Talk:Larry Craig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Larry Craig is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.


This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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." [1]

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)

[edit] 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 [2], 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 [3], the New York Daily News at [4] and the Idaho State Journal at [5] .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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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 [6] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."[7]"

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)

[edit] 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. [8]. 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/r/Talk%7ELarry_Craig_8dba.html"