York Times, etc), and yet we're missing that important piece here. Until it is picked up by the New York Times, or CNN, or The Washington Post, we cannot include it. It's especially important since it's an allegation. That's the point we've been making all along. --plange 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the BLP policy in and out, as I was one of the editors that contributed to it taking it from proposal to official policy. The issue here is about the quality of the source. A gay advocate publishes a statement on his blog, then it gets repeated in a radio program. So far, so good. If at this time, the mainstream media picked it up and commented, (usually after fact checking, of course, they have a reputation to protect) then it woud be a no brainer: we have reliable sources that describe this. But in a BLP, we err on the side of caution, and we do not reproduce allegations that have not been published by a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The allegation and denial were also reported in the Washington Post at [4], the New York Daily News at [5] and the Idaho State Journal at [6] .Edison 15:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all that we were asking for, though I wouldn't count the last two, only the first. However, Wash Post article had this only to say about it, meaning they haven't investigated it themselves. Jossi, what do you think. It's buried on p 3 or 4:

"Earlier today [Tuesday], an activist blogger claimed on a nationally syndicated radio show that Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is gay. Political reporter Jim Camden is working on a story, and there was a discussion at this afternoon's meeting about how we should cover this.

"Background and links are posted at Huckleberries Online, but in a nutshell, the activist claims that he's talked to four men who say they've had sex with Craig. There's no accusation of any crime or impropriety, but the blogger cites what he characterizes as a hypocritical voting record as a reason for the outing.

"If our reporters had uncovered this information, it's unlikely we would run a story. However, because this information is already circulating through other media, it's a different situation. 'We can't ignore it,' said managing editor Gary Graham. 'If we start ignoring that kind of discussion in a media context, we take ourselves down a slippery slope.' "

The Spokesman-Review, as well as the Idaho State Journal, published the story yesterday, with this response from a Craig spokesman to what activist Mike Rogers said on Ed Schultz's radio show:

"Mr. Rogers' claims are completely ridiculous and not based in fact. They're just ridiculous."

--plange 15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't tell either, is that in Op-Ed? --plange 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That source is a blog on the Washington Post website. The Washington Post does not have editorial control. Had this been published on the Washington Post newspaper itself, that would be adifferent story (pun not intended). The New York Daily "Side Dish" is not a reliable source, My argument stands: remove as per WP:BLP. We should wait until the maintream press reports on this, when they do (which is very likely if there is any thruth in it), the material can be added. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Howard Kurtz is a Washington Post staff writer and what you call a "blog" looks like his regular column in the paper. Gamaliel 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. The WP website has a blog which staff members can contribute. Thes blogs are what it is refered to as Op-eds, i.e. opinion, and do not go through the editorial review process as the newspaper. Look at it this way: if this story was any close to be verifiable, the media will be all over it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The media has been reporting it. Kurtz is part of the media, and merely one example of such reporting. If you don't think the issue should be discussed in the article, fine, advocate that here on the talk page, but don't try to wish away the reporting of professional journalists by ruleslawyering. This is a perfectly acceptable source. Gamaliel 19:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be better, Gamaliel, to assume good faith. I am 100% the opposite of a conservative, and I am not "advocating" for anything. I am just trying to stay within the limits of what WP:BLP recommends. I would appreciate if you address the arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I have been uncivil in my comments. A case can be made that this material does not belong in the article, but the claim that it is unsourced or poorly sourced is not one of them and is flatly untrue. I don't mind an honest discussion of issues, but I find it frustrating when the facts appear to be bent. I'm sure that is not your intent and I don't make any claims about your political point of view, but it is frustrating nonetheless. Gamaliel 20:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) No worries, I'm just confused because we both have said that a national mainstream source would be what makes the inclusion acceptable and yet we don't have one. Someone above just said it was on CBS? If you can hunt that down, that would be great as then it would be, as Jossi says, "a no brainer". When dealing with BLPs we always strive to err on the side of caution... --plange 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs)

That's still not a news piece, but rather an op-ed piece lambasting the state journal for even reporting such a non-story and unsubstantiated rumor. WP is not a place to add to rumor. --plange 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP is the place to add things widely reported on by the mainstream media. Gamaliel 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this widely reported or it would be a news story in the NYT, LATimes, CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. The only mainstream media sources you have are 2 op-ed pieces, one of which is lambasting the few that have reported it as a news story for even bothering to report it. Do we want to be lumped in that category? --plange 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Widely discussed is what I should have said, and there is ample evidence of that. For mainstream media coverage, so far we have a news report from the Senator's hometown paper, media commentator and Washington Post staff writer Howard Kurtz's regular column, and something or other from CBS. Gamaliel 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, have you read that source from CBS Public Eye? Read it, if you haven't, because it argues the case on why we should not allow it in a biography. Rumors are not encyclopedic. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just in case, here it is. A must read IMO, if we want to act as responsible editors. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/10/19/publiceye/entry2108678.shtml ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it and I posted a link to it somewhere on this page. Please don't misunderstand my motives here. We should not report every rumor that appears about a person nor should we engage in purient speculation about people's sexuality. But he has been accused in a public manner which has attracted the attention, in whatever way, of the mainstream media. It is a story that has been reported and one that people are searching for information about. It is now a news story and should be reported here like any other news story regarding the subject of the article. Gamaliel 21:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Jossi here-- ironically that CBS piece only solidified my position. We should not be chasing mayflies and reporting each of these. WP's role is not to be whipped around chasing all these stories and reporting them. If you'd really like to report it, post it to n:Wikinews. Also, it is not a news story until it is a news story in the national mainstream media. People that are hungering for this stuff are not needing to come here to get it-- they know where to go. Will it hurt WP to wait? No. Will it hurt WP to follow the lead of the Idaho State Journal and report an allegation? Possibly. Will it effect a living person? Definitely. In that CBS story, the other example they gave of the Kerry/intern story is a perfect one-- it was a non-story and is not even in John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 and rightly so. However, the swiftboat issue, which was all a lie and smear campaign, was reported in the mainstream news media and was a huge deal in the campaign, and is in the John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 article. From Wikipedia:Let the dust settle: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so articles should not be created for subjects that may be significant until time has shown that they are, and adding details which will soon be outdated/corrected should be avoided if possible" --plange 22:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of creating an article on the subject, so your crystal ball comment isn't relevant. A line or two in the article will suffice and there is ample precident for adding breaking stories to Wikipedia articles. Perhaps there is no harm in waiting if you do not consider the issues of completeness and accuracy, but there is no harm in not waiting either - we will do no harm to a person by reporting something that the Washington Post and CBS and his hometown paper and half the internet have already reported. Editors have been adding this in some form or another for 48 hours and their views cannot and should not be dismissed as purient interest or partisanship or vandalism - there is an interest in this matter and I think a duty to report the facts in an NPOV manner. Gamaliel 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

<<<< I hear you Gamaliel, but I think we need to err on the side of caution and apply WP:BLP. That is why that policy was created. Wikipedia should not be a place to help the spreading of rumors. I do not want an article in the mainstream media that crtitizes our project for doing such a thing. Erring on the side of caution is the responsible thing to do in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)I agree that Wikipedia should not be in the lead in promulgating rumors about the sexual liasons, preference, or misconduct of politicians. We must stay a step behind reputable national news media. But if rumors are widely reported in the mainstream news media, they are fair game, even without concrete proof. Read Gary Hart and the 1987 newspaper editorials about how a politician's sex life had become fair game if he represented himself as something he was not. Hart claimed to be a faithful family man. Someone, perhaps a competing campaign, tipped reporters he was having an affair, and they staked out his residence and reported that he had gone into his townhouse with an attractive blond while his wife was out of town, and she had not been seen coming out until the next day. He denied she'd spent the night, and the reporters admitted they had not watched the back door, so there was no solid proof of infidelity. The Miami Herald coverage was picked up by national media, and he went from presidential frontrunner to dropout in a week. Editorials said the thing that justified them covering it was the disconnect between what he claimed and what was alleged, even with proof which was less than 100% convincing. He had invited scrutiny, but the stakeout was completed before his statemnt inviting scrutiny was published. If a Senator claims to be a faithful family man, and there are claims that he isn't, which get carried in national media, (not just partisan blogs) it is quite appropriate to print it here after such coverage in TV and newspapers. The Gary Hart rumors are covered in the article on him, in an article on Donna Rice and even an article on a boat where they allegely spent time, the Monkey Business Yacht. It is unbalanced to claim we can't have an article mention widely covered allegations of impropriety without some high level of proof of the actual behavior, when there already is for other such rumors, if the media coverage is there. But I'm not sure the coverage is sufficient yet in this case.Edison 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Habeas corpus bit

This seems particularly odd. Since probably at least 50 senators voted for this, do we have this paragraph on each of them? Did he break the party line on this issue : unlikely considering the context? I'm therefore removing this bit as bizarre. Morwen - Talk 14:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Nothing particularly notable presented about this one vote, probably only inserted as a club to beat the subject with. Crockspot 14:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am utterly at a loss as understanding the Patriot Act section. From my reading of news stories, it appears he earlier opposed it, but was brought round? "voted against a cloture vote"? What on earth does this mean? He voted against stopping a Democratic filibuster? This needs clarifying lots. Morwen - Talk 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I've noticed some paragraphs in the biography have been taken word-for-word from [7] directly. I'm unsure as to the copyright status of that work: is it the work of the US government (and thus PD), or is it his own or his teams copyright? Morwen - Talk 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's government material and can be used as desired, although I'm not 100% certain. MKil 14:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)MKil

I'm not sure that it is PD, but assuming that it is, it probably still should be cited, as it was written by his office, and not by independent government biographers. There may even be a citation template for it at WP:CTT Crockspot 14:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I think we should avoid using any wording taken specifically from official biographies of any sort regardless of whether we are allowed to. Morwen - Talk 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not an unwise suggestion. BTW, here is a message template from CTT {{USGovernment}} - Crockspot 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty embarrassing when an official bio is wrong about FACTS (place of birth, number of children, education, dates elected to state legislature, etc.). I don't think it's a big deal to copy "X and his wife Y have three children", for example. On the other hand, copying "X is a strong proponent of apple pie, motherhood, and the American flag" may not be a copyright violation, but the information is still, essentially, unverifiable and therefore doesn't belong. John Broughton | Talk 13:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Degree

None of the biographies say what he actually studied at the university, just that he got a "BA" and then did "graduate studies"? Now maybe this is a weird cultural thing, but surely that is important? Or is there some kind of generic nonspecific thing he as doing? Morwen - Talk

Fixed. If you want more detail on graduate studies, follow the AP external link (bottom of page), and puzzle on it yourself. "Foreign policy" isn't a normal graduate program (maybe GWU has one, but I'd guess it would be political science or similar). John Broughton | Talk 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Voted against cuddly animals

this sort of stuff - or at least the second part of that sentence is effectively meaningless without more specific. The flagrant misrepresentation of the significance of voting records is routine in the more heated part of American political discourse, I can see how it's easy to get caught up on this: but we are trying to build a real article here and this needs citing and the context needs explaining: additionally it could easily be cherry picking. (see above for other odd partisan bits.) Morwen - Talk 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Holy Strawman, Batman! 68.33.185.185 00:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Cuddly animals? It is hardly "cherry-picking" to include in his biography that he voted in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment; in fact, I think it not only odd that you deleted it, but that you can't actually mention it.

I invite you to look at other Wikipedia Senate biographies: the FMA vote, or a position on same-sex marriage, is part of many if not most of them (particularly of social conservatives like Larry Craig). And it is not odd to me, and apparently to other Wikipedists, to include his well-documented habeas corpus and torture vote, since it is worded precisely according to the way it is represented on other Senatorial biographies from fellow supporters (see Mary Landrieu and Jay Rockefeller, for example).

If the goal is to "build a real article", why censor altogether? Wouldn't it be better to suggest improvements on ways to present the facts? And why speak in code? Sandover 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that needs fixing on the other articles then. I can't find the words to describe how bad that paragraph is about the torture vote. It talks about as if he was personally responsible, and it written in a rather POV way about the consequences. I see now in the edit history you were responsible for that bit of text as well : please consider stepping above the gutter-level of american politics.

Now, I'm going to try to find sources on his social stance, and put that material back but with the necessary context, not stripped bare of any context as you seem to like it. Morwen - Talk 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Gutter-level? I objected to your wholesale deletion of any mention of his votes on gay issues. I see they are now restored and referenced. Sandover 17:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the work that Craig did on the behalf of Idaho's gerbil farmers encyclopedic? I understand he's quite taken with the little critters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.39.177 (talk) 19:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Come on Guys

The gay allegations are obviously news, as they have been covered in dozens of reliable sources by now (and therefore meet WP:BLP. They have not, however, been confirmed by any reliable sources, so they must be labeled as allegations. Quit the revert war, but don't cut the info.Francisx 22:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a rumor (until confirmed by the mainstream media) and this project should not assist with that activity. That is why WP:BLP was created. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a rumor. The blogs claim to have proof. Now that proof may be substantiated or not, but it's won the attention of enough reliable sources to be worth a mention. WP doesn't need to state it as fact (in fact that _would_ be a vioalation of WP:BLP) but a failure to mention the story would be equally problematic.--Francisx 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No they aren't. But CBS News and widely read newspapers certainly are. And since those reliable sources have seen fit to mention the allegations, WP should too, as long as it's careful not to present them as fact.--Francisx 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add a sample section following WP:BLP. We can discuss it below.Francisx 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it if you want. For the record, I believe this to be a big mistake. We should be responsible when editing BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusations like these sometimes creep from blog to lead story on the Evening News and sometimes they fade quietly away. This one seems on the bubble: could go either way. It is not crucial to include it today, in my view. 3 national news sources have mentioned it, but without any confirming or disconfirming view expressed. They never report such rumors until Drudge or in this case a blogger interviewed on Air America go public with it, then they mention it. Sometimes Leno, Letterman, and The Daily Sho ar the determinants of whether a story like this has legs. If the subject denies, or the accuser brings out his witnesses, the story expands. If the accuser went public with this without affidavits, he is crazy. In a week we will have a better feel for how notable the allegation is.Edison 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. Upon looking closely at the sources, there really isn't enough _yet_ for us even to mention the allegations. But that could change if more reliable sources discuss them. WP:BLP doesn't require that everything on WP be factually proven -- especially not for a public figure like Craig -- but it does require more independent allegations than currently exist.Francisx 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't believe Ed Schultz is part of Air America, though there are stations in some markets which carry both his show and programming from the network. Sandover 17:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldnt include until the story is explored much more and facts and apposed to rumours appear. BLP requires great care and I dont see the necessity to push it into the article. Whats the rush. This is an encyclopedia article. Not the Smoking Gun. Caper13 06:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the recent arrest and conviction do anything to cement his homosexuality as an issue, even if it is not substantiated? In the future, would it not be notable that the Senator be remembered for a scandal (ongoing, no less) that he endured, and which may have very well impacted other facets of his career, including, perhaps, it's duration? (BTW, this is my first talk post -- did I format properly?) Also, can anyone with editing privileges change "peak" to "peek" in the article?Antipode12 12:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)antipode12

I changed "peak" to "peek" for the word used to describe peering through the crack of a toilet stall. Edison 14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding NPOV copy for outing

Here's the original outing from October 17, which was repeated that day on The Ed Schultz Show. As noted above, it has appeared in a number of small newspapers, including those in Craig's own state. It was discussed by Bill Maher and Barney Frank on national television on October 20th.

So why is the Wikipedia entry reporting Craig's alleged denial through staff, and not the outing itself? I'm confused. People are coming to Wikipedia to figure out what Craig has said in response to Mike Rogers (which is apparently nothing). Maybe Craig should come out and preempt this nonsense, just as he did on ABC News back in 1982: "Persons who are unmarried as I am, by choice or by circumstance, have always been the subject of innuendos [sic], gossip, and false accusations. I think this is despicable." Or on NBC News: "I've always been aggressive and up-front with what I believe in. And when I have people telling me that a whole series of false accusations are made against my character, frankly it makes me mad as hell." Is there any reason why those 1982 denials don't still stand, given his current silence? Shouldn't we have a denial in Craig's own words? -- Sandover 18:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that doesn't need to respond to the 24 hour news cycle. None of it has been verified as fact so rather than have large paragraphs attacking accusers and defenders alike of an unverified accusation it is better to leave it until the dust has settled. --Tbeatty 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tbeatty. Better to be have some patience. If these rumors are picked up by the mainstream media, it will be a no brainer. If it has not been picked up by mainstream media, why should Wikipedia? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to address the concern that readers are coming to Wikipedia for answers because "they heard a rumor". That very well may be the case. Unfortunately there are no answers to give. Instead of just "hearing something" they now will say they "heard it on Wikipedia". That is not good for the project. The blogosphere and tabloid journals can corner this market of rumour and innuendo. But when someone "hears it on Wikipedia" it should be verifiable truth and not just a repetition of an unverified rumour. --Tbeatty 00:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well said --plange 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're prepared to eliminate topics on subjects which are not “verifiable truth.” Is your next move to delete that portion of the page on Martin Luther King, Jr. that provides an overview on the various theories regarding the motive and means behind his assassination? Perhaps we should eliminate the entire page on Young earth creationism. The entire concept is based on faith, not “verifiable truth.” Joegoodfriend 05:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I've been reverting both ways in this whole thing, I think I have to agree with Joe, mostly that, as long as we state very clearly that the allegations are just that: unproven, and untrustworthy allegations, there's not a problem. In all due respect, I believe the statement they now will say they "heard it on Wikipedia" doesn't seem to work well, because actually the text states quite clearly that it was only an allegation. Here's my logic: they will not come looking for it unless they've already heard about it; perhaps even through a "reputable" news source like the Seattle newspaper. But then, when they read it on Wikipedia, they will actually see it's only an allegation, so they leave off better informed, and not having fully believed something because we didn't directly say "this is a fact." If we came right out and said "he did this", it would blatantly violate WP:BLP, but as it stands, I think we're on safe ground, because the statement is so well qualified.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is, if we can ever get this page semi-protected so that anon user doesn't keep on goofing it up. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The big difference in the two comparisons is time. The two examples that you have suggested have withstood the test of time. We don't entertain theories that bave not withstood scrutiny. This allegation has not withstood any scrutiny. It is a rumour and as such should not be reported. You can bet dollars to donuts that the mainstream news organizations are working to prove or disprove this rumor. IT will happen in time. In time we will know if this rumor has legs. Let's look at stuff we don't report such as the rumors of Clinton's STD's or bent penis. There are plenty of sources and this has been reported. We could certainly add it to his bio as a "report on the the report" but it would not be responsible. It doesn't belong even though it was reported by "mainstream" news outlets and is still on the web. It simply doesn't beling becuse the central verification of this allegation is not provable. --Tbeatty 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The other difference is the number of adherents to the theory. In Larry Craig's case, there is exactly 1 adherent. He asys he has 4 anonymous people who back him up. If I say I have a creation theory support by 4 anonymous people or I have a MLK assassination theory with 4 anonynmous persons, it will not be added to either of those articles until it is proven to be a substantial viewpoint. --Tbeatty 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your argument doesn’t make any sense to me.

1. "We don't entertain theories that have not withstood scrutiny." Of course we do. The page on John Mark Karr went up the day he was arrested. You are arguing against the entire idea of the Current Events tag.

2. "It simply doesn't belong because the central verification of this allegation is not provable." If Craig is gay, of course it's provable: If, for instance, an indiscrete photo surfaces, it's proven.

3. I can site any number of articles that reference rumors that are not "provable" and have been suggested by only one person. For instance, the allegation by Paula Jones that Bill Clinton exposed himself to her.

4. "In Larry Craig's case, there is exactly 1 adherent." Many people believe Craig to be gay, and have been talking about it for years. Joegoodfriend 18:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, one more thing I forgot to add. HA HA HA HA! A Minneapolis airport bathroom! HA HA HA HA HA! Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Living People Patrol

I issued a 3RR warning in response to the recent edit war about the Rogers "outing" coverage. User Crockspot issued me a warning in response, in which he claimed that under the above proposed policy, members of "Living people patrol" cannot be issued warnings for multiply reverting what they see as violations of WP:BLP. Persons thinking of adding or deleting the Rogers claim should be aware of the claimed policy, and might be interested in the discussion at that page Wikipedia talk:Living People Patrol.Edison 17:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert(-)warring

I've returned the unconfirmed rumors section (which, to be sure, should be retitled in order that the nature of the section as addressing the controversy surrounding the rumors [cf., the rumors themselves, as true and/or notable]), but I don't intend to edit war here and so won't revert its excision. It seems quite plain to me, though, that there exists a consensus, borne out both here and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Larry Craig, for the inclusion of the section as relevant to a notable controversy discussed prominently in notable and reliable sources. Most editors here, quite proprely, IMHO, have concluded that the fact of the rumors, rather than the substance thereof, is notable, if only in view of the press generated thereby, and I do not apprehend a consensus for the view that, notability aside, BLP entails; surely it is not suggested that either the legal or moral standards that underlie BLP are imperiled here. Notwithstanding that I, qua singular editor, believe inclusion to be warranted, toward which, see, e.g., my note at BLP/N, I think it to be quite clear that the community writ large believe inclusion to be warranted, and it is in view of the latter conclusion that I've re-reverted. Might a content RfC, such that we might invite other editors to partake of this discussion, be in order? Joe 17:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a WP:BLP policy that BLP reverts do not count against the 3RR rule. It has nothing to do with any membership. Also, there is no consensus whatsoever at the Noticeboard for inclusion. I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion just as their is no consensus here. "When in doubt, leave it out" is a pretty sound BLP policy. --Tbeatty 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is only exempt if the material is unsourced and/or if it is "blatantly defamatory". Jossi's edit here is a good example of a revert that appears to qualify under the policy. A revert resulting from a good faith difference of opinion between editors regarding properly sourced material does not qualify as an exempt revert. Gamaliel 18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I may be confused, but I didn't find myself to have referenced 3RR in any way. I noted simply that edit-warring generally is to be disfavored and that, whilst it is altogether permissible that one, 3RR notwithstanding, revert material that contravenes BLP (which permissibility I note, inter al., here), one might perhaps be more circumspect when it appears that he acts against a consensus relative to whether BLP applies. Where one or two obdurate editors insist on including information that is inconsistent with BLP, reversion is of course in order; where several editors in good standing, including sysops, insist on including information and suggest that such inclusion does not violate BLP, there is a substantive disagreement and one ought to consider whether his interpretation of BLP ought to control. Joe 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll notice, TB, that we don't necessarily think it's a BLP violation. You'll also notice that even the administrator, who's a member of the BLP patrol, didn't violate the 3RR. I am going to have this page full-protected soon, or get an rfc if we can't work this out. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An RfC might well be in order, at least as to content; full protection, I fear, would be a wrong version discussion waiting to happen. Joe 20:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the whole point; it would get someone's attention, now wouldn't it? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I say if this goes on for another 24 hours, let's go to rfc. I can't promise I will do it; I might not be here. But no point in waiting around; we might as well get a good answer.

I understand that people don't think it's a BLP issue. I also understand that there are people that do believe it's a BLP issue and both POV are valid. Given that, the article should be conservative. When in doubt, leave it out. The WP:BLP page has numerous quotes of Jimbo espousing this very philosophy. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or newspaper or scandal sheet. The obligation is to get it right, not fast. --Tbeatty 02:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually RfC or ArbCom. I think it's a foundation issue as much as anything.--Tbeatty 02:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is, to be sure, the sort of thing the ArbComm, rightly or wrongly, would reject out-of-hand. Tbeatty is quite right that generally the presumption, where there exists some dispute relative to the propriety, in view of BLP, of our including a given fact, is toward exclusion, but such presumption is overcome where there exists a clear consensus that BLP does not entail. A review of this talk page as well as of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Larry Craig seems to make plain that, irrespective of one's own personal views, the community writ large appear to believe inclusion to be consistent with BLP.

The instant issue is not dissimilar from that encountered at the DRV of the fourth AfD on The Game (game), viz., whether an editor's firm belief that a given article or section thereof is fundamentally inconsistent with policy ought to override the conclusions of others that no policy non-compliance exists.

BLP, IMHO, means principally to promulgate a regulation that one be especially vigilant in applying WP:5P as regards articles about living persons, largely in order that a living person should not be unduly harmed, with such harm avoidance following either from concerns as to legal liability or concerns as to moral error. Here, though, the BLP issues are at their weakest—no harm will befall the subject, an eminently notable personnage, in view of our article—and I don't think any Foundation issue to be present; I will, in any event, query the EN-l mailing list to solicit other views (article RfCs seem to draw few new discussion participants). Joe 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have said before that at this juncture it is not our duty in any way to prove or ascertain his sexual orientation. An uncomfirmed "outing" was done on a talk show. The "Outer" Rogers only presented the claim that other anonymous people had said they had liasons with Senator Craig. This is still fairly weak, and I just barely see it as worthy of inclusion in the article. The question is has it attained coverage in the mainstream media, and it seems to have just barely made the cut. It would be a far stronger claim if at least one person had spoken to reporters and said they personally did thus and such with the Senator. Rogers could be blowing smoke, like Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950's with his secret list of 57 communists in the State Department. I still favor having, if anything, a brief section titled "Rogers' claims" which discusses the mainstream newspaper and TV coverage of the claim of Rogers on the talk show and Craig's denial. There should be no mention in the article of just the original claim, had the mainstream press not picked it up. In the Bill Clinton matter, at the early stages they at least had the names of some women. In the Gary Hart case they at least had direct observations of activities which raised questions in the minds of the Miami Herald reporters.Edison 04:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Edison has it, I think, quite right, and in many, many, many fewer words than I: had the mainstream press not covered the issue, any mention in the article of the allegations would have been inappropriate; a mention of that coverage itself, though, may be encyclopedic. Joe 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Has it been picked up as a news story by the mainstream press? I've been out of town so not able to follow this closely, but as far as I know, it's only been in his local paper and the New York Daily News (a rag). The CBS and Wash Post were editorials criticizing what little press has been published for even doing so. If anything's happened since last week that I missed, let me know. --plange 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbershop quartet

Why is the fact that he sings in a barbershop quartet encyclopedic? It seems to qualify as random information.Edison 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact of our having an article about the group (which group, btw, I think to be notable in view of its being often discussed in prominent media) would suggest that the group is notable (if one thinks it to be otherwise, an AfD per WP:BAND might well be in order), and an individual's membership in a notable group would, I imagine, itself be notable and likely meritorious of inclusion. Of course, because Craig's principal notability does not follow from his being a musician, such fact does indeed seem as random, but I think that the prominence of the group, and the nature of its creation as inextricable to the occupations of the constituent participants (as against a group comprising three Hart Office Building janitors and Craig who might sing at XYZ bar every Friday night), tips the scale. Joe 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is of interest. It is a dieing genre. Let's keep it in. Arbol25 04:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue of his "homosexuality" between someone and 66.98.131.109

I saw the history log, and the "homosexuality" claims of Larry Craig seems to lead this IP user into believing these sources are factual without making discussions with others at this talk page. Thus, a war between whoever is trying to be honest and 66.98.131.109 went on for a few days without resolution. *sigh* We are trying to assure that they are doing what they can to verify these accusations on Larry Craig before accepting them as either false or facts. Otherwise, the war is gonna get heavier before it's too late. --Gh87 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying the BLP issue

I want to clarify what seems a rather murky issue, discussions of which have happened in several namespaces across sundry pages, in order that we might work toward a resolution consistent with encyclopedic principles. No one, to my mind, means to suggest that we ought to include the "homosexual liaisons" allegations as themselves notable or as asserted as fact by a notable and reliable source; insofar as the allegations are made by a single non-notable blogger, the mere fact of their being made—irrespective of their accuracy—is, as everyone seems to acknowledge, non-notable and unencyclopedic. Whether the controversy surrounding the making of the allegations is notable, though, is a wholly different question, and so I wonder if editors might address the latter question.

For me, that controversy has ensued with respect to the original allegations and that such controversy has been reported by–and partaken of by members of–media that, qua sources, are not only reliable but are also prominent/notable suggests that the controversy is notable and that the inclusion of a section apropos of such controversy is not proscribed by any encyclopedic tenet and, indeed, that such inclusion is compelled by general principles. I drew an imperfect yet guiding analogy at WP:BLPN: whilst we'd not include in John Seigenthaler, Sr. suggestions that he partook of conspiracies to assassinate JFK and RFK, insofar as such suggestions were offered by other-than-prominent and less-than-reliable sources, we'd surely include that controversy ensued from the making of such suggestions. The allegations themselves, then, are not notable, but the ensuing controversy surely is, irrespective of the original prominence or verity of the underlying allegations.

In principal part, BLP acts only to restate WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR as regards biographies about living persons, in view, I suppose, of the idea that it is most important that we follow such prescriptions where our editing may engender any of several problems IRL; only tangentially does BLP suggest (e.g., in its suggestion that, where an individual is of dubious notability and only avolitionally public, we ought not to include such information as might untowardly invade his/her privacy) that we compromise that in which we otherwise belief in order that we should not commit moral wrongs or expose ourselves to civil liability, and so I don't understand BLP, to the extent that it serves other than to restate WP:SR, to proscribe inclusion here. Joe 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So should we use the Siegnethaler language "A blogger identified as Mike Rogers posted infomration that contained defamatory content. It was covered by some press outlets but was never verified."?--Tbeatty 03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

{refactored)

Tbeatty, you are absolutely on the right track, except that some would probably consider sexual orientation to be a matter which is highly personal but not necessarily defamatory per se. The bare allegation by Rogers that Senator Craig had gay encounters in train stations has as little place in a Wikipedia article as the claim that the Clintons murdered numerous people, which is the claim in the subject film in the article which you started, which is now under consideration for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Chronicles. It is, in such cases the mainstream media coverage of the allegations and denials which possibly makes the unsubstantiated allegations encyclopedic. Edison 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is defamatory to accuse someone of adultery or extramarital affairs without verifiable facts. It is one of the 4 main slander claims from common law. This is still a rumour. It has yet to be picked up by the AP or UPI or CNN or NYTimes or Washington Post after a whole week of journalists searching it out. Regardless of whether calling someone "gay" is defamatory, it would be news if he had gay sexual encounters and then voted against pro-gay legislation. But it can't be verified so it shouldn't be repeated. When they make a DVD of Craig's gay encounters, it will be worth an article just as Fahrenheit 9/11 or Clinton Chronicles has an article though much of their content is dubious. BTW, I noticed you voted delete on the Clinton Chronicles yet you want to include even less notable allegations against Craig. --Tbeatty 05:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It probably will not surprise you that Fahrenheit 9/11 seemed to me pretty much self-documenting, unlike Clinton Chronicles. I agree the Rogers allegations about Senator Craig are still only marginally encyclopedic, since they have not increased in coverage by the mainstream news organizations beyond the original bare mentions. It would appear to be a "put up or shut up " situation for Rogers. If BLP violations re: anonymous conservative bloggers allegedly affecting the medical care requires deleting Andy Stephenson and possible speculation about an accidental death requires deleting Lori Klausutis then "Largely discredited account of circumstantial evidence and coincidence" (per you) allegations of mass murders requires deleting big time re:Clinton Chronicles. Just following your example and seeking to be consistent and NPOV. Regards. Edison 05:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read my talk page you will see I create CC as a WP:POINT violation in retaliation for the cration of Klausutis. Currently, I think the video is notable but not the allegations. I have not voted to keep the article and think it could be easily merged into Clinton without the allegations or the names. This is consistent with Klausutis and is also light years ahead of where the Craig allegations are. But you have still voted delete for CC but add the Craig allegations. There is certainly more coverage of CC than there is of Rogers claims even though the CC claims are over 10 years old. --Tbeatty 06:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the Senator has officially denied the claims by Rogers, there is no basis to categorize him as gay in Wikipedia. Edison 05:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Who erased my comments?

Please don't erase my comments again. That's very rude. I'm lucky I type in notepad and had them saved.

(refactored ber BLP) Tbeatty 06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone else erased them, because they're against policy, but now I have erased them. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox for advertising. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

(restored my comment deleted by Patstuart. Pat: When you edit or comment, please sign with four tildes to add your signature, the date and the time, and please do not delete the comments of other editors without a stated good reason. Thanks.) Since the Senator has officially denied the claims by Rogers, there is no basis to categorize him as gay in Wikipedia. Edison 05:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Edison, my mistake. :( -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Request semi-protection again

Now we have heavy edit wars again, so I requested "semi-protection". Even when there are less or no vandalism with this tag, let's hope for the next that we do not remove the tag again for one season or so. --Gh87 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gay claim

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

To me this paragraph follows this rule: "In 2006 liberal blogger Mike Rogers, who outed several closeted gay politicians such as Mark Foley previously, claimed to have an anonymous source saying a homosexual relationship had occurred between Larry Craig and an unnamed man. Craig denied the allegation, saying through his staffers that "They absolutely did not (occur); there is no basis in fact."[8]"

Could the reverter please explain why it does not? It doesn't say "x had a gay relationship" -- it simply states that this was a nation news story for several days. Even if it didn't happen, it should be noted that it was accused, denied, and at some point falsified. To simply remove all note of this nation news story reeks of censorship. Please let me know your thoughts. -Quasipalm 19:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem that I and several other editors have with this allegation is that is is being made by an activist blogger who is "passing on" these allegations from unnamed sources. Blogs are not considered reliable sources, except as a primary source in an article about the blogger. I also have a problem with the coverage, it not being substantial coverage in national media in my mind. The iffy sourcing, combined with the unverifiable allegation, I believe, makes this a WP:BLP issue, violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the policy. While I do not believe that Craig is up for reelection this cycle, the appearance of this allegation just before an election seems timed with a number of other "Gay Republican outings", which are aimed to smear Republicans. Wikipedia is not a place for that, and I will continue to revert, and we will see how interested people are in reinserting this info after the election has passed. I suspect the "demand" for this entry will drop off dramatically. - Crockspot 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I respect most of what you say, but don't accuse me of writing this paragraph because I want to change the outcome of an election. I wrote the paragraph because I heard about this story on NPR and, being from Idaho, I had a lot of questions, such as "who made this claim and why?" and "when did this happen?" Because I often come to Wikipedia for current events, I came here and found nothing, so I wrote a minor paragraph and buried it in the personal section -- making it clear that the accuser was a biased party and that Craig strongly denied the statement.

So, let's clear up your objections and work through them one by one. Your objections are:

• • • Allegation is being made by an activist blogger
    • Media coverage was not substantial
    • Any inclusion of this story is inherently a smear campaign

Let me know if I missed something -- otherwise I'll work through those one by one. -Quasipalm 20:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quasi, you've stepped into an ugly quagmire in this one. There's been, I consider, three sides to this story. On one side, people say it's not proven (which it isn't) and shouldn't be included by WP:BLP; this includes most people and a few admins. Others, like myself and at least one admin, think there should be a note, but it should have the caveat that it's unproven. Finally, they are those who were just putting it in the article without reserveation; IMO, they were ignoring WP:BLP, and just wanted to say "ha ha, Larry's gay" (the article was sprotected due to this violation). If you look at the page history, this has been going on for quite a while. Eventually, I just gave up, though I think we personally could go to WP:RfC. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You missed one very important side (which is the one I'm on). Unverified claims can have a place in articles (even if not true) IF the claims gained notoriety and so was widely reported in national mainstream news media. This hasn't happened yet in this case. --plange 20:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what people's standard is for how much coverage would justify inclusion. It's been reported in local papers, national papers, CBS, Washington Post, NPR.... Can people who are talking this stand indicate at what point they will change their position and accept inclusion? Gamaliel 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know you've following this for some time, and I have a question. I was blocked from editing for 24 hours after I several times reverted the deletion of the information from this page, much to the delight of those who are tyring to exclude it. My question is, do the administrators intend to show some consistency and also block those numerous editors who have removed the information multiple times? PS-You are doing you're a great job as usual. Joegoodfriend 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing unsourced and/or obviously defamatory material, such as the anonymous edits which stated as fact that Craig was gay, is exempt from the 3RR. Removing sourced material due to a good faith disagreement over article content, which is what we have here, is not exempt from the 3RR and I'll warn or block any violators that are brought to my attention. Gamaliel 21:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify: the two sides in the middle, I guess, both agree it should only be included as a rumor if it's notable. One side (mine) says it already is, while the other (Plange's) says it's not. ;) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Above was the first I'd heard it was covered by NPR. The only national news coverage was CBS and Washington Post and if they had been news stories, I'd have had NO issues with including it. Both, however, were editorial indictments against the few local papers covering it; the CBS one especially was withering in its criticisms and only confirmed my stance on this. Have you read the CBS editorial? If new coverage has occurred in NPR or other national media that is a news story, please provide below. --plange 20:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you have already asked me if I had read the editorial, and my reply was that I posted a link to it here. I don't agree that these editorials are not significant coverage of the incident, whatever opinion they take, and the fact that they disapprove of the story does not mean that they are not in fact coverage of the story. I disagree with this approach of saying that national news coverage meets the standard for inclusion, but then attempting to "disqualify" that very same coverage through various arbitrary means. Gamaliel 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary at all, in fact I'll take a quote directly from yours "I disagree with this approach of saying that national news coverage meets the standard for inclusion, but then attempting to "disqualify" that very same coverage through various arbitrary means" and bold the parts that are the qualifier and point out that editorials are not news coverage. Has CBS, the Washington Post or the New York Times even deemed this worthy of covering as a news story? No. And neither should we. Our standards should not be less then theirs. --plange 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that they did cover it, and any publication from a reputable news organization like CBS or the Washington Post is considered a reliable source for use in Wikipedia. The fact that they used their national media to condemn this story is evidence that the story is significant enough for them to notice and for us to cover. Gamaliel 21:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

They covered it in an editorial, NOT as a news story. The only place where usage of that could be used, IMO, would be in an article on the local newspapers, i.e. Idaho (whatever it was) received criticism for covering the claim by such and such by the CBS and Washington Post editorial teams. --plange 21:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the distinction, but I don't feel that distinction disqualifies or restricts how we can use that material. Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. Gamaliel 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Plange. This type of material is not suitable for an encyclopedic article on a person. Suitable for Wikinews, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[reindent] It's specifically ABOUT the person. This is a biography of said person. Saying it's only suitable for Wikinews is a handwaving bit of hair-splitting, kind of like the attempts to redefine "national news coverage" above. --Calton | Talk 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's an uncomfirmed allegation by a single person who received the information second hand. There is a very good reason why this wasn't covered in NYT and WaPo. It can't be confirmed. For that reason alone, it doesn't belong.--Tbeatty 06:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the allegation itself hasn't reached the notoriety level required to be included, confirmed or not. For instance, the Swift boat stuff were just allegations, but the firestorm that erupted around it and how it affected John Kerry's campaign was huge and had wide news coverage and so is included in his article, etc. I'm not splitting hairs but am defending WP:BLP, despite what you may believe-- I'm not trying to keep out something that goes against my own wishes here. I find it easier to defend WP:BLP policies in keeping out unsourced/poorly sourced negative stuff on conservatives precisely because I'm a liberal and so I know I'm not biased. --plange 07:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If singing in a barbershop quartet is encylopedic, then having numerous gay affairs would be encyclopedic, provided there were verifiable and reliable sources. So far we have the hearsay statement of one person, Rogers. A recent edit said " Major newspaper publications require only two anonymous sources to go with major stories." But this is completely irrelevant, since Rogers is a blogger and not, say, the New York Times. He could just as easily say he had interviewed 57 anonymous sources, or 57,000. It is still just his word, unless and until some of the anonymous sources come forward, or someone finds emails, photos, DNA, recorded phone calls or SOMETHING. In the Bill Clinton sexcapades, there were individual women who made public claims from the start (Gennifer Flowers et al). In the Gary Hart scandal, there were reporters lurking outside his townhouse who reported suspicious comings and goings. In the Wilbur D. Mills scandal there was a traffic stop where he was drunk and had a stripper in the car. In each of those cases there was some tangible evidence, beyond a hearsay allegation. The mainstream reporting so far has only repeated, and questioned, the Rogers allegations. There are always rumors that the mainstream press are aware of regarding public figures: financial improprieties, substance abuse, infidelity, strange habits; but there has to be some overt incident or first hand public testimony to raise them to newsworthyness. CBS, the Washington Post, and a major Idaho paper printed the allegation and denial, and in doing so they were certainly aware that they were elevating it to the level of a widely reported rumor, as opposed to the many rumors simmering below the level of public reporting. That is what just barely makes it a notable enough rumor to include in the article here. Reporting a rumor which is being discussed in mainstream news and editorial coverage is different from stating the truth of the rumor in Wikipedia. The Rogers claim may barely reach the level of notice for inclusion in Wikipedia due to the public denial by Craig and the mainstream press coverage in a few places of the claim and denial. I have not seen any Wikipedia policy which states that editorial coverage of something counts for less than news article coverage. If no further evidence is put forward, it will sink back below the surface with the myriad other rumors about politicians, and live on in blogs, whispering campaigns and anonymous pushpolls. The ball is in Rogers' court, to put up or shut up. The ball is in Craig's court: to sue for libel and slander. Edison 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The logic of your argument is interesting. Apparently, there are two scenarios underwhich the hearsay regarding Craig belongs in the article:

1. Some other person makes a similar hearsay claim. According to you, Paula Jones' unverifiable accusation against Bill Clinton deserved attention because other women had previously made similar, also unverifiable accusations against him. So all we need to include the Craig information is for a second blogger to announce that he has anonymous sources claiming that Craig is gay?

2. The person in question does something vaugely suspicious. In 1988, rumors were swirling regarding Gary Hart. Reporters saw a young women leave his house. Ok, so as soon as we see a young man leave Craig's house, can we post the story? Joegoodfriend 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're missing an important distinction: Paula Jones was making firsthand claims, which were dealt with in a court of law. We know who she is. She is not an anonymous source. The other women making similar claims were also identified, and were deposed under oath. Rogers, on the other hand, is making claims based upon second hand accounts of people he refuses to identify, so we can't determine if they even exist, let alone if what they are claiming is true. We only have Rogers' word for it. - Crockspot 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The first part of your post goes off topic. The significance of the fallout from Jones' accusations (she got her day in court) is irrelevant, the question is, could Jones' accusations have appeared on Wikipedia as a current event the same day she announced them. The editor's post suggests to me that the answer is yes, solely because of previous similar, unverified claims from other persons.

Furthermore, you suggest that women making claims against Clinton at the time Jones made her accusation had done so under oath. Who are you talking about? Flowers made her accusations through press conferences.

Let me understand the rest of your post. If Mike Rogers' claim regarding Craig revolved around a liaison with Rogers himself, then the accusation could appear here, however, only because the claim involves not Rogers but an unidentified acquaintance of Rogers, the claim cannot be posted on Wikipedia in any context? That seems to me to be a rather arbitrary and overly-convenient distinction. Joegoodfriend 21:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that if people come forward (the more the merrier) and said (under oath, on 60 Minutes, or to Washington Post reporters) that they had adulterous sexual relations with that man (or woman) who is notable in their own right independent of the allegations, AND the allegations are covered by multiple mainstream media, then under Wikipedia guidelines it would be worthy of inclusion. If they had evidence (letters, videos, photos, etc) which led to some result such as a resignation or divorce it would be more credible yet as a fact in addition to the rumor. If it is the unsubstantiated claim by an individual, it may be their own private fantasy, as has been the case for numerous celebrities with crazed stalkers, and if such claims are not reprinted by multiple (nontabloid) reputable news sources, the case for inclusion would be very weak. There have been and will be clear cases for inclusion, clear cases for exclusion, and cases which are on the bubble. This one seems on the bubble, with the CBS, Wash Post, and hometown paper coverage giving it just barely enough notability for inclusion (as notable RUMOR, not as fact). Personally, I would think if there is no more credible proof and no more mainstream press coverage produced in say 2 weeks or a month from the initial allegation, it should be deleted. Sometimes where there is smoke, there is just a smoke making machine. Edison 21:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) very well said. When things are not clearcut, and are on the bubble as you say, WP:BLP clearly states we should err on the side of caution and not include it. --plange 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is a lot of confusion between reporting the allegation and reporting the affair as fact. Nobody is saying we should report the affair as factual -- it seems to me if I was Craig, I wouldn't mind having this information out there as it would include my response. The fact that Craig's employees talked to this allegation itself makes me think it should be included. They want their side of the story out there, so we shouldn't hesitate to mention the matter as long as we provide a part of their response. -Quasipalm 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying we should report the affair as factual The IPs are; that's why it keeps on getting sprotected. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rogers allegations about Larry Craig look pretty feeble and unsubstantiated at this point, and I go along with deleting mention of them from the article. If later on there is further notability for these allegations in the forms I mentioned above, then the matter might become encyclopedic. The Ted Haggard case is an example of what it takes for something like these allegations to gain encyclopedic status. For now, it should be kept out of this article per WP:BLP. Edison 17:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, they should be included with a large "UNPROVEN" caveat, but I am willing to concede that WP:BLP says it could go either way. Does anybody know, is it possible to get some sort of rfc and make it binding, so that someone can be blocked the first time they reinsert this material? We've had the same IPs edit warring over this, and what is, quite frankly, looking like something that's almost a wheel-war with the admins semi-p'ing and un-semi-p'ing. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting a page after a week of protection is not a "wheel war", it is pretty standard as articles are not intended to be protected indefinately. That IP user has just as much right to edit this article as you do, and you certainly aren't going to get any sort of power to block someone just for adding links to newspaper stories to this article. Gamaliel 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, with all due respect, the other admins were of the opinion that the text being added was a serious violation of WP:BLP, including other admins who are part of the BLP board like yourself. Again, I don't have a problem with some mention of it, but there seems to be a persistent attempt to make it sound like it comes from a reputable source, without any mention that it was a blogger. I'm fairly sure that's not acceptable. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been reading each version the anon puts up, because frankly, why bother? They get removed instantly anyway. But let's not pretend the issue people have is with the way the anon mentions the material, because people then would just be editing it instead of removing it altogether. Gamaliel 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is the issue, as you can see from my edits here, here, here, here, and here. But after a while, I gave up, because I was spending all my time and 3RR's reverting the anon's whose inclusion I found worse than an exclusion, because of BLP problems. Besides, my edits were getting reverted when the page was protected. It seems a middle ground is hard to find. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So if we wrote a version we both found acceptable, no one would remove it from the article? The precise language of the anon's edits may be an issue, but it certainly is overshadowed by the fact that there are others who object to any mention at all. Gamaliel 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove it, no. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Be prepared that others might, though, as I don't see how you can add it without violating BLP. The example of Ted Haggard is indeed the perfect example-- it DID get widespread mainstream news coverage and probably influenced the election to an extent, yet they are still somewhat in the realm of allegations. No one has yet supplied a link to a news story of the Craig allegations from a mainstream paper. --plange 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely untrue. Please explain why The Spokesman-Review is not a mainstream paper. Gamaliel 18:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Haggard situation is completely different. One, the person making the allegations in the Haggard case was a male prostitute who has voice recordings of Haggard and who claims first-hand sexual contact with Haggard. In the Craig case, it's a political activist who claims he has evidence from others and has yet to release it. Two, Haggard stepped down and was kicked out of his church, admitting that at least part of what the prostitute said was true. In the Craig case, his office said the allegation was a lie.

The two aren't comparable and there is nothing besides Mike Rogers' word to back up the Craig allegation. I don't think we want every political rumor or smear to appear here, do we? MKil 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)MKil

He claims to have more evidence which he's refusing to release? That's new information to me, and I will admit makes it seem a bit more shady. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "more evidence"? He hasn't released any evidence at all (that I'm aware of). All the "evidence" from him that I've seen consists of him saying "I've intereviewed three guys and they say they had sex with Craig." That's not evidence to me. That's simply a story from a political activist. MKil 19:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)MKil

Yep, basicially it's one person saying "jump" and seeing if anyone actually did. Some local papers took the bait, but the reputable mainstream national newspapers did not, and a few editorials from mainstream media even lambasted them for jumping. Do we want to be included with the jumpers? --plange 19:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like everyone is jumping on the bandwagon proclaiming how much they are against vicious political gossip, etc., etc. No need to rehash the debate again, please. The issue at hand is not how correct you are, but whether or not the majority should be enforcing their perspective on this issue with what is turning into semi-permanent page protection and proposed immediate blocks on those who disagree. Gamaliel 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is the key to the debate. If the rumor has no evidence to back it up, then it should not be included. It's not a matter of agree or disagree with majority views, it's a matter of whether or not the information being repeatedly posted here is accurate. Since its accuracy depends solely on the word of a political activist, I don't think that's a good rationale for including it. And if anonymous users want to keep putting in a mention of this unfounded rumor, then I think that protection for the page is the best thing that can happen. MKil 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)MKil

Links to media discussion of a possibly unfounded rumor is an entirely different thing than just sticking in unfounded rumors. I respect the views of people who want to keep this material out, but to enforce your views with page protection and immediate blocking is a perversion of the open editing principles of Wikipedia. If you don't like what the anon is doing, persue dispute resolution procedures. Gamaliel 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, two people have violated the three revert rule on this entry today. Are not blocks in order? Joegoodfriend 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's ok for it to be posted now.1.21 jigwatts 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is contrary to WP:BLP for Wikipedia to be out in front of the mainstream media with respect to resurrecting the Rogers allegations. They were dropped from the article in November. Before that they had received only a little exposure on TV and in newspapers, and they remain unsubstantiated allegations. If those news sources bring them up and find that the arrest and conviction makes the allegations more credible, then there is a basis for putting them in the article. WP:OR says under "What is excluded:" ".. an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" So only when reliable/reputable sources such as Katie Couric or the New York Times links last year's allegations with the misdemeanor conviction for lewd behavior, will it be fair game to add it back to the article. The mere fact that a blog made an allegation which seems to an editor to be consistent with later behavior does not satisfy the WP:OR requirement. Edison 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This information should have been on WP sooner. CNN is mainstream, and it is contrary to WP:BLP and WP:RS to limit "reliable sources" to the absolute biggest in each medium. Some mainstream media remain reluctant to discuss homosexuality candidly in prime time or daytime (heaven forbid the children might see, and nevermind that some of the children are gay), but WP should not be censored. Sen. Craig voted for the "Defense of Marriage Act," perhaps to distract attention from his own homosexuality. (Maybe he just believes that's what the institution of marriage is for - the concealment of homosexuality - and that it must be "defended" against gay couples who have lived together for decades raising children and trying to get the equal protection of the laws for their families.) What surprises me is how many WP editors struggle so hard to suppress any mention of homosexuality in a BLP as long as possible, i.e. until there are vastly more sources than for any other fact. I don't accuse them of homophobia in the sense of fearing or loathing gay people exactly, but there does seem to be a fear of mentioning homosexuality in the light of day. That reticence facilitates lying criminals like Sen. Larry Craig who conceal their own homosexuality by persecuting people who are openly gay. Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, it goes on and on. Part of me would like to believe that if they were exposed sooner, they might do less damage, although I suppose their deluded followers would find someone else to tell them what they want to believe anyway. I am not suggesting that WP should become "The Smoking Gun," but I do hope those editors who fought to censor Craig's homosexuality (and others') until the sources became overwhelming will consider in future that maybe this fact should be treated like all others.TVC 15 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the wire services and news channels are generally reporting the 2006 alegations along with the conviction from this year's bathroom incident, which seems to satisfy the principle that a rumor or allegation of impropriety does not belong in Wikipedia (pwe WP:BLP), but if the allegation is reported by multiple reliable sources then it can be reported at least as an allegation. The fact of this years conviction does not technically prove the truth or Rogers' account of anonymous sources telling him Craig had homosexual afairs with them, but the media have made the link, so it is not synthesis to include the allegations here along with the conviction. Similar Clinton's admission of receiving oral sex from Lewinski does not prove that all earlier allegations or charges were true. Edison 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point about Bill Clinton's admission regarding Monica Lewinsky not proving earlier allegations, but his WP bio does include earlier allegations that were never admitted or proved. (Incidentally, Pres. Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in between sessions with Ms. Lewinsky, thus showing that hypocrisy (or "weakness" as the WSJ calls it) is not limited to closeted Republicans.) Regarding Sen. Craig, either he lied to the court or he lied to the public, and it's appropriate to present his responses to the allegations. If you support Sen. Craig, then presenting his side is doing him a favor, and if you oppose him, then presenting his side shows how little credibility he has. Under WP:RS, only reliably sourced allegations should be included, but the same standard should apply to both.TVC 15 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC

A request for comment has been filed. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do not include allegations - it's been weeks since they were made and no mainstream source has corroborated the allegations. One person, not particularly notable, said he knew of a third party that had gay sex with Craig. There is no corroboration of this charge by anyone. It is not encyclopedic and is blatant violation of both the spirit and letter of BLP. Wikipedia should not be the collection point of wild rumours ala tabloid fashion. Until wider coverage or more corroboration becomes available, WP should do what NYTimes and WaPo did and that is to ignore it.--Tbeatty 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do not include - I used to say include with some caveat, but after doign my research, they actually don't appear notable enough. Several newspapers only mentioned the story in criticism of other newspapers for even mentioning it. My research also turned up this not before mentioned fact: the only major one to carry it was the Spokesman-Review, and even they admitted this: If our reporters had uncovered this information, it's unlikely we would run a story. However, because this information is already circulating through other media, it's a different situation. [9]. The allegations just weren't important enough to mention in his article without a clear violation of BLP. But, if they are included, let's make sure we get it right without stating nonsense like "independent reporter said Larry Craig is a hypocrite because he's a family member" (or however else it was phrased). Let's make it clear that these rumors are extremely unsubstantitated. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • one final note: given the nature of the IP continually adding these assertions (repeated 3RR violation, refusal to use talk page, false accusations of vandalism and 3RR violation for others), I must sadly admit that I doubt any rfc decision will hold water. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do not include At this point it is nothing more than unsourced salacious gossip. Also, there is no showing of its notability. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do not include --plange 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do not include - It appears now to have merely been an election time stunt, aimed at smearing Republicans in general. There has been no followup corroboration, nor any further mainstream treatment. It is shameful that this crap was ever allowed into the article in the first place. - Crockspot 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Do not include Unless and until evidence is produced which meets the criteria I outlined in the discussion previously. Edison 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Provisional Not Include The allegations shouldn't be included at this point. However, I may be willing to change my position in the future given future coverage or allegations (because Larry Craig is actually gay).Francisx 21:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Problem

I've been thinking of a way to write this rumor in a way that doesn't violate WP:BLP and the best I've come up with (as a general outline-- of course the official version would need citations and fleshing out) is this:

“ During the campaign season, rumors were circulated by (bloggers name) that Craig was secretly gay and carried on extramarital affairs. Craig denied these rumors. There has been no independent proof of these rumours ”

The problem is the last sentence. If there is no independent proof of this, why is it notable? You need the last sentence to establish that this is a one source story that has not been corroborated elsewhere. Without the last sentence, you run the risk of creating an ambiguity that this is a story with legs and hasn't been decided yet. Francisx apparantly believes that the man is gay although he has a wife and two kids. This is why if we present this gossip in the article we have to be very clear that at this point it is gossip alone. Just to be on the safe side, and considering WP:BLP, let's just leave it out. The accusation couldn't last more than three months, why put it in the article? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's the problem, here's the million-dollar question: does pleading guilty to charges of soliciting gay sex count as independent corroboration? Yes, I realize he's denied his guilt after the fact, but are we supposed to believe that one of the people who make our laws understand them so feebly as to have plead guilty by accident? Or are we so naïve that we need to write the arrest and guilty plea off as bizarre coincidence? I mean, do people get arrested for "accidentally" soliciting gay sex from police officers on a regular basis? Is it at least common enough that it might have just happened to Senator Craig by some bizarre alignment of the stars? 70.128.143.99 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the comment this is in response to was posted nine months ago, long before the arrest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rating

This is a strong B article. More information about his career in the State legislature would help bring this to GA standards. ludahai 魯大海 13:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Irrespective of the merits of the article, the discussion is brilliant. Wikipedia is beyond the future, it is the now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.67.234 (talk) 04:31, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be nominated for GA until it has "stabilized." Speciate 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

$1000 fine

I removed the $1000 fine figure in lieu of the values stated in the news sources. Yahoo! News reported $575 in fines and fees and CNN reported $500 in fines. Presumably, it was $500 in fines and $75 in fees, but I thought that might be somewhere between WP:OR and WP:SYN, so I just went with the Yahoo! News version. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed it in error, will you or someone with access revert it to $1,000. the fine is $1,000. $500 of the fine, and the ten days of jail were "stayed" pending one year with no further offense. $75 was the administrative surcharge ("court costs"). ref: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig9.html 71.252.90.13 03:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article states that "Craig's" children are actually his wifes from a previous marrige, and it cites an online AP story as its source. However i clicked on the link and it apears to be dead. I have no doubt it's true, but if i were a jornalist i'd want some confermation on that, As Left-wing and biased as i am about right wing freaks like this guy, I want to stick to the facts. Anyway with the recent scandal just breaking i'm sure more details about his family life will come out in the papers, and thus could be used as replacement sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.178.37 (talk) 15:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

If he adopted them, they're his children legally, they're not stepchildren.--69.219.4.5 07:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Gay-Bashing Gays?

An illustration of hypocrisy: Idaho Senator Larry Craig opposes gay civil liberties having voted against antidiscrimination bills that include sexual orientation, he voted for the so called Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage exclusively as a union of one man and one woman, and he opposes the enlistment of gays in the U.S. military. Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct after his arrest for lewd behavior in a Minneapolis men's room. Larry, you're the man!—Preceding unsigned comment added by GearedBull (talk • contribs)

Is there some Wikipedia list of gay bashing congressmen or other influential policy makers who actively promote homophobia and are later found out themselves to be gay eg Mark Foley and the article's subject? If so, this article might merit a link or two regarding that. And what is the psychology behind this kind of behavior? It seems so widespread in the USA currently. It deserves a syndrome name all its own, if it doesnt already have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 18:26, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that the subject is gay, and won't be able to designate him that way until he makes a statement to that effect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or until some video surfaces. Speciate 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good list of sex scandals, although it is "Republican sex scandals". One would have to pull out the appropriate details that you're looking for. Somewhere there is a list of people from both parties; the Republicans on the list out-number the Democrats on the list.

[10] Arbol25 07:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Another related list that is of just as great interest: [11] Arbol25 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another link, about a conservative Christian New Mexico pastor who sought sex in parks: [12] Lead for this source: Bubba Brazile comment on [13] -under "Republican Sex Offenders" by Mike Pappantonio. Arbol25 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. If you are a man, and you go looking for sex with a woman, you're straight (or at most, bi). You don't have to identify as straight. There's no 'coming out' required of you to be straight. You simply are straight. Why then, if I am a man who enjoys sex with men, do I have to go through this ritual before people will describe me as being gay? If Ron Jeremy got on TV and said, "I am not straight. I have never been straight" would anyone be saying, "Well, he says he's not straight, so we can't call him a heterosexual, because you gotta come out as straight to be considered straight" C'mon. You are what you are, whether you admit it or not. Larry Craig went looking for sex with another man. He's as gay as anyone else that does this, including me. Let's call him what he is, a gay man Wandering Star 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See Men who have sex with men. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dan_Popkey , Idaho_Statesman ,

seem to be relevant.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 22:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

No reason to think Craig is "gay"

The Senator has himself said he is not gay, and there is no reason to assume that he is. He may be homosexual, but that is not the same as being gay. "Gay" homosexuals are just one type of a range of homosexualities, one that generally entails an urban, liberal culture concentrated in certain cities. Many non-"gay" homosexualities have and do existed, from the pederasitc-based form of classical Greece to the "Down Low" of contemporary African Americans. Senator Craig may be a homosexual with conservative values and a low-key existence (this was portrayed in the film "Brokeback Mountain). To call him "gay" simply because he has sex with other men is unwarranted. [RLC 29 Aug:04 pm] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.215.143 (talk) 16:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

You know something, it's possible to be gay and deny the fact. Everything that a man says is not necessarily the truth, especially if that man is a politician who is saying something to save his job. I remember how everyone on the right-wing screamed "Bullshit!" when Bill Clinton claimed he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Now the same right-wingers would have us believe that a man who goes looking for gay sex is not gay if he just says "I'm not gay" immediately afterward. Bullshit. Wandering Star 03:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Gay" is generally construed to mean homosexual, or at least male homosexual. It does not imply openness, self-acceptance, good grooming or an affection for Judy Garland. For purposes of this article and discussion, gay is synonymous with homosexual. Check the dictionary or the Wikipedia entry for "gay". Now, if you mean "gay" as in "happy", I'm pretty sure he's not that at this moment in time. And please sign your posts. Ninquerinquar 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, gay is not restricted to urban liberals. Having said that, since he has kids I think it is safe to assume that he is bi, and not gay. Sad mouse 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't safe to assume whatsoever. He married a woman that already had three kids; None of them (or his grandchildren) are biologically his. This point is already made in the article and pretty hard to miss.Kazra 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would claim that they have evidence that Craig is not sexually attracted to women. That would be quite difficult to prove. Obviously he is attracted to men, so he is either gay or bi. This doesn't matter in the slightest anyway, the scandal is his hypocrisy and documented lying (either he lied under oath when he plead guilty or he is repeatedly lying now, probably the latter). Sad mouse 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: Men who have sex with men. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RUBBISH! you can play with the syntax, you can play with the semantics but:

1. ...men who have sex with men are GAY.
2. ...men who solicit sex from men are GAY.
3. ...men who are CONVICTED of soliciting men for sex are GAY.
4. ...men who solicit sex from men and have sex with men, but deny being gay....ARE STILL GAY!

--emerson7 | Talk 04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you've never heard of the Kinsey scale. Or bisexuals. Or the social construct of the word 'gay.' Pairadox 04:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the original poster, not so as to statement #3.

Compare what Sen. Craig's plea of guilty mentions here and what the Minnesota criminal statute mentions at 609.72, subd. 1(3) (Crime - "Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others....."), which can be found here. Neither the plea agreement nor Minnesota statute mentions what was said based on statement #3 (besides, the Minnesota statute applies equally to heterosexual persons who are found to violate this law). Therefore, there's nothing here that suggest a play on syntax in either case. Perception of how one sees this situation is another matter, but the POV as to perception is not applicable for improving the article. Anyway, the information about the arrest, criminal charge and the guilty plea for Sen. Craig is already discussed in the article in its appropriate context.

That should settle this matter and the misconception as mentioned in statement #3. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 14:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is kinda insane. Gay is different from homosexual? Gay is a type of homosexual? Who are these people??? -Laikalynx 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

I guess archiving parts of the talk page is Jossi's latest attempt to control its content. In this particular case, I doubt his stated reason for doing so. You see, the perceptions of Larry Craig's sexuality is VERY important to the manner in which the article itself is edited. If you believe that he is gay, you will edit it in a manner which reflects that. If you believe that he is not, you will likewise edit the page in a way that reflects that. The goal is to edit it in a completely neutral, objective way. Any article, no matter how objectively written, will be reflective of the editor(s)'s basic concept of what it is that we mean when we say that someone is or is not gay. Therefore, a discussion of this basic concept between editors is essential to ensuring that the edits made to the main article itself are cohesive. Therefore, this archiving maneuver by Jossi is not constructive to this article, or to Wikipedia asa whole, and should be removed by an administrator (if I do it, he'll attack me again) that appreciates the benefits of allowing editors to discuss the core concepts of the article as they edit the article, therefore allowing all editors to benefit from the insights as to why the article was edited in a particular way. Wandering Star 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. What you, I, and others think of this person, or of being gay, has no bearing on this article. In Wikipedia, we report what secondary/published sources say about a subject. Nothing more, nothing less. As for your complaint about my intentions or use of my admin privileges, you are welcome to file such at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I will also warn you of WP:OR in this regard. This article does nor deal with editor's perceptions of what it means being gay, or about achieving consensus in this regard. Again, you may benefit from studying a bit more in-depth our content policies, in particular WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, if you hadn't made so many personal attacks against me, I might take your warnings seriously. Do you really think that I'm going to pay any attention to you, or any other administrator, that issues warnings as a vehicle of controlling anyone that disagrees with you? Now, to the issue at hand. This article is about a person whose sexuality, and perceived sexuality, are integral to the issue being discussed. He has opposed any and all attempts to pass legislation in the defense of civil rights for a specific group of Americans, a group which his actions may qualify him for membership. This is the central topic of almost every news article that has been published since the incident was first reported to the press. How can you possibly say that it's irrelevant to the manner in which this article is edited? Are you even paying attention?

Wandering Star 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sense of Proportion

Just a comment. This guy is the second longest serving member of the Congress from Idaho. As much as it may warm the cockles of the hearts of those seeking to uncover hypocrisy, should this bathroom incident really get this much space in the article? In 10 years, will this be 50% of the important and notable things he's done. He didn't plead guilty to anything sexual. He pleaded guilty to a non-sexual trivial charge and got a $500 fine.

I really don't understand why this is the top national news story right now. Did we secretly leave Iraq last night and fix the mortgage crisis? Hermitian 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

“ The fact is, yes, the Republicans do think [homosexuality] should be a crime. And I think there’s a right to privacy. But the right to privacy should not be a right to hypocrisy ... people who want to demonize other people shouldn't then be able to go home and close the door, and do it themselves. ”

- Senator Barney Frank (70.128.143.99 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Seriously? Barney Frank sez Republicans think homosexuality should be illegal (yeah, right--and I'm sure even he doesn't really believe that), so that's your argument?! I'm sure most people (even Republicans!) happen to agree this sordid incident warrants inclusion, but it isn't because "Republicans think homosexuality should be a crime." LOL! Please don't troll Wikipedia, mmkay? --Beth C. 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. On another note, this event merits its heavy inclusion in the article-- it will most likely end his political career and is why most people outside of Idaho have heard of him.--69.219.4.5 07:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be allowed to dwarf the rest of the article and agree with Hermitian that the media's priorities are out of whack, but also that it should be included in this article and fully addressed. I don't know the context of Frank's comment, but see e.g. Lawrence_v._Texas#Dissents. Шизомби 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> I'm not sure what's supposed to be learned from Lawrence v. Texas that can be applied to information to be included in this article. The senator was only accused of invasion of privacy (the peeping charge) and disorderly conduct, of which he only pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. The Lawrence case is different and really unrelated to Craig's case altogether.

See the discussion under "Controversy" that appears later on this page about splitting the article. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 21:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of comments by citizens on the police tactics back in June when the arrests happened. Arresting 20 people seems a pretty hefty number, and people unrelated to the Senator are alleging that the cops would sit in a stall, tap their feet, bang on the partition, put their feet on yours, and then arrest you when you looked underneath to see WTF was going on. If this turns out to be a case of overzealous policing, and the Senator manages to salvage his career, toning down the amount of space in the article devoted to this incident may very well be warranted. Hermitian 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd think the Senator himself would be pointing that out instead of just saying there was a misunderstanding. Also, if you have a link to that story (about the comments by citizens), it might help the talk pages, at least. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This charge is very likely a career ending event for the Senator, I think the attention it gets in the article is appropriate. 134.53.176.203 04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

CNN just posted the police interview. The Senator certainly doesn't come across as a person seeking gay sex in the bathroom, and the cop is clearly trying to intimidate him. Hermitian 01:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And when that analysis appears from a Reliable source it can be considered for inclusion. Until then, it's just your opinion. Pairadox 01:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm commenting on the talk page, as opposed to putting it in the article. Still, given that they apparently arrested 40 people in this sting, most of whom probably pled to a lesser non-sexual charge rather than fight it, it does come across as the gay version of a small town speed trap. Hermitian 01:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And I really hope that comes out (no pun intended). Pairadox 02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If he wasn't soliciting gay sex then why did he allegedly do the toe tap, why did he allegedly brush his foot against the police officer's foot, and why did he allegedly reach under the stall divider? Gimme a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhipperSnapper (talk • contribs) 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike Rogers

Mike Rogers is a gay-outing blogger and does not have a Wikipedia article of his own. The name "Mike Rogers" links to others. Please correct. Best, --75.45.12.177 22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started a stub Mike Rogers (activist)... those who know the subject better, please fill out--Natcase 06:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Referenced Wall Street Journal Editorial

The inclusion of the Wall Street Journal article makes this entry biased. It is unneccessary and does nothing to further our understanding of the facts and details surrounding his arrest. I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.131.171 (talk) 00:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Can this be removed posthaste?--67.164.145.60 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fireplace 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored this commentary, clearly labeled as such, for balance. --Justmeherenow 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Please abide by NPOV in screening appropriate commentary...such as condemnations AND claimed "understanding"? I mean, really!: if McCain's condemnation of Craig's behavior is "noteworthy" because he's running for president (duh) and Log Cabin Republicans' condemnation of Craig's alleged hypocracy is "noteworthy" due their being conservative, homosexual advocates (double duh)--well, the Wall Street Journal editorial page commentatary (urging "understanding" and arguing that Craig's alleged weakness in actions would not necessarily entail inconsistency in his personal beliefs) is noteworthy because they're the Wall Street Journal editorial page (um, duh!: by exponential factor, the largest circulation Conservative rag in the U.S.) --Justmeherenow 04:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the WSJ's news coverage remains widely read, imho its editorials went loopy and fell off the deep end years ago. IF the WP article should venture beyond factual reporting and into commentary (a big "IF"), then Matt Foreman's comment on MSNBC is much more illuminating: "It’s the tragedy of homophobia. People create these walls that separate themselves from who they really are." [14] One might also mention the movie Brokeback Mountain. The one way in which the WSJ editorial does contribute though (credit where it's due), it finally answers the question of who could possibly believe that same-sex marriage somehow threatens opposite-sex marriage: in order to believe that, you'd have to believe that what married men and women really want is to leave their spouses and marry someone of their own sex - and if the WSJ is correct then Sen. Craig is a believer.TVC 15 04:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting commentary, TVC 15. (I've only worked on one other Wikipedia article--but, as a tie breaker (and to get a feel for commentary about hypocracrites), I peeked at Jimmy Swaggart's article to see what commentary might be included. Which--since Jimmy's swaggin' of hookers was before Wikipedia took off--is bare bones so I'll lay off!) <smiles> Justmeherenow 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC) On second thought, the Log Cabiners are no more needed to be cited than leftist gay advocates, opening up Wikipedia editors to the impression of cherry picking. Really, it's Wikipedia policy under NPOV to encourage inclusion of more notable voices from all sides to be at least minimally referenced. Justmeherenow 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be just fine with the removal of the Romney and Coleman reactions. The others are notable because they chart the progress of the fallout, and Log Cabin occupies a unique place in GOP politics, but those two politicians statements are just filler IMHO. Pairadox 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Romney's response is relevant insofar as Craig was a prominent support of Romney and held a leadership role in his presidential campaign. Fireplace 05:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point; I'm going to move the Romney quote to where it talks about the Romney campaign. Or the campaign stuff down, since that could really be considered "fallout." Pairadox 05:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to restate the point, as Justmeherenow has started reinserting the lengthy WSJ editorial quote again despite the above discussion, there's nothing notable about that particular editorial to warrant including it over, say, something from the dailyKos or Andrew Sullivan or the National Review or (etc.). The other commentary has been included because the commentary is itself notable. If you want to include information on the state of the public debate, there are probably newspaper articles that give a survey of the public reaction. Fireplace 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If sourced material is good then better-sourced material is gooder! So, yeah, go and do the keyboard tapping to find better stuff and replace or supplement my inferior attempt at balance (while of course being wary of edit-warring thru removal of good faith edits?) Thx :^) Justmeherenow 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a news report that quotes individuals and an opinion piece, Justmeherenow, especially when that opinion has been selectively snipped for this article. I appreciate your goal of presenting a NPOV account, but not the sources you use to do it. Pairadox 16:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Protectected?

It appears this article was protected from editing on 2007 August 27, but without a template added, and has been edited while protected, dozens of times. Am I correct in that, or am I reading the logs and history wrong? And can we get some discussion here of how much longer it should stay protected? I'm sure it's on many watchlists, especially now. Jonathunder 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, not fully protected, which means that only anon IPs and new accounts (more recent than 4 days) are prohibited from editing. Jeffpw 08:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation section

Why do all of the allegations have Craig's response immediately afterward? The allegations should stand alone, and a blanket repudiation from Craig can follow them. Mkilly 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there an entire SECTION labeled sexual orientation? Is this what the wikipedia is for? If the person was a homosexual and had a heterosexual experience would the wikipedia be obliged to report this? Why not leave the salacious filth to tmx.com or perez hilton rather than make the wikipedia a garbage can. I am not saying it shouldn't be mentioned but an entire section with heading just for sexual orientation? Wikimike 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for reporting why politicians are notable; in this case, at the current time that is what Craig is best known for.--Gloriamarie 02:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Police report

We have the written version. Maybe we should post this for the visually impaired?????? :-) Jeffpw 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nolo plea?

Is it permissible to plead nolo contendere for the incident at the airport? This is related his statement of wanting to deal with this incident quickly. F 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nolo is basically a guilty plea. You're letting the prosecutor have his way. The only thing it does for a defendant is protect them from a civil lawsuit. (Plead guilty, you admit you did something that you might be sued for, plead nolo, you are still found guilty, but you aren't admitting anything.) I guess for a politician, such a plea could have some other benefit. - Crockspot 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cherry picking commentary

Fellow ed.s: Caution! It is hard to cherry pick commentary especially on the talk page (by summarily deleting the most tangential of posts in general becoming more-and-more tangential) w/o violating neutral spirit of Wikipedia Justmeherenow 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I speak as the one who added the Log Cabin Republican statement to the article. When I did so, I thought it particularly poignant considering the perspective of that group. Larry insists "I'm not gay", and then the LCR folks announce that they think he has other problems, "gay" not being one of them. Can anyone find quotes from GLBT groups that support or endorse/encourage Larry Craig now that he's cruising? I'd love to see some contrast here. Luno 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well "sorta kinda" support (implying Craig shouldn't be singled out to resign while Vitters gets slaps on the back and is forgiven):

The effect of the Craig scandal "will be to intensify [Republicans'] anti-gay rhetoric," said Becky Dansky, federal legislative director at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, pointing to the contrast between the treatment of Craig and that of Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who admitted to being involved with the infamous D.C. Madam. "Vitter received a standing ovation from his party caucus; Senator Craig is immediately forced out of his committee positions just because of the gender involved in the scandal," Dansky said. "I never thought I'd start to feel a little bit sorry for Senator Craig." [¶] Romney's reaction, meanwhile, shows "the danger of legislating morality, and hypocrisy is revealed," said Patrick Sammon, president of the Log Cabin Republicans[...].

--Justmeherenow 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The blocking of Larry Craig

Please unblock the Larry Craig page. I've came up with good ideas to edit it with more great information from a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwjs (talk • contribs) 19:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

You should put your ideas here. Wikipedia doesn't trust you yet ;) Sad mouse 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

BWJS, please read the page on wikipedia's semi-protection policy. Basically, this article has been protected against editing by anonymous users or those with brand new accounts (less than 3 days old I think). This is to protect certain articles which are targets of persistent vandalism, especially biographical articles. Until your account is able to edit directly, you can post your changes here on the talk page for consideration! MOXFYRE (contrib) 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PC

Ol wright, our gay activist friend (who I support) Rogers outed Craig. Fine.

Yet...sourced, modest criticism of "outings" are summarily deleted by a three-times-within-24-hours single editor: see here, here, and here--whereas Log Cabin criticism stays along with "cottaging" commentary in the LA Times, et cetera? C'mon people. Don't stifle sourced debate. Justmeherenow 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that particular quote, I am not sure if it belongs here. After all it is also an attack on Craig, just with a different word (weak rather than hypocrite). Since it is not a defence of Craig it doesn't really add much here, but I think it would significantly add something to the article on Rogers. It may not be fair to assume that Rogers is hoping for anti-gay sentiment by outing Craig (he could equally be hoping to reduce anti-gay sentiment by outing conservatives), but it seems to be a valid high-profile criticism that should be included in Roger's article. Oh, and using PC as an insult is petty. Sad mouse 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rancher?

Should his occupation in his info box say rancher? Surely it would be politician or senator? CaptinJohn 08:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Reading the article, it appears he was only on the ranch for about three years, in between college becoming a politician, which he's been for 33 years (even more, if you count his student government days). Changed. Pairadox 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this back. The Profession field is primarily for previous occupations prior to entering public service. This is how all other politician infoboxes treat the Profession field. None of them list "politician" as profession. He still owns a ranch I believe, and his official listings in congressional guides and the Official Congressional Directory list his profession as a rancher or farmer-rancher.

For further information, see the profession/occupation debate for Template:Infobox_Officeholder.Dcmacnut 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Uggg. No way am I getting involved in that debate. I think it's highly misleading to list a career politician as a "rancher," but I'll bow to the groupthink on this one. Pairadox 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an old tradition in politics and history. We still refer to Truman as a "haberdasher", and to Lincoln as a "railsplitter", even though they both had long careers in law and politics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard Lincoln's occupation referred to as a railsplitter except when referring only to his early years; he is usually widely acknowledged as a self-taught and successful attorney and referred to as such. Same for Truman. Who is "we"?--Gloriamarie 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See also section

I removed this. Thanks, --Tom 12:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If he steps down

What happens? The article says "if Craig were to resign before the end of his term, Republican Governor Butch Otter would appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of the term.", with this source. --Tom 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it now. Sorry!! --Tom 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Butch Otter? Oh, the irony! 24.63.206.96 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gay categories

Since Craig has declared "I am not gay, I have never been gay", it is clear that the second criteria of WP:BLP#Categories has not been met, and gay categories cannot be applied to this article. Doing so is a violation of WP:BLP, and can result in a block for the user who repeatedly applies such categories. If and when he publicly self-identifies as gay, then the subject is open for discussion. - Crockspot 17:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if he were to self-identify as gay then we'd apply the category without need for further discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should all maintain a "wide stance" on this issue until it has been settled. Wandering Star 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously... does that mean that Liberace can't be put in the "LBGT" category? He never self-identified. How bout J. Edgar Hoover? Or by analogy, what if Alan Keyes said he was white (not saying that he has, but it is analogous)? Just because you deny something doesn't make it true. Are we allowed to mention Thomas Jefferson's children with Sally Hemmings (or Strom Thurmond's daughter for that matter)? In both cases paternity was denied.--Prk6 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding the LGBT people category

I realize that Senator Craig has denied allegations of both past and present homosexual orientation, but I think it is safe to say, from the '83 congression page fiasco to June 11th's blunder that Craig is a closeted, self-loathing homosexual. Even if he denies this it doesn't mean it isn't true. The possibility that these varied reports--citing incidents from all over the country and dating years apart--are falsified is improbable, considering how consistent they are; that is, they all support Craig's homosexuality.

I propose we admit Senator Craig's homosexuality for him by placing the "LGBT people" category in the bottom of his article.

Even if it is against Wikipedia policy, we must do this. After all, the statement, "Larry Craig is gay" is a truth and cannot be changed. Wikipedia policy can be changed to allow for these circumstances. If Wikipedia is truly a bastion of truth we must right it so that the truth can be stated without breaking policy.

Are any in favor of placing the "LGBT people" category on Craig's article and/or willing to help me change Wikipedia policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CPRdave (talk • contribs) 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not I. There is a very good reason for this policy, and it is specifically geared towards living people. We do not want to encourage lawsuits against Wikipedia. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "a bastion of truth." Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. We publish only that information which has already been published in reliable sources, and thus can be verified. This doesn't even rise to a living persons issue - it's quite simply a violation of our verifiability policy to assert that Mr. Craig is gay. FCYTravis 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As a member of WikiProject LGBT, I will state I do not believe we can include him in the LGBT People category. --David Shankbone 19:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I will wholeheartedly agree with David on this. The current policy is clear, and this subject does not qualify. The policy is in place for a very good reason: to protect the project from liability. We shouldn't attempt to change core policies because it prevents us from doing what we want in a single article. We have to look at the bigger picture. - Crockspot 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Qualified no. It is not necessary for Craig to say he is gay for him to be listed. However it is necessary to have verified evidence that he is gay. What I have seen so far is highly suggestive, but not proof. If verified evidence comes forward Craig should be listed as gay regardless of what he says. Wikipedia should have a standard of truth, his denial should be treated as hearsay, not fact. Sad mouse 21:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your view is in direct contradiction of WP:BLP#Categories, which specifically states two criteria that MUST be met before such a category is applied, one being that a subject must publicly self-identify with a sexual preference. So even in the presence of photographs of him engaged in gay sex, if he claims to not be gay, the category cannot be applied. - Crockspot 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If such photos existed, the category should be applied (actually MSM would be more accurate). The release of active photos should qualify as "public identification". Sad mouse 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. The key word is "self-identify." "SELF-identify." Meaning the person THEM SELF has identified as gay. Even with images of the person engaging in homosexual acts, if they have not outright stated in public, "Dear Baby, I am gay," (sorry - Simpsons reference), then the LGBT cat cannot be added. Jinxmchue 01:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. Think about it, that criteria is both unworkable and unencyclopedic. It is daft for a number of reasons, mostly because it places opinion above fact. What if he presented the photo himself at a press conference but didn't add any words? Would that be self-identification? Are there magical words he has to utter? What if he uses slang commonly understood to refer to sexuality? The policy is simply to stop people adding the label based on hearsay (which is what the evidence against Craig currently is), it is not meant to bar verified fact from the encyclopedia. Any other interpretation just doesn't make sense for a site attempting to reach reference status, if the wording of the policy confuses so many people it needs to be changed (although it is a very hypothetical case we are arguing, so this should not even be on this talk page). Sad mouse 04:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take this discussion to the Category talk page or the LGBT Project page? As Sad mouse says, Craig's article isn't the place for this debate. Pairadox 06:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Again: uh, no. When it comes to LGBTs, according to their own demands they are not considered "out" until they actually say so. You simply cannot just go around labeling people LGBTs against their wishes no matter how many so-called "facts" you have (and your examples are weak and nothing more than hypotheticals, to say the least). It's funny that you bring up hearsay because that is exactly what you are trying to use here in fighting to add the LGBT cat to the article. It's hearsay based upon your and other's rather biased interpretation of your evidence (a single incident months ago). Jinxmchue 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing CPRdave's talk page, I'm really surprised that the suggestions of this long-time vandal with a history of incivility is being responded to seriously. DFTT. Pairadox 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I think most agree that this is a goofy idea, but what about a category for alleged gays/lesbians? Perhaps it would be possible to come up with reasonable criteria that would qualify certain folks like Craig for such a category. (Although it probably would require very precise definition and careful monitoring to avoid inappropriate application.) --Soultaco 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As the party that entered the Category:LGBT politicians, let me say that the last thing that we want to do is to start speaking of "lists of alleged . . . " persons. Making lists of alleged whatevers might put wikipedia in the line of lawsuits; also, we don't want to be putting ourselves on the level of gossip mag rumor-mongers. Arbol25 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

When the subject either announces that he is gay, or when incontrovertible evidence appears, then we can describe or categorize the subject as "gay". This arrest does not come close to providing solid evidence of the subject's sexual orientation. Note that we don't describe Clay Aiken, Richard Simmons, or Ricky Martin as "gay" either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> I removed this category as slanderous(sp). I also removed the LGBT project tag from this talk page as well poisoning. Anyways, --Tom 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll be removing that category often for a while, I expect. I don't see a need to remove the project though. Projects cover many topics only tangentially related to their core mission. Certainly a number of LGBT issues are in play here. It's a better fit than the Minnesota project, with which there's very little connection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Tom 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question: why does anyone here think that labeling someone as gay is a bad thing? I mean, think about it: If I said that so-and-so were Spanish, and it turns out that they aren't, nobody would really care, right? They'd just say, "Umm... actually, no, he's no, his parents are from France, not Spain", or they'd just ignore the whole thing altogether, because who really gives a shit if you're Spanish, French, or whatever? Also, if I were to say that so-and-so were Spanish, and add the Wikiproject: Spain label to their article, nobody would think that was an insult. And if I said the reason for adding this tag was because this person spoke Spanish, or knew a great deal about Spain, or decided to launch an embargo against Spain, or whatever, people would be thinking, "Oh, okay. Even if he doesn't identify as Spanish, he has something to do with Spain". Nobody has anything personal against Spain, so none of this would bother any of you. But for some reason the word gay bothers a lot of you. Why? Do you think there's something about being gay that's different than being of any variation of human being? Are you saying there's something wrong with gay people, so much so that being associated with the word gay should be controversial to you? Wandering Star 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As another editor has already mentioned earlier in this conversion, self-identity is what's relevant to adding this category. Anything else would amount to speculation at best and slander at worst. Given the numerous mentions by Sen. Craig to the press, he does not self-identify in the manner that some think he should or wants him to do. That is, unless Sen. Craig does what what Jim McGreevey (former governor of New Jersey) has done, the category would not apply here. Our perceptions, bias, beliefs, suspicions, comfort or discomfort with some identity has nothing to do with placing a person in a category, unless the person who is the subject has otherwise expressed a particular identity (in Craig's case, he identifies as a Republican, "not gay" person, so we have to go with that at this time). Anyway, this question has been already asked and answered several times over, along with reasons for excluding the category in this case. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 15:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Slander implies an insult. Explain to me why being described as gay is an insult in your eyes. Why is being called gay so offensive to you? If somebody mistakenly refers to me as heterosexual, I'm not insulted by that statement. But to you, being identified as gay constitutes an insult. Why do you hate us? What have we ever done to you?

On the topic of self-identification: I can deliberately misidentify myself, and so can anyone else. For instance, I am not (in real life) a redhead. My real hair color is brown. But I can stand up in front of a crowd, and say "I am not a brunette. I never have been a brunette." Does that make my hair instantly change color? Or am I merely lying? If we're going to rely on self-identification alone, let's go all the way, and allow me to self-identify as being rich and famous. Will you sell me your house on credit, because I just told you I was rich enough that you should just trust that I'm good for it? Hey, let me self-identify as the ruler of some small Himalayan country while I'm at it. Because I've self-identified as such, you have to call me "Your Majesty" from now on. Kiss the ring, and keep those eyes on the floor.

Sound ridiculous? How ridiculous do you think it sounds to the rest of us when you say , "Ok, he tried to hit on a guy, but he's not gay, just because he says he's not." Wishful thinking would be the best I could say for that argument. Wandering Star 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Senator Craig would consider it an insult, and that's a good enough reason to be worried about libel charges. If someone thought being called a brunette was slanderous, then calling you a brunette when you proclaim that you are not could be potentially risking a lawsuit — even if that lawsuit were thrown out (as it would be), there would still be time and expense involved. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the real question is, would everyone else (excluding Senator Craig) consider the accusation of being a brunette so shocking that they would have a fit over whether the article "Larry Craig" was listed as part of the Wikiproject: Brunettes? Or would they just ignore it altogether, and say, "The real controversy isn't about his hair color. It's about the fact that he legislated against brunettes' having the same rights as redheads, and then got caught in an airport men's room dying his hair." What worries me here is not whether or not he would press a lawsuit over it-that's speculation, anyway-the real worry is that you have so many people getting worked up over whether or not somebody is described as being gay. It's like not seeing the forest for the trees. If he'd gotten on stage and said , "I am not male. I have never been male", the general response would not be, "accusing him of masculinity will result in a lawsuit" it would be "How ridiculous."Wandering Star 18:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear there are two separate issues. First, the "brunette" category (the original topic of this section) and the "brunette" project. He doesn't belong in the category because if he is a "brunette", he has consistently "dyed his hair" and denies being a "brunette". He does belong in the project because he "legislated against brunettes' having the same rights as redheads", regardless of whether or not he got caught dying his hair — besides which, it was just a misunderstanding, he was merely trying to hide the gray! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what upsets everyone is not the fact that he's 'Hiding the Gray', but because he has a 'wide hair dying stance'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.136.33 (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:BLP -- Warning

Please avoid using this page to advocate for a one position or another. Also note that despite the controversy, this is a BLP and the talk page should not be used to make assertions that violate this policy. Any further use of this page for forum-like discussions, or that in any way or manner violate WP:BLP may be refactored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what we're arguing over is the content of the page. You issue warnings a little too loosely, I think. Wandering Star 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Header title: Sexual orientation

I think this needs to be changed, mainly because the bulk of the section is about the controversy surrounding his arrest. Knowing that any unilateral change is likely to be reverted, I open the discussion for more accurate (and less presumptive) suggestions. Pairadox 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Conviction?

The article refers a few times to Craig's "conviction," but he entered a guilty or nolo contendre plea. He was never tried, so he wasn't convicted.69.239.30.5 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. Entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere means that the judge renders a verdict of guilty, convicting the defendant of the crime. FCYTravis 07:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. Pleading guilty = conviction. When a guilty plea is proffered by a defendant, a conviction is then entered in the docket. As a matter of law, he is a convicted criminal now. 71.185.74.177 19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the story

So, if Larry Craig was arrested June 11, then why didn't the story break until August 27? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's when Roll Call published the story. You'd have to ask their reporters why it happened then. Pairadox 06:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Havana sex-trap

There is speculation among Cuban-Americans see "What's up with the dirty knees, Senator?"[15] that the Cuban Governments proclivity to trap notable visitors in sexual situations (honey traps) [16] may have involved Senator Craig who was given a prolonged visit with Fidel Castro some time ago [17]. El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation = Original Research. See What Wikipedia is not. And tabloid, blog or opinion forum is not what what Wikipedia is. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious Affliation

I"m glad to see it in the infobox= Methodist. Idaho is probably half Mormon and he had a position in the Romney campaign. So naturally there is curiosity about his religion. In spite of his comments about H. Katrina, he has a "liberal" immigration policy.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 20:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Overturning a guilty plea-Motion for New Trial

i've done hundreds- motion for appropriate relief. VIK- defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by him foolishly entering a plea that was not voluntary, not intelligent, and not knowing. therefore his counsel respectuflly asks the court for a new trial. Usually done to replead to a lesser charge. Rarely granted for a REAL new trial to contest guilt. Judge's loath to grant them w/o consent of prosecutor b/c court dockets would overfill. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 20:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with editing the article? Pairadox 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He said at his press conference he was was going to fight his conviction Pairdox. This is how he would do it. He would 1) hire an attorney and 2) file a motion. Stay tuned.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 20:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so nothing to do with editing the article, but speculation about his future actions. Got it. Pairadox 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical context for "tea room"/"cottaging"

There is a perfectly good article on Wikipedia entitled cottaging (or as it known in the US, the "tea room") which explains the activity the now-former Senator was engaging in.

I have twice linked to cottaging from Larry Craig, and it has twice been deleted without good cause. I used the Ehrenstein op-ed in the LA Times to support the link.

The average reader may believe that the Senator invented this unusual ritual, but a link to the cottaging article explains that it is as old as the hills.

"One important purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide the historical context that daily news articles lack. One would hope that any squeamishness of an otherwise well-intentioned editor would stand in the way of providing much-needed perspective as the public learns more about a little-known aspect of gay life.

Johndhackensacker3d 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "One would hope that any squeamishness...would NOT stand in the way of providing much-needed perspective..."? 24.6.66.193 22:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

the link to cottaging should not have been deleted. It leads to a very informative slate discussion of the whole topic. There's a free speech issue in here somewhere. Craig taps his foot. the cops taps his foot back. The dance is on. That's encouragement. So it's not unsolicited, just the locale and the frowned on same sex "flirting."Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it. The cottaging article and the Slate link help the reader make sense of this. It really is a "dance" and the reader has to be clued in what the dance steps are.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"A little-known aspect of gay life"? First, Craig denies being gay. Second, I don't know any gay people who have solicited sex in public bathrooms. I certainly never have. Please don't assume or perpetuate the misconception that healthy, self-respecting LGBT people have anonymous sex in airport men's rooms. I have no problem with a link to "cottaging", but I strongly disagree with the characterization you've made. Popkultur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popkultur (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

" I have no problem with a link to "cottaging", but I strongly disagree with the characterization you've made. " What is the characterization I made and to what group or subgroup did I make it to? No offense was meant. The characterization applies to those that "cottage." And there are those that do, indubitably. That is why there are all those phone numbers and pix on bath room stalls in public places. Somebody is doing something or pretending to do it. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 01:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

for more insight "Laud Humphreys is best known for his published Ph.D. dissertation, Tearoom Trade (1970), an ethnographical study of anonymous male-male sexual encounters in public toilets (a practice known as "tea-rooming" in U.S. gay slang and "cottaging" in British English). Humphreys asserted that the men participating in such activity came from diverse social backgrounds, had differing personal motives for seeking homosexual contact in such venues, and variously self-perceived as "straight," "bisexual," or "gay." He received his Ph.D from Washington University in St. Louis.[1]

"Because Humphreys was able to confirm that over 50% of his subjects were outwardly heterosexual men with unsuspecting wives at home, a primary thesis of Tearoom Trade is the incongruence between the private self and the social self for many of the men engaging in this form of homosexual activity. Specifically, they put on a "breastplate of righteousness" (social and political conservatism) in an effort to conceal their deviant behavior and prevent being exposed as deviant. Humphreys tapped into a theme of incongruence between one's words and deeds that has become a primary methodological and theoretical concern in sociology throughout the 20th and 21st" from the Laud Humphreys articleGodspeed John Glenn! Will 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens On Humphreys and Tearooms in Slate re CraigGodspeed John Glenn! Will 02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've found through googling sites that discuss this topic, "tea-rooming" is supposedly the American term that refers to this activity, while I found the term "cottaging" is claimed to be a British term that's equivalent to the one used in the American sense. But, as for the original sentence added back to the article, the word "roughly" implies that one is not sure of the use of this term. I found a guide that was prepared for the Dept. of Justice that can be found at the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing called "Illicit sexual activity in public places: Problem-oriented guides for police." The specific mention of the term "cottaging" can be found on page 5 of this guide under the section "Public Restrooms."

If you still want to include this sentence (with a bit more clarity in the revision), this guide would make a better reference. The one from Slate Magazine seems to involve a lot of banter in the discussion, with a circular reference back to Wikipedia for the term "cottaging. The reference for this guide is Johnson, K.D. (2005). Illicit sexual activity in public places: Problem-oriented guides for police. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (prepared for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice). Retrieved on September 1, 2007 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required for viewing).

P.S. to the writer above: Is the "John Glenn" tag meant as a campaign message for something? I see that this message is not part of your Wikipedia signature. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 02:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The expression "GS John Glenn" is so ingrained in the culture that even "Godspeed John" when googled yields a plethora ofsites. The tagline is meant to generate goodwill. "Godspeed, as a word, is a wish for a prosperous journey, success, and good fortune. For example, it was said by Scott Carpenter to John Glenn before Glenn's first trip to space in Friendship 7." Godspeed John Glenn! Will 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Any textual reference to "cottaging" or "tea rooms" needs to have a reliable source that uses the term in reference to Larry Craig; otherwise it's just Original Research. I have no problem with it being listed as a See Also link (which is where I moved it when I removed it from the body of the article). Pairadox 02:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm more for including this police guide as an external reference for the alleged activity that the officer cited in the senator's arrest warrant. As for the sentence that I saw in the article, I found it a bit awkward, introducing some skepticism about the use of the term "cottaging." And yes...although the arresting officer did not explicitly use this term, those who are familiar with this activity called it by what it is and by the slang that it's referred to by those who engage in that behavior, esp. since law enforcement is already familiar with this scene. That's also what this guide covers, along with some of the responses given by those who are allegedly accused of engaging in this activity -- including the response provided by Sen. Craig. That snapshot of that response is on page 4 of the guide. So, I don't have an opinion for including/excluding the sentence one way or another. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 02:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All those interested need to read the article which I linked above."So Many Men's Rooms, So Little Time Why men like Larry Craig continue to to court danger in public places." By Christopher Hitchens Posted Saturday, Sept. 1, 2007 The seminal, no pun intended, work is Laud Humphreys'. More info in Laud article than in Cottaging article. The American slang is tea room, not cottaging. It is not particularly about being gay orientation. In fact he talks about the 'breastplate' defense. Cognitive dissonance internalized in an identity dimension.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Placement of current event tag

Why on earth do we not want the Current Event tag to be at the top of this article, rather than down by the bottom, only applying to one section? KConWiki 03:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Only the resignation announcement is the current event of the moment, from what I can infer by the placement of the tag. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in reporting Craig's replacement

An inconsistency exists concerning the reports about Craig's replacement for his senate seat.

In the last paragraph of the introduction, the sentences state "Although the Associated Press reported on August 31, 2007 that Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter appointed Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch as Senator Craig's replacement in the United States Senate for the remainder of the term,[4] the Idaho Statesman reported on September 1, 2007 that the Idaho Governor's office denied selecting Risch as Craig's replacement. According to the report in the Idaho Statesman, Governor Otter "has made no decision and he is not leaning toward anybody."[5]"

However, the sentence in the Resignation section, states "Craig officially announced his resignation, "with sadness and deep regret," on September 1, 2007, at a 10:30 a.m. MDT (UTC-6) news conference, effective September 30, 2007. Republican Idaho Governor Butch Otter will appoint an interim Senator to serve until the 2008 election.[49] Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch has been named by some sources as the person Otter will appoint.

So, which version is the current news?

After I read the article, I conformed both areas to refer to the same thing (i.e., the Idaho's governor's say about Craig's replacement) by citing the article in both places. However, an editor took the liberty of reverting the information in the Resignation section, and the content has since been edited by another person. Here is my previous edit to the last paragraph of the introduction and the previous edit to the content in the Resignation section.

This inconsistency requires attention so that this information does not become confusing to a reader of the article, leaving the reader to wonder whether the Idaho governor has or has not announced or appointed a replacement. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are two conflicting news reports, then the article should cite both (wherever appropriate) and be clear that there are conflicting reports. Pairadox 05:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The inconsistencies are not in the news reports; the inconsistencies were created by the editor who deleted the information from the article. So, since I'd added the current info to the article, and another editor decided to delete this info, I'll leave this one to someone else. I do not plan to redo the content what was properly included the first time around, not to mention get into an edit war over content. The information provided by the reference in the last paragraph of the introduction is still current, as the Idaho governor was asked this question as late as early this evening -- although speculation is swirling about the replacement for Craig's seat, the Idaho governor still says that he has not named or appointed a replacement - yet. As of now, those inconsistencies still exist in the article, with a mention of "no picks yet" at the beginning of the article and "this person may be the one" in the other part of the article. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 21:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Craig, not his Senate seat. We shouldn't devote too much space to his replacement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the editor above is misunderstanding what I've said here, which had nothing to do about devoting significant space to Craig's replacement. This issue mentioned addressed the inconsistencies between two sentences only, as already discussed in a previous conversation. Both sentences are related to the response of Craig's resignation, which is in turn related to him (that is, the response by the Idaho governor who has to select/appoint a replacement for the seat - which refers to and only occupies one sentence). See the diffs mentioned in this section about the inconsistencies. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 13:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Craig scandal designed to move Gonzales resignation off the front page

The Larry Craig scandal was designed to move the forced resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales off the front page of the US media.

The Bush administration and it's supporters are known for pulling stunts like this.

Back in late September 2006, the Mark Foley scandal performed a similar function to combat the media exposure and pending release of Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial". The release of Woodward's book was timed to be released about a month before the midterm elections, and the Foley scandal immediately replaced coverage of Woodward's book.

Both the Foley and Craig scandals have similar characteristics. In both cases, the precipitating events occurred months before they became widely (if not "explosively") broadcast by the media, and in both cases their wide media exposure came soon after some event that injured the reputation of the Bush administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.8.170 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you obviously missed the blurb at the top of this page:

• This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Craig article.
• This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

-- Pairadox 13:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the following:

The timing of this scandal as it gained traction by the media is an important aspect of the Craig bathroom-entrapment incident. If the entrapment incident wasn't orchestrated specifically to trap Craig, then the exposure of it by the major media outlets was orchestrated as a diversion - to divert attention away from the Gonzales resignation that happened 24 hours before hand.

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.8.170 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Consider the damage caused to the Republican cause by these two scandals. Then ask yourself; why would this be better than letting the media talk about some book or the resignation of a doomed cabinet member? Speciate 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bush admin places their own interests ahead of the republican party. If there's something they can be happy about is that congress has a lower approval rating than the president. And besides - the worst dammage the Bush admin did was to select a VP who is un-electable as a presidential candidate. If they were truely concerned about the future prospects of the republican party, they'd have a VP who was a viable contender in 2008. Instead they have Cheney. User:Some Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.8.170 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.. no. if any kind of scandal was going to be used to distract from Gonzales, they would use a non-GOP scandal to do it. This scandal doesn't draw attention away from the mishaps of the Republican Party ahead of the election, it focuses them, and magnifies them in front of the voting public. Kind of like how Ted Haggard did not draw attention away from the scandal regarding that one Representative and the Congressional page he was hitting on before the 2006 election. All that did was add another nail to the GOP coffin, and that's all this is going to do as well. 14:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandering Star (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Why didn't he plead "no contest" instead of guilt?

(this item was recently deleted from this discussion page)

Just a thought, if Craig's statements were true about not fighting a conviction because he wanted to get the ordeal over with, and if it's true that he wasn't interested in that sort of stuff, shouldn't he just have pleaded No Contest? That would seem to make more sense. Since he didn't do that, it really makes it seem as if he's guilty. Anyone have any idea why he didn't do that?J.J. Bustamante 13:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is not a discussion forum, but a page designed to discuss improvements to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A serious question deserves a serious answer. You can't edit w/ blinders. Within reason, you have to have vision & freedom to discuss where things are going. It's not the conviction per se but the publicity that kills. Cheney(2)-Bush(1) DUI convictions were not deadly although they hurt Dubya in 2000. Even a non-guilty arraignmet w/ trial w/ the attendant publicity on a morals charge would have been deadly. Especially after Craig had chastised Clinton vir for being a "naughty boy."Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk-page discipline

Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedic article on this subject. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with the article here. Bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Need more information about congressional career

After re-reading the section about Sen. Craig's career, much more information needs to be included in this section. This version of the article gives the impression that Craig only spent time in the U.S. Senate, when in fact he was also in the U.S House of Representatives for 10 years before his time in the Senate. This part of his congressional career needs to be covered in a bit more depth, since what's already there is pretty skimpy at the moment. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's surprisingly easy to spend 10 years in Congress without doing anything memorable. While I agree with your goal, there may not be much we can say about that period of his life. I'd assume that his official biographies would include any notable achievements, which for a congressman typically amounts to gaining earmarks for federal spending in his district, introducing bills that never got out of committee, and co-sponsoring popular legislation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

he indeed did some memorable legislative things, all in order to promote the interests of his state. In a 2-dim graph, he was a social conservative AND an economic conservative. I believe the article mentions the air force promotion hold, the immigration reform (cf Tancredo), and the balanced budget amendment (cf Cheney-Dubya).Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the stuff you're talking about was from his senate career, not his term in the House of Representatives. --Saforrest 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT studies project tag

I will not remove this again but defer to others. This falls under that tag because of the supposed cottaging by Craig or some other reason? TIA, --Tom 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• It falls under LGBT studies for a variety of issues: how LGBT issues are seen in the media; cottaging; how anti-gay public officials who are accused of gay behavior are portrayed and the response to them; toe tapping and gay sex signals; and without a doubt, the heart of the controversy is...Craig's sexuality and record. This tag does not identify him as an LGBT person, it simply means there are issues present that are of relevance to the LGBT WikiProject. --David Shankbone 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That tag is for the Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies. If editors that work on that project think this article is of their interest, so be it. If it is not of their interest, there is not need to add the tag to this page. The edit summary of an editor adding the tag was Adding the LGBT people category, meaning that the tag is maybe being used for a, ahem, different reason... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm the person who originally added the LGBT WikiProject tag days ago, and my stance against inclusion of Craig under the LGBT Category was also made days ago. They are two separate issues with two separate purposes. --David Shankbone 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Larry_Craig ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Larry_Craig_recently_tagged. --David Shankbone 18:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the response. --Tom 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy"

Please gives this section a more descriptive name. — Omegatron 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that given the circumstances, this title is quite appropriate and neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The "controversy" section can make a reference to "Arrest of Senator Craig in undercover sex sting" (using a descriptive title of what happened at the MN airport lavatory) or something similar. It shouldn't be hard to come up with a name of the sub-article. But, as Craig's arrest and guilty pea continues to occupy time and space on the news, the article will become overwhelmed with this content. So, it's good idea to split the section about Craig's arrest and plea information from the main article about the senator and move the content into a sub-article that links to the main one - especially since the arrest and plea information, along with the response to this incident, currently occupies about half of the article. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think renaming it "Sex scandal and resignation" is appropriate, as even Fox News is now calling it a sex scandal [18]. A sub article isn't yet necessary, as it's 35 kb long now. Controlling current event bloat is necessary.--Chaser - T 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are prior related issues, as per the section;s content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose a split at this point in time. If the section grows beyond a reasonable size, we may at that time, consider a split. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

After hearing Craig's side of the story, I have no reason to think he is a homosexual. This whole thing is silly.-- Digipatd · ^Talk · _Play 23:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Methodist cats

According to WP:BLP#Categories, there should be some sourcing verifying that Craig is a Methodist to support the Methodist categories that are applied. There doesn't appear to be. Technically, the cats should be removed, but I'll leave them, because I don't anticipate that this is disputed. - Crockspot 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed this. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See also: [19]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. That took, what, nine minutes? - Crockspot 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It took a little longer than that, unfortunately. First someone had to notice that the same user has been removing the categories repeatedly without comment.[20][21] If the lack of a source had been identified as an issue then this could have been settled days ago. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish

[[es:Larry Craig]]. --83.38.241.33 07:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Added. Someguy1221 07:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)