Talk:Bill Graham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Alleged involvement in the gay sex trade

I think this paragraph should be added. I think if it is not, this article is very clear example of Liberal/left-wing bias and should be classified as not being NPOV.

The Frank article alleges that Graham was involved in the gay sex trade. And he engaged in this activity as a married man with two children. Lawrence Metherel, a former teen male prostitute, has long ago disclosed that he had a sexual relationship with Graham dating back to 1980, when Metherel was 15 years old. In a recent interview with a Canadian magazine, Metherel said that, for 15 years, Graham provided him with regular support payments of up to $1,500 a month. [1] anon9:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The allegations are neither proven in a court of law, nor have verifiable, credible sources to back them up. (Frank is not a sufficiently credible source on which to base an assertion of truth, and neither is Jamie Glazov. Sorry to break it to you.) It's legitimate to note that such allegations exist, particularly because they're the real root of the whole Cheryl Gallant dust-up that everybody was so eager to pretend came out of nowhere, but Wikipedia still has a verifiability requirement. Which means, for one thing, that we can't give too much credence to unproven allegations. For all your obvious preference in favour of believing the rumour to be true, it does in fact remain an unproven rumour. And I'm not a Liberal partisan, either — in fact, I voted for opposing candidates in both of the elections that have taken place since I've lived in his riding — but I am a Wikipedia administrator with a responsibility for ensuring that Wikipedia policy (including both verifiability and neutral point of view) is followed. Bearcat 03:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe somebody should actually Google (name removed). There are over 200 links. I think this counts as proof that Bill Graham was involved in the gay sex trade.

It counts as proof that allegations exist. It does not constitute proof that the allegations are true. (And don't think I haven't noticed the irony in the fact that you're arguing in favour of treating the allegations as proven fact at the very same time as someone else further down this page is arguing in favour of not even acknowledging them at all. For the record, I think both approaches are wrong; I believe we need to acknowledge that the allegations exist, but not put too much faith in their truth or credibility.)
hahaha, if only google searches could be admissible in a court of law as proof of guilt.Pdelongchamp 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh Bearcat, by the way, a Dipper is just a Liberal in a hurry.

Oh, gee, that's original. *eyeroll* Bearcat 22:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership

I know this sounds confusing, but according to today's reports, while Graham has become interim parliamentary leader of the party, and Leader of the Opposition, he is not the interim Leader of the Liberal Party; the leader for now remains Paul Martin. So it is premature to add the Liberal Leaders template unless Martin drops his other duties and makes Graham full interim leader. 23skidoo 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Please refer to Talk:Bill Graham to discuss and vote on the requested move. - Jord 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Move completed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I strongly object to your abuse of admin rights in performing this ill-advised move out-of-process (Talk:Bill Graham (disambiguation)). And I'm surprised you are allowed to use that misleading username. 24.18.215.132 03:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Also compare the 472,000 hits for the supposedly 'less notable' Bill Graham[2] vs only 156,000 hits for this one[3]. Seems like just more of the 'flavor of the month' thinking that Wikipedia excels at. 24.18.215.132 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascinating

How quick you guys are

[edit] Leader

Although "Parliamentary leader" is a common shorthand, I believe that the descriptive template should say "Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons" which is more accurate. --JGGardiner 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, parliamentary leader, is the correct term, House Leader is the short hand for Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons (i.e. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is not the Prime Minister, but the Government House Leader; Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons is the Opposition House Leader not the Leader of the Opposition). - Jord 04:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that. However, the article did not say parliamentary leader but rather an extrapolated term that is a bit misleading. Although as I'm writing this I see you've changed it and I'm happy with the way you put it. Thanks. --JGGardiner 04:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Graham heads the entire Liberal caucus ie both the House of Commons caucus and the Senate caucus that he is the leader of the Liberals in parliament, not just in the House of Commons. Homey

As I understand it, Martin still leads the Liberal leader and Graham is only "interim leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons". This is how it is consistently worded on the Liberal Party website. This is the original announcement [4] --JGGardiner

[edit] Personal History

A total lack of reference to Graham's strongly alleged homosexuality seems inappropriate. Would the following statement, placed at the end of his personal history, be acceptable: "Graham has neither confirmed nor denied his alleged homosexuality"

With all due respect, I disagree; if we were to begin posting one's "alleged homosexuality" in articles such as these, then wouldn't it also be prudent to amend Mr. Harper's article with something along the lines of "Mr. Harper is allegedly heterosexual, as having a wife may imply"? FiveParadox 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Heterosexuality doesn't have to be alleged or discussed; our culture considers it the default setting in the first place. Bearcat 06:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I might want to stay out of this one, lol. I'm gay, so this is a bit of a sensitive topic to me. It's just, pointing it out like that because he might be gay, because someone somewhere said something suspicious, would only serve to re-inforce, in my opinion, the idea that homosexuality is something to be noted, i.e., something incorrect or defective. FiveParadox 07:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless you were looking at it during the ten minutes between the most recent attempt to strip the existing reference and my reversion of that removal, the article already covers the topic of his sexuality as thoroughly as is possible under the circumstances. Needless to say, it's a paragraph a lot of people feel somehow entitled to remove. Bearcat 07:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
We don't discuss the sexuality of any other figures. Isn't it inherently POV to discuss sexuality only if there is speculation that the individual is homosexual? HistoryBA 18:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason I believe the section is warranted in this case is the Cheryl Gallant "Ask your boyfriend" incident. In as much as a lot of media commentators pretended that Gallant's statement came out of nowhere and that nobody had a clue what the hell she was talking about, it in fact had everything to do with the old Frank rumours.
If there hadn't been an incident in which somebody dragged the question of his sexuality onto the floor of the House in debate, I wouldn't support discussing the Frank stuff at all — but given that the Gallant incident did happen and did garner significant media coverage, Wikipedia simply can't pretend that we don't know exactly why she said what she did. We need to be careful to discuss the matter in a way that doesn't lend it undue credence, but given the Gallant incident we no longer have the option of pretending the speculation doesn't even exist. Bearcat 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There's lots of trash talk on the floor of the House of Commons. Why are allegations of homosexuality worth discussing, but not other accusations? Doug Young once made a derogatory comment about Deb Grey's weight in the Commons. Should we discuss whether she's fat or not in her Wikipedia entry? HistoryBA 19:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Cheryl Gallant's comment about Bill Graham was itself covered by the media as a news story in its own right. Doug Young's comment about Deborah Grey was only ever covered as a passing mention in other news stories; Gallant's comment was itself treated as a story. Bearcat 19:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This simply false. Young's comment was a story in itself. See "Why that 'bacon' taunt hurt so much," Vancouver Sun, Feb. 26, 1997; "'Bacon' call unfortunate, PM says," Calgary Herald, Feb. 20, 1997; "No apology to Grey for 'slab of bacon' remarks in Commons," Edmonton Journal, Feb. 20, 1997; "Young's quip no surprise," St. Catharines Standard, Feb. 20, 1997; etc., etc., etc. So I ask again, what is so special about homosexuality that it deserves reference in this article? HistoryBA 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a single source on Google to support that it was considered news in and of itself. Nothing comes up on Google besides blog entries and passing references to the comment in otherwise unrelated news stories involving Young or Grey (or even as background context for the gratuitous Belinda Stronach comments) — not one single, solitary reference comes up to the comment being treated as a news story in its own right. And the reduced prevalence of the web in 1997 doesn't account for that; you can find actual verifiable media references for far older slurs such as the Sambo and Tequila Sheila incidents. "Slab of bacon" certainly got mentioned in passing, but got only a fraction, at best, of the media coverage that Gallant's comment did. And just for the record, I'm a journalist, for gawd's sake, so my memory of what got media coverage and what didn't is far more reliable than you seem to think.
I might point out that it is a lot easier to find Google results on something that happened in the past few years than something that happened in 1997. - 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
By this token, something that happened in 1989, when there was no Google and only research scientists even knew that the Internet existed, should produce virtually no Google hits at all. Except that the Howard McCurdy Sambo incident produces far more Google hits of verifiable media coverage than the slab of bacon comment does. Your failure to address that fact weakens your argument considerably. Bearcat 06:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
And as for "what's special about homosexuality", it has a lot more to do with the fact that in both Bill Graham's and Cheryl Gallant's Wikipedia articles, the comment was originally discussed with a "Since Graham is married to a woman, the comment made no sense whatsoever and nobody has a clue what the hell she was talking about" postscript. Which is an out-and-out lie; we know exactly what the hell she was talking about. We may not know if the Frank allegations were true or not, but that's an entirely different matter — and the way the section was originally written before I expanded it, we were outright lying.
As well: whether a person is "fat" or not is an objectively quantifiable, binary characteristic. Either they're fat or they aren't, there are no grey areas, and I can verify it just by looking at them. It's not a characteristic people can hide. Being gay, on the other hand, is not so clear cut: in addition to "gay" and "not gay", there are grey areas called "bisexual", "gay-but-in-the-closet" and "straight-but-often-targeted-by-rumours-nonetheless", and I can't verify which is the case just by looking at them.
But for me, the bottom line is that if we don't acknowledge that there are past rumours as a background context for Gallant's comment, then Gallant comes across to the reader as psychotic and disconnected from reality. As much as I may personally dislike her, that constitutes POV. Bearcat 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about "verifiable sources." I've cited several. Your memory is not a "verifiable source," even if you are a journalist. HistoryBA 00:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You've cited "verifiable sources" which, in the absence of Google links, I'm not able to verify. And you've done so in response to the fact that I've seen, with my own eyes, that a Google search on "Deborah Grey" "slab of bacon" produces only tertiary sources such as five-years-after-the-fact blog entries and side references in articles on unrelated news. (And again, the prevalence of the web in 1997 compared to today doesn't account for that — a Google search on "Howard McCurdy" "Sambo", a far older incident which would be virtually ungooglable if contemporary-web-prevalence were a factor, actually brings up direct media coverage of that incident in its own right.) If you want me to consider your articles verifiable sources, you have to provide some way for me to see them. Bearcat 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If I provide you with the text of the sources, will that settle the matter? HistoryBA 00:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
If I say yes, will you at least make an attempt to actually address any other point I made in that paragraph, rather than getting caught up on what's arguably the least important of the bunch? Like, say, whether or not it's POV to pretend that we don't have the slightest clue why Gallant said it, or my points on why there's a difference between fat jokes and gay jokes in a situation like this? Bearcat 00:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed your first point below several times. I don't think Gallant's comment should be included here. As for your second point, I have already pointed out that we don't discuss the sexuality of other Canadian politicians on Wikipedia. Their sexuality is just as much a "grey area" as Graham's. Why should we discuss Graham's and not theirs? Finally, I am happy to do the work to provide the text of the articles in question if you think it will settle something. I get the distinct impression, however, that it would be a pointless exercise. Please correct me if I have misunderstood. HistoryBA 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally the Doug Young article does mention the slab of bacon comment. Although it does not give the complete context (Grey was calling the Liberals pigs at the trough). --JGGardiner 01:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
My point exactly. Young's comments say something about Young, not Grey, just like Gallant's comments say something about Gallant, not Graham. HistoryBA 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: the argument for inclusion is clear. We should absolutely not assert that the rumours are true or credible, but Gallant's comment drew such a degree of media attention that the arguments against its inclusion don't wash. --Saforrest 22:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not clear to me. Why should we even include Gallant's comment in this article? As I have said before, there are a lot of stupid allegations made in the Commons, where the libel laws do not apply. Wikipedia, for some reason, has chosen to give this one legs. Why this one and not the others? HistoryBA 00:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
As I've stated upthread, because to not admit that there have been allegations about Graham's sexuality in the past creates an anti-Gallant POV — implying that her comment was random and contextless just makes her seem psychotic. Which she may well be, it's not for me to say...but we know why she said what she said. We cannot pretend we don't; if we do, we're lying. Bearcat 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I asked, "Why should we even include Gallant's comment in this article?" HistoryBA 00:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Given that NPOV essentially requires that we acknowledge the existence of the rumours as the source of her comment, there are only two possible approaches: we discuss the rumours here, or we discuss them in Cheryl Gallant. I know which one makes more sense to me... Bearcat 00:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I am not asking whether we should discuss the rumours here, I am asking why we should include Gallant's comments. The comments say something about Cheryl Gallant, and nothing about Bill Graham. Let's discuss them on the Gallant page. Certainly include the rumours there if you want to provide context. HistoryBA 01:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. --JGGardiner 01:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
My two cents: It should be there, and I trust Bearcat to treat it in an NPOV fashion. Rightly or wrongly, Graham's sexuality is the element of his personal life that most often has prompted outside attention (far moreso than his land-roving adventures), and better for Wikipedia to put forward a straightforward and truthful explanation of what various tongues wag about in Ottawa (and why they do so, and exactly how credible the whole basis for said wagging is) rather than purposely play Polyanna and pretend nobody has ever has anything to say on the subject. In light of the the Mark Oaten stuff across the pond (which struck me, in contrast to Graham, as proof that we have a far more civilized press corps, even if they're not quite as much fun), it seems especially odd to say this is nn as being purely about House of Commons heckles. The fact that a rather deliberate and homophobic taunt was made in the HoC and the national press chose to walk around the elephant in the room is itself notable enough to merit mention, and speaks to Canadian political culture in a substantive way.
On that note, I recall hearing Peter-Belinda whispers for more than a month before whatshisface in the National Post opened his trap and "outed" their relationship in a column entirely out of any sort of relevant context—very much a giggle-giggle tired of keeping a secret thing, I think. It'll be interesting to see if this subject comes up again in the mainstream media now that Graham's got a much higher profile. The Tom 11:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not quite so personal

The article says that he grew up in Vancouver and Montreal. It also says that he went to Upper Canada College which happens to be in Toronto. Did he "grow up" in all three? --JGGardiner 07:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D.U.

What does the "D.U." post-nomial listed stand for?

I don't know either, unless it's depleted uranium. Ctjj.stevenson added it to the article at 15:36 MST on 13 January 2006. Indefatigable 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It is probably for Doctor of the University which is an honourary degree much like LLD or DLitt - Jord 22:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This is really just speculation but the University of Ottawa gives out a lot of DUs. Ottawa U is very concerned with french language in Ontario... Mr Graham's awards are mostly for promoting the french language in Ontario. Both are in Ottawa. If I was going to look, this might be where I'd start. --JGGardiner 05:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
According to Who's Who 2006, Bill Graham received the title of Docteur de l'Université from the University of Paris. 19:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bill Graham received a Doctorate in Law from the University in Paris. He studied there, it is not an honourary degree. Dunstanramsey 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on the gay thing

So let me get this straight. User:HistoryBA originally removed any reference to the gay rumours from this article, stating that their inclusion or exclusion should be discussed on the talk page. So they were discussed, and while the number of participants wasn't exactly overwhelming, the discussion ended a month ago with a slight preference in favour of inclusion. Now another user readded the material, again in about as NPOV way as possible, and User:HistoryBA again reverted that, again stating that their inclusion or exclusion should be discussed on the talk page (as if they hadn't already been). No offense against anyone, but since this dispute looks like it can't be resolved by the current participants, I'm taking it to RFC. Bearcat 23:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can it be cited? Ardenn 00:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
As I understood the discussion, Five Paradox was against it being here, I preferred it to be on Cheryl Gallant's page but not here, a position JGGardiner accepted. Bearcat wanted it somewhere, with a preference for it being here, but a willingness to accept it on Chery Gallant's page. Saforrest and The Tom both thoought it should be here. That's far from a consensus. There was no formal vote, but I would guess that the result would be 3-3 if a vote had been held. Am I misinterpreting the discussion? I certainly didn't see a "slight preference in favour of inclusion" here. HistoryBA 00:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I can save everyone a lot of time. I am not doubting that Cheryl Gallant said what she did, or that some Ottawa wags have talked about whether Graham is gay, or that someone can provide proof to support any of these facts. The issue here is whether these facts merit inclusion. HistoryBA 00:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I should add that I would still like Bearcat to respond to my argument about the "slab of bacon" comment. HistoryBA 00:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I did respond to it. And I'm still asking for an RFC, precisely because the original discussion didn't result in a clear consensus either way. Bearcat 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the dispute over the "slab of bacon" comparison was largely a factual one (i.e., my description of the facts did not coincide with your memory of them). I offered to provide evidence if it would put the matter to rest, but I do not recall your ever responding. HistoryBA 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to repost, then: And as for "what's special about homosexuality", it has a lot more to do with the fact that in both Bill Graham's and Cheryl Gallant's Wikipedia articles, the comment was originally discussed with a "Since Graham is married to a woman, the comment made no sense whatsoever and nobody has a clue what the hell she was talking about" postscript. Which is an out-and-out lie; we know exactly what the hell she was talking about. We may not know if the Frank allegations were true or not, but that's an entirely different matter — and the way the section was originally written before I expanded it, we were outright lying.
As well: whether a person is "fat" or not is an objectively quantifiable, binary characteristic. Either they're fat or they aren't, there are no grey areas, and I can verify it just by looking at them. It's not a characteristic people can hide. Being gay, on the other hand, is not so clear cut: in addition to "gay" and "not gay", there are grey areas called "bisexual", "gay-but-in-the-closet" and "straight-but-often-targeted-by-rumours-nonetheless", and I can't verify which is the case just by looking at them.
My point remains: the comments are in no way equivalent, and constitute an invalid comparison. Bearcat 03:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
So you no longer dispute my version of the facts regarding the "slab of bacon" remark and the media coverage of it? HistoryBA 13:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact is still that a Google search does not bring up a single primary media reference to "slab of bacon" as a news story in and of itself. It only brings up blog entries and side references in unrelated news stories. But that remains orthogonal to the point — it isn't a valid example to compare this to, so what media coverage it did or didn't get is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Bearcat 06:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone else dealt with the Google issue above and I have offered repeatedly to make the effort to reproduce the text of newspaper articles from that time -- articles that focus on the statement and do not treat it as a peripheral issue. It is relevant because it establishes my point that everything said in the House of Commons does not necessarily need to be included in Wikipedia. HistoryBA 00:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The point raised as a response to the Google issue was not valid — nobody ever addressed the reality that the Howard McCurdy "Sambo" incident brings up actual direct media references, despite being almost ten years older and thus ten years farther removed from the existence of Google than "slab of bacon". So if you want me to consider the point made, then answer the Howard McCurdy point.
And the way you raised the whole matter in the first place was to set up an illogical and utterly irrelevant comparison between ambiguous sexuality and fat jokes, so it does not establish any valid point whatsoever. The body shape of a public figure is not an encyclopedic matter; a discussion of whether Deborah Grey is fat or not would have no place in an encyclopedia regardless of Doug Young's attempts at wit. The sexual orientation of a public figure is a legitimately encyclopedic topic; we have entire category trees devoted to the topic. The only remotely valid comparison to this matter would be the Kyle Bradford-Tom Cruise incident, which is discussed in Tom Cruise's article.
I sincerely regret letting you drag me into an irrelevant side debate about the level of media coverage — my primary point was, is and continues to be that there is no valid comparison to be made between the two incidents in the first place. And that's the only point on which I will engage any further discussion about the "slab of bacon" issue. Bearcat 06:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Providing contemporary newspaper sources would have responded to any concerns over whether this was an issue at the time. My offer to provide those sources remains, if you are willing to consider them proof and not insist that an event only occurred if it is documented on the internet. In my mind, the newspaper sources render all the other arguments over whether it was actually an issue (including the McCurdy argument) irrelevant. The Gallant issue was raised to prove that Graham's alleged homosexuality was irrelevant. My argument all along has been that mention in the House of Commons does not automatically prove that something is relevant. HistoryBA 12:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What part of "I sincerely regret letting you drag me into an irrelevant side debate about the level of media coverage" are you having trouble with? There isn't a valid comparison to be drawn between the situations in the first place, so the level of media coverage doesn't matter. Bearcat 18:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I don't understand any of it. I think you should take responsibility for willingly jumping into the discussion, rather than blaming me for dragging you in. You challenged the facts that I presented, and I have been trying to defend them ever since, despite the fact that you insist that your memory as a journalist and the internet are more valid sources than newspaper accounts at the time. As for relevance, as I said above, I do believe "slab of bacon" comment is relevant as it establishes one of my key points: mention in the House of Commons is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Finally, you seem to be suggesting above that I am dragging this out. Once before, I refrained from responding to one of your posts, suggesting that both you and I leave this dicussion to others. I honoured that suggestion, and did not comment again until you did. I don't see how repeating the same arguments again and again helps anyone. HistoryBA 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make the point that "mention in the House of Commons is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia", then find a situation that's legitimately comparable to the one at issue here. Bearcat 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that one of the principles on which you based your original argument is flawed. You seed to be arguing that something something merits inclusion because it was mentioned in the House of Commons. The "slab of bacon" comment proves that this logic does not hold. Asking me to find a case similar to the Gallant one totally misses my point. Finally, I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind by continuing this back-and-forth. My offer to drop the matter stands. HistoryBA 18:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
You're missing my point if you think I've ever said that Cheryl Gallant's comment was what made the topic notable. It was only the most public example of what was already a significant topic of discussion WRT Graham. Again, there's a large difference between the two, and you're still arguing with your own misinterpretation of my words rather than with anything I actually said. Bearcat 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's what you actually said:
The reason I believe the section is warranted in this case is the Cheryl Gallant "Ask your boyfriend" incident. In as much as a lot of media commentators pretended that Gallant's statement came out of nowhere and that nobody had a clue what the hell she was talking about, it in fact had everything to do with the old Frank rumours.
If there hadn't been an incident in which somebody dragged the question of his sexuality onto the floor of the House in debate, I wouldn't support discussing the Frank stuff at all — but given that the Gallant incident did happen and did garner significant media coverage, Wikipedia simply can't pretend that we don't know exactly why she said what she did. We need to be careful to discuss the matter in a way that doesn't lend it undue credence, but given the Gallant incident we no longer have the option of pretending the speculation doesn't even exist.
I, on the other hand, do believe that we have the option of not discussing the Gallant incident or the rumours she was perpetuating. I think relevance remains the key principle here. I have now repeated your words verbatim, rather than providing my intepretation (or, as you would say, "misinterpetation"). I have also repeated my position, which has remained unchanged. I renew my offer to drop this thing. Haven't we both recorded our positions in a clear enough way? HistoryBA 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for comment

Is it appropriate or inappropriate for Graham's article to mention and/or discuss the existence of rumours about his sexual orientation?

Background: in the early 1990s, the Canadian gossip magazine Frank published allegations that Graham had a sexual relationship with a youngish man. Although Graham has never publicly acknowledged the rumours, they've never quite died out — in 2002, an opposition MP, Cheryl Gallant, heckled Graham in the House of Commons by shouting "Ask your boyfriend!" at him.

No editor in good standing is seriously suggesting that we should treat the rumours as proven fact — but there is a dispute as to whether this article should even acknowledge their existence at all. I'm of the opinion that as long as the matter is addressed in a neutral and careful way, the matter should be discussed in this article, because it's entirely relevant to the subject and not acknowledging that such rumours exist presents a POV problem, but User:HistoryBA believes that it shouldn't even be hinted at here on the basis that Gallant's comment is only relevant in her article, and that the actual background for her comment isn't relevant anywhere.

HistoryBA also compares this to an earlier situation in which Doug Young called Deborah Grey a "slab of bacon" in the House of Commons, and figures that addressing the gay rumours in Graham's article would be akin to using Grey's article to discuss whether or not Grey is "fat". I find that an invalid comparison, because body type and sexuality aren't even remotely equivalent issues in any way whatsoever, but HistoryBA apparently doesn't believe I've answered it at all.

To be perfectly honest, speaking as a member of Toronto's gay community there's a very tricky balancing act involved here: there's the matter of rumours about his sexual orientation existing on the public record, and the very separate matter of what we know off the record but couldn't post here without violating WP:NOR.

The matter has been unresolvable by the discussion that's taken place so far, so I'm asking for outside input. Bearcat 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not at all a fair summary of my views. My position is this: (1) Rumours do not merit inclusion in an encylcopedia unless they are significant. Rumours of Graham's being a homosexual are only signficant if you can show that they had some effect, positive or negative, on his political career. To the best of my memory, no one has provided any such evidence. (2) Slurs in the House of Commons do not merit inclusion in an encylopedia article an the person being slurred unless they are significant. Again, to the best of my memory, no one has provided evidence to show that Gallant's comments had any effect, positive or negative, on Graham's political career. (3) Slurs say much about the person who made them. It is fully justifiable, therefore, to include Gallant's comments, and the context in which they were made, in the Gallant article. HistoryBA 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It's entirely inappropriate for Gallant's article to go into any more detail about the substance of the Graham allegations than it already does. And in my opinion it's also entirely inappropriate for what can appropriately be written in Gallant's article to be the farthest extent of what we write about the matter — there's no encyclopedic value to be had in saying that a controversy exists if you're not willing to talk about what the controversy in question is. Though YMMV, I suppose. And FWIW, I don't believe I've misrepresented your views on the matter at all — I didn't say a single thing in my summary that is in any way contradicted by your clarification. Bearcat 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This is what I wrote, I think it's a sufficiently NPOV summary:
Over ther years, there have been rumors that Graham may be homosexual, largely arising from unproven allegations made in Frank magazine. Such rumors came to public attention in 2002, when Canadian Alliance MP Cheryl Gallant mockingly accused Graham of having a "boyfriend" during a session of Question Period in the House of Commons.
Wikipedia biographies are full of instances in which certain trademarks, cliches, and reputations (false though they may be) are cited in reference to a paticular individual. I think this is one such appropriate case.
user:J.J.
Bearcat: (1) I do not believe we should even say that a "controversy" exists over Graham's sexuality, unless you can prove that a "controversy" (as opposed to a "rumour") exists and you can prove it is relevant. (2) I do not believe that your summary represents my views. For example, I do not believe, as you assert above, that the background to Gallant's comments should be omitted if we talk about the comments themselves. If you review the discussion above, you will see that I have repeatedly asked why the Gallant comments should be included on the Graham page, and you have repeatedly responded as though I am saying that the Gallant comments should be included but that the context (the rumour) shouldn't -- a clear (though no doubt uninentional) misrepresentation of my views. HistoryBA 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
In Gallant's article, it's appropriate to say in connection to her comment that Graham's sexuality has been the subject of rumours — but it's completely inappropriate to discuss the actual substance of precisely what the rumours are or where they came from. The actual matter of the Frank allegations has to be discussed either on Bill Graham or nowhere at all, because they're fundamentally inappropriate on Gallant's article, and accordingly I stand by my summary. And in the context at hand, the distinction between "controversy" and "rumour" is largely a semantic one — the rumour is the controversy. There's no opposition between the two terms. Bearcat 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, Gallant's comments say a lot about who Gallant is and very little (if anything at all) about who Bill Graham is. I have yet to see any evidence that there is a "controversy" over Graham's sexuality. All you have proven is that there are some "rumours." The words have different meanings and difference is not one of semantics, but one of substance. HistoryBA 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Gallant's comments may say more about Gallant than about Graham, but the prior history of rumours about Graham's sexuality for almost a decade before Gallant made her comment has nothing to do with Gallant, which is why that matter cannot be discussed in Gallant's article. Why you keep coming back to this false premise that it's all about Cheryl Gallant is beyond me — it is a documentable fact that there have been rumours about Graham's sexuality since long before Cheryl Gallant ever came along, and I do not see any valid reason why Wikipedia should pretend there haven't been. Cheryl Gallant is a minor part of the whole matter — the original Frank allegations are not about Gallant, they're about Graham. Bearcat 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
J.J.:I don't think anyone has proven that Bill Graham has a "reputation" as a homosexual. If you can prove that, I will gladly concede. HistoryBA 13:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The burden of proof is not on whether he is gay or not; nobody in this discussion has seriously proposed stating that as a fact. The burden of proof is on whether the rumours exist (which they do). Bearcat 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't deny that there are "rumours" that Graham is a homosexual. I do not, however, see any evidence that he has a "reputation" for being a homosexual. As I said before, If you can provide evidence that he has such a "reputation," I will gladly concede. HistoryBA 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
What constitutes "having a reputation for being a homosexual", and how does it differ in any meaningful way from the existence of rumours? And anyway, you're also going to have to consider the fact that I'm speaking as a gay man who lives in Graham's riding, so there's a very tricky balancing act involved here: let's just say that there's a distinct difference between his "reputation" in your circles and his "reputation" in mine. Bearcat 01:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I live in Graham's riding and it's pretty much an accepted fact that he's bisexual - I also went to university with John Baird (he was in my "Gael group" and know people who know him today and I have no doubt that he's gay. I wonder if those pushing for inclusion of the allegations of Graham's bisexuality also favour the inclusion in the John Baird article of allegations (with Frank as citation) that Baird is gay? BTW, if we do state that Graham is bisexual (or that there are rumours he hasn't denied that attest to this) we should not refer to the callboy story nor should we be sensationalistic about Graham's sexuality. I seem to recall the Globe & Mail mentioned it in passing in a profile they did of him several years ago (before 2002), if we can find that I'd be far more comfortable referencing that then Frank or Sky Gilbert (Now Magazine once wrote that Keith Norton is well endowed [5]- don't see a push for including that in his biography. Homey 00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of...
In 2002, Canadian Alliance MP Cheryl Gallant created controversy after heckling Graham in Question Period by yelling, "Tell it to your boyfriend" during his response. Gallant's comment was in reference to stories in the gossip-magazine Frank that alluded to Graham being a closeted homosexual.
I don't know if the Ontario version is that different from the Atlantic version, but that's what I'd label Frank as...however, I'm against reporting the rumours themselves in the article. If I tell a group of my friends that "Rory McTory" is bisexual, then essentially that would be a rumour. Habsfannova 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, that's not significantly different from the text that User:HistoryBA is disputing in the first place. Bearcat 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*laugh* Regarding John Baird, personally I'd be in favour of that — but again, there's a difference between what I personally know as a member of the gay community and what we officially know through verifiable public sources. I wouldn't support using Frank as the primary source for asserting that Baird is gay, but that's not what I'm suggesting for Graham either — I'm suggesting that we acknowledge the existence of a longstanding rumour, not that we overstep the WP:V requirement by using original research to formally out someone. Bearcat 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Rather than respond to all of Bearcat's comments above, why don't I suggest that both of us refrain from commenting any further and leave this in the hands of other editors. We seem to be going in circles, and I don't think the excessive length of this debate helps others to follow it and voice opinions. HistoryBA 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would simply reccomend referencing the Frank story if and only if the Gallant remark is to be included, because that story is a necessary component to understand the context of the remark. And even if referenced, the nature of the magazine should definatly be noted first. Otherwise, I don't think any other statement involving rumours surrounding Graham's sexuality should be included, unless they're in a serious or at least semi-serious newspaper. I know a few things around this area that are "understood", but they shouldn't be in factual articles that depend on verification of sources.Habsfannova 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been silent on this discussion until now, primarly due to the fact that I haven't been certain which side to support. As a general rule, I believe we should respect the privacy of public figures who choose to keep their sexual identities private, even when said information is an open secret (I've removed several references to John Baird's sexuality, for instance, even though the accuracy of the information has never been called into question -- it's simply a matter of ensuring privacy and avoiding tabloid sensationalism).

The situation with Graham is a grey area, in that (i) he didn't volunteer the information, and has not publicized it, but (ii) it has nevertheless been discussed in public forums. Whether or not it's "relevant" is still unclear, and I'm not even certain what standard could be used to determine "relevance" in this instance. I don't know if I favour inclusion of the rumours or not.

I can, however, shed a bit of light on material in the public domain from the respectable press:

(i) Globe and Mail, 22 January 2002, A4 (referenced by Homey above - this was before the Gallant incident)

Then there is his flamboyant personal life. He doesn't believe that the stories that circulated in the mid-1990s about his homosexuality kept him out of cabinet. "I was made Foreign Minister by the Prime Minister," he says when asked about probes into his private life. "I believe I have his support and I have the love and support of my family and my friends."

"People might be interested in that aspect of my private life, but it is not relevant to my performance as a politician," he says.

It is relevant, of course, if it makes him politically vulnerable.

"Absolutely," he agrees. But he says that he is "at total ease with himself and the respect of my family and friends and the Prime Minister who put me here." As for the rest, look to his voting record, he says.

(ii) Canadian Press report, 11 April 2002, 17:22 report

Graham, who has maintained in the past that questions about his personal life aren't relevant to his success as a politician, said Thursday he had not heard the remark.

"I didn't hear what Miss Gallant said, so I'm not going to comment on that," he said outside the House. ``I understand she said something on the other side of the House; that's amongst them."

(iii) National Post, 12 April 2002, A08

In a newspaper interview just after he was appointed Foreign Affairs Minister in January, Mr. Graham was asked about stories from several years ago regarding his homosexuality.

He said it was not "relevant to my performance as a politician."

CJCurrie 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that, actually, I would have to say we shouldn't include it, just to be on the safe side.Habsfannova 02:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, yes, the Globe story is vaguer than I remembered it (though we all know what they are asserting when they say "Then there is his flamboyant personal life".) As well, I don't think any serious newspaper has even gone that far in the past two years. (The Globe reporter also doesn't say "his rumoured homosexuality" but "stories... about his homosexuality"). While we can personally read between the lines I don't think it's wikipedia's job to do so. Given that there hasn't been a clear assertion in the mainstream media about Graham's private life (Sky Gilbert's "The first thing you need to know is that Bill Graham is gay" aside[6] - Sky Gilbert is not a journalist) and as there hasn't even been any hinting in the media about Graham's sexuality since the Gallant episode I think we should not refer to it - at least not until and unless it becomes a public issue or unless he acknowledges it himself the way Ian Scott (finally) did a few years ago. Homey 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to start tacking "allegations" onto Wikipedia articles based on Frank and every nutty thing that gets used as heckling material in the House of Commons, Bearcat, I can't wait to see the Stockwell Day article after it's been subjected to your tender ministrations. --MattShepherd 15:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a major difference between writing about a longstanding allegation that everybody and their dog knows about, and writing about a magazine poking satirical fun at a public figure. This is a false comparison and you know it. Bearcat 19:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"And you know it" implies bad faith. Perhaps, Bearcat, in the Wikipedia spirit of goodwill, you might wish to consider apologizing to MattShepherd for that. HistoryBA 14:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, Bearcat, I'd never heard this allegation before. I listen to the news (CBC radio) faithfully, but I don't have an otherwise overwhelming interest in politics. So far, the best anyone on the "allegiation" side has been able to do is "it was in Frank and "somebody used it as an insult in the House of Commons." That, and "everybody knows it." Maybe people with a strong interest in the day-to-day events in Canadian politics might know it, but that's a far cry from "everyone." I was raising a point in a humourous way, but I'll re-state it to be clear: if your criteria for including specious allegations are based entirely on (a) Frank and (b) random things said in the House of Commons in the heat of arguments, you've got a LOT of work ahead of you.
In good faith: "everybody" does not know it. I did not know it. My parents do not know it. People doing research on Graham for school projects do not know it. Their dogs, I assure you, do not know it. You can even find a dog and ask it. It will probably reply "woof," which is dog for "I didn't know that." How do I know that "woof" is Dog for "I didn't know that"? Why, I read it in Frank. :) --MattShepherd 15:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'll start here: given the number of people who have posted to this very talk page demanding that we discuss the allegations in the name of NPOV, I can safely assure you that it's not at all obscure knowledge limited to people with special interest in Canadian politics — there are lots of people out there who know nothing at all about Bill Graham except the gay rumours. The only apology anybody's getting from me is that I'm sorry if you've somehow failed to learn about the valid literary device known as intentional hyperbole.
As for what my criteria are, well, although I'm betting less than 24 hours before somebody attempts to remove this, I've been beating around the bush trying to find ways to say it without actually saying it, so I may as well just blurt it out: I'm a gay man who lives in Bill Graham's riding, and it's public knowledge around these parts that he's frequently seen at gay bathhouses for reasons which have precious little to do with handing out campaign literature. It's extremely difficult to balance what we officially know about his sexuality with what we actually know off the record, I grant you, but this isn't just based on Frank and random comments — it's an attempt to balance a known fact against what can actually be verified in public media sources. It's the proverbial "elephant in the room" situation — just because nobody in the media openly acknowledges the elephant doesn't mean the elephant isn't there. Bearcat 06:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That seems to get us back to the question of why this is important, rather than just appropriate. If it isn't in the media (very much) what is the importance of this that warrants the inclusion? Bearcat, would you say that it is important in the community (the riding or the gay community)? Or is his sexual preference on its own enough for the inclusion? Or are we still on the political aspect? --JGGardiner 07:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Bearcat says, "just because nobody in the media openly acknowledges the elephant doesn't mean the elephant isn't there." That's right. But it does mean that we can't say it is there in his Wikipedia article. That's the policy. HistoryBA 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Discussing the existence of a rumour (which does not contravene any policy on Wikipedia) is not the same thing as actually taking a stand in the article as to the truth of the rumour (which nobody in this debate has ever proposed.) It's really hard to understand why anybody would pretend there isn't a huge difference between the two. Bearcat 07:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who brought up the issue of him being seen at gay bathhouses. Are you speaking here about the existence of the rumour or the truth of the rumour? I assumed that you were talking about the truth of the rumour, but if I am mistaken, please let me know. In any case, as you acknowledge above, "it's public knowledge around these parts" doesn't satisfy the Wikipedia standard for verfiability, which makes me wonder why we continue with this. HistoryBA 12:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I at no time suggested that the article should step over the WP:V boundary and clearly identify him as gay despite the lack of public media sources to verify evidence that I know about personally. I've stated more than once in this debate that I would revert anybody who did that; in fact, I have reverted people who did that. And if you read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, keep in mind that I wrote that summary, including the proviso that "even if you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a gay-related category if factual, reliable sources can be provided to support the assertion."
All I have ever suggested is a short, neutral and NPOV summary of what is verifiable in the matter, namely that there have been allegations but that Graham has never responded to them in a public statement. Discussing the actual truth of the matter in talk page discussion is not the same thing as suggesting that the article should state it as a fact, which I haven't done and wouldn't do until such time as he either comes out or is outed by a verifiable media source. If you actually think that I of all people somehow have an inability to separate what I know personally from what I can verify through permissible sources under WP:V, then all I can say is that (a) I know I've earned a better reputation on Wikipedia than that, and (b) Category:LGBT politicians from Canada, which I also haven't proposed adding Graham to, would be at least ten people larger than it is if I were somehow unable to make that separation. Bearcat 18:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to review the original context for how this came up in the first place.
  1. On multiple occasions at this article, I've had to revert anonymous additions which essentially asserted that the original Frank allegations (pertaining to a particular sexual relationship that he may or may not have had) were true. With Frank as the only source, it fails WP:V, but the fact that I've constantly had to monitor the matter indicates that a very large number of people are familiar with these claims — more than enough that WP:NPOV almost requires us to point out that the specific matter remains unproven, because entirely too many people wrongly believe them to be proven fact.
  2. On Cheryl Gallant's article, meanwhile, the "Ask your boyfriend" comment was originally postscripted with the patent falsehood that nobody had a clue what the hell she meant by it. Which also fails WP:NPOV, because it deliberately creates a false impression that Gallant is completely untethered from reality.
So I did the best I could at balancing the competing POV problems into something as neutral as possible, which acknowledged the existence of rumours without stepping over the bounds of what's publicly verifiable. I'm not proposing that Wikipedia should officially out him — I'd be the first person to revert it if somebody did that, actually, because I have no problem separating personal knowledge from the fact until he's outed in mainstream media it would fail WP:NOR. But it's absolutely not a neutral point of view to pretend that the issue doesn't even exist, and it's not a neutral point of view to pretend, as HistoryBA insists on doing, that the whole thing has everything to do with Cheryl Gallant and nothing to do with Bill Graham. The only NPOV solution to the problem is to acknowledge that such rumours exist, while taking care to ensure that they're discussed as rumours qua rumours rather than as proven facts.
As for why it's important...the rumours do exist, and there's substantial evidence that a lot of people know about them. If the goal here is to produce a fluffy press release bio, then yeah, by all means, leave it out. But if the goal is, as it should be in any Wikipedia article, to ultimately produce something that could conceivably be nominated as a featured article candidate, then we have to acknowledge the matter in some way — it's too large and too widely-known an issue for us to sweep under the carpet if we're taking the goals of this project seriously. This article could never get to FAC without some kind of discussion of the issue. Bearcat 08:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but WP:NOR is everything you listed above. Just because it's well known does not mean it deserves to be in the Wikipedia. The Wiki is here to get topics from verifiable sources.Habsfan|t 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not original research to discuss the existence of rumours; it would be original research to take a stand as to their veracity. Bearcat 21:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What a murky area this is huh?. I'm somewhat torn myself but inclined to agree with Habsfan at least out of caution. I'm not sure that it is original research but it may not be verifiable to include rumours even if they are common. Hmm... Is there anything written about this besides what was mentioned above? --JGGardiner 07:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Wikipedia should help the reader who consults Wikipedia because, for example, she has heard the rumors and wonders if they are true. The reader would consult the article and learn that they are not verified. This would be informative to the typical reader. I agree with a standard that rumors must be significant to be reportable in Wikipedia (for example, there are "rumors" that aliens landed in Roswell, New Mexico that Wikipedia reports, even though many people find the rumors ludicrious). I wonder if it would move the debate along to see if we have consensus on the following point:

  • Significant rumors (of any nature) should be reported in Wikipedia even if they are demonstrably false (or disputed, or unverifiable or unverified), along with their status as false, disputed, unverifiable or unverified.

Then we only have to discover what significant means in order to settle this dispute. I don't see a reason to differentiate among significant rumors.

Harts4Life 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)It appears as if the only real controversy over the allegations exists on this discussion forum, and not in the main media. For the record, I am a Liberal supporter, and didn't actually know about all of this (although I do barely remember the initial incident) until I read it here ... which as far as I'm concerned, is reason enough to not count the allegations as having a significant impact on his political career, nor to treat it as a reportable controversy.

I would certainly oppose including a statement on what someone may have said, at some point, about something that may have happen, at some time, somewhere, based on unsubstantiated rumours, in something that should be an encyclopædic article. However, if there were concensus to proceed [along what I would deem an unfortunate path], then at the very least, such a statement should make the doubts about the reliability of the claims quite clear. In exemplia,

It was once suggested by Frank magazine that Bill Graham had once had an intimate relationship with a young man; however, this claim has never been substantiated, nor officially acknowledged.

For the record, however, I oppose the inclusion of any such statement. Paradokuso 06:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CJCurrie and consistency

CJCurrie contends that references to Graham's advocacy of gay rights constitute "tabloid sensationalism" and are therefore unworthy of mention. My response to that is not to say that Graham’s relationship with the gay community ought to be newsworthy, but rather that perhaps it simply is news, like it or not. If Graham does not want his advocacy efforts made public, he could simply resign from public office and become a private citizen. Not that being a private citizen means one’s advocacy efforts would be ignored (witness Harper and the NCC), but one presumably has a greater claim to privacy when one is not holding and seeking public office. I might add that there seem to be a number of editors here partisan to Graham who would be purging Wikipedia of any reference to, say, Monica Lewinsky were they equally as partisan to Bill Clinton. This purging is exceedingly patronizing to the intelligence of the reader, who can form his or her own judgments about the information, and is making a mockery of Wikipedia’s informative value. Because the gay lobby already knows that Graham is one of theirs, the object of political partisans like CJCurrie is apparently to keep the fundamentalist religious vote in Graham’s camp by keeping that group ignorant about the fact that Graham is highly unlikely to be sympathetic to their values. According to this article, there is not the slightest reason for anyone anywhere to have any issues with Graham. Yet the Vic Toews article is a non-stop litany of “controversies” and “criticisms”. My suggestion to CJCurrie is that you cannot have it both ways. If you want to whitewash the Graham article, then you have to allow that Toews’ article may be similarly whitewashed of all “irrelevancies” and unsubstantiated "allegations", etc etc. What is it going to be?Bdell555 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you retract your comment that CJCurrie is a political partisan. This clearly violates Wikipedia's guidelines and creates the sort of hostile atmosphere that prevents consensus building. Moreover, it does not fit with CJCurrie's own record on Wikipedia, which has been overwhelmingly positive and constructive. HistoryBA 16:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Please direct me to the Wikipedia guideline that says that one should never suggest that another's edits are NPOV. From my POV, the Vic Toews article is clearly NPOV although I would not expect you to perceive that since your own editing history reveals a similar left-wing bias, even if an unintentional one. Not that there is anything wrong with that, so long as the reader is aware (the issue of whether to inform the reader or to protect reader innocence being at the core of the current dispute), and/or an editor with another POV is allowed to edit without being reverted.Bdell555 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You're probably going to want to see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. However HistoryBA was not referring to a claim of NPOV per se but rather a claim that a specific user is a "political partisan". Incidentally, this is not the Vic Toews talk page. If you have a problem with that article, please bring it up here. --JGGardiner 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Accusing people of biases based on their editing history isn't really a nice thing to do either...certain articles require different touches.Habsfan|t 21:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the "pussy palace" reference was included for reasons other than demonstrating Graham's support for the LGBT community. In any event, I'll reiterate my reasons for the reversion: (i) several politicians on the Toronto left opposed the raid; Graham's view was neither unique nor especially noteworthy, (ii) Graham's statement on the matter was trivial in the context of his career, and (iii) the presentation in the previous edit was clearly one of tabloid sensationalism. Please don't return the text unless you're able to able to respond to all three of these points. CJCurrie 18:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You can make whatever presumptions you want about my intentions and I can’t stop you. Getting to the point, which is the article at hand, should I fail "to respond to all three of of [your] points", would you still allow that perhaps whether your three-point standard for what should be deleted and what should not is the best standard is, itself, the very issue at hand? Would you have any objections if I reverted all of your work on Vic Toews wholesale and then asked you to "please don't return the text unless you are able to respond to all" of the points I set out for you? If we leave that aside for the moment and just assume that your standard is indeed the authoritative standard, I would note that while you may not believe it "noteworthy" when Graham is found in the same political camp as "the Toronto left", others might. You seem to find every instance when Vic Toews has appeared at all immoderate highly noteworthy. Do you believe that none of your edits to the Vic Toews' article are "trivial in the context of his career"? If the words "pussy palace" unravel your moral fibres, then why don't you edit those words out? Instead, you cut out Graham's lobbying for a refugee claimant as well, supposedly on the grounds of "tabloid sensationalism". It is this sort of wholesale, undiscriminating reversion that obstructs the "consensus building" HistoryBA so nobly desires. In any case, you need not worry about me reverting the text back in yet again. Political partisans always win revert wars, because they are highly motivated to see their particular POV pushed. My objective is not to eliminate bias, which is impossible, but to raise reader awareness of it when it exists. Having done that here on these talk pages, there is little else I need, or can, do.Bdell555 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Responses:
(i) If you have any objections to the Vic Toews article, please raise them on that article's talk page. It may be worth noting in advance of any such objections that (i) Toews was the most visible target for criticism in the late-period Filmon government, a fact which should be reflected in the article (I actually had to leave material out of the criticism section), and (ii) Toews is very well known for his socially-conservative views, which are presented in an NPOV manner.
(ii) I did not remove the refugee claimant reference because of tabloid sensationalism -- I removed it because I'm not certain that particular incident was especially important. I explained this in my initial revert, a few days ago (and also explained that I could be persuaded to return to the section if evidence of notability is provided). CJCurrie 21:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
(iii) I stand by the three objections that I presented earlier, and I have nothing more to add to this aspect of the Graham discussion for the time being. CJCurrie 21:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe a compromise can be made. How does...

Graham is considered progressive on social issues, and has represented [If it's pro bono, put that here] a number of causes in Court, including refugee claiments and LBGT rights activists.

It's a valid point, I'd guess, but we shouldn't be specific about every politician/lawyer's cases.Habsfan|t 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone not to use "LGBT" in articles. For those of you inside the movement, it may seem like a well-known abbreviation, but for the general reader it's very obscure. It needs to be spelled out. Indefatigable 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not "inside the movement", but good point...Habsfan|t 00:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Bdell555: You didn't say that the edits were POV, you said that the editor was a political partisan. This is a personal attack. It is inappropriate given Wikipedia policies and the specific editor's history here. The editor in question deserves your apology. HistoryBA 23:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, while you're at it, you might want to clarify that when you referred to "CJCurrie and the hobgoblin of consistency," you were not referring to the famous quotation to the effect that a foolish adherence to consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. You wouldn't want anyone here to think that you were calling another editor a "little mind." HistoryBA 23:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I was indeed alluding to that quote, but I would note that, contrary to your assumption about my intentions, I must have been deprecating myself, since as the party calling for consistency I am the small minded one. Your interest in protecting myself and others from such deprecation is noble, but I would note that I am not so sensitive, and perhaps others aren't either. After all, when my good faith edits are being reverted wholesale, I am not exactly being sent sweet thank you cards, but such is life as an editor and Wiki becomes a more uncomfortable place for everyone if we are all thin-skinned types who readily take offence. I am sorry that my inability to resolve the distinction between being a politically POV editor and being politically partisan offends you, or anyone else. As I have admitted, my mind is relatively little and there is no shortage of subtleties too large for my comprehension. I readily admit to often being partisan to conservative perspectives, but I trust that when input to an article is provided by persons of multiple perspectives, the final article ends up more useful to the reader. Hence my attempts to contribute 2 cents to this article. Returning to the issue at hand, my concern with the Vic Toews article (to take an example article) is that it arguably has an unencyclopedic tone of attempting to “out” a politician as someone outside the norm. To take just one example, a full quarter of the Bill Graham article consists of an “Honours” section, while no Honour granted to Vic Toews is considered worthy of mention. The debate over the merits of “outing” was already well underway here, which is why I believed the issue would be best resolved here, if possible, as opposed to spreading out to multiple locations. If, as Habsfannova suggests, “we shouldn't be specific about every politician/lawyer's cases/[advocacy efforts]” (as an aside, it is news to me that Graham’s advocacy efforts have taken place in the courtroom as opposed to other arenas), I simply and humbly submit that the principle apply to politicians of all political stripes.Bdell555 18:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
If you truly don't understand, I'd like to inform you. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Anyone. As such, there are no problem editors, just problem edits. --JGGardiner 04:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, which is why CJCurrie's refusal to allow me to edit, which should be distinguished from editing my edits, is inconsistent with Wiki policy. Why am I being asked to apologize for calling attention to violations of Wiki policy, which also calls for a NPOV perspective? No apologies should be demanded of anyone when there no "problem editors"! Often an effective way to resolve a dispute is to put oneself in another's shoes, and in CJCurrie's shoes I see people attempting to smear Bill Graham, people who must be stopped. A perfectly legitimate presumption, just not in Wikipedia, where slant must be avoided and good faith assumed. The assumptions about bad faith on my part are unwarranted. When I add information about Graham's relationship to the gay community, I am not, for example, taking a page from CJCurrie’s practices and also introducing a “criticism” section. I am also not defending the policies of a government which the subject of the article is not even part of, unlike CJCurrie who has written, for example, that “Toews specifically argued that the Clause should have been used to overturn a court decision that weakened Canada's child pornography laws. (The Liberal government brought forward remedial legislation to address the decision, without resorting to the Notwithstanding Clause.)” The Liberal government’s legislative agenda is totally irrelevant to Toews, but adding that information supports the POV that Toews is an opponent of the Charter. These facts suggest that the real issue with my being reverted here is one of political slant, and whether any of us are card-carrying members of a political party is totally irrelevant to the question of whether such slant exists here with respect to the Bill Graham Wiki article.Bdell555 15:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't think that we really do agree. Hmmm... where to start? Well first, I don't know all the details of the edit history but I would think that you and CJC simply have a disagreement about some particular content. That happens. People have different ideas about what belongs in the articles. Otherwise bots could be writing the articles. If it does happen, you should bring the (content) issue to the talk page and discuss it there. Look at the discussions above for example. As for good faith, I'd suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Assume good faith and also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. People write bad content all the time but with the best of intentions. Some people write good content with bad intentions. Well possibly. But NPOV is about the content, not the author. When I see bad content in an article that I'm new to, I don't look to see who wrote it. It doesn't matter. Once you write the content, it is a distinct entity from you. As for problem editors, you're right, I don't think that you are a problem editor. I don't think that anyone is. However, when I say "editor", I mean an editor of the content of the encyclopedia -- the talk pages are a somewhat seperate entity. I definitely think that it was a problem that you have suggested that CJC has certain impure intentions. To be completely honest, I also think that it was also problematic that CJC responded with the "I'm inclined to think that..." bit above. I'm sure that you wouldn't like to think what that implies about your motives or character. Maybe that will help you see why it is unproductive to assume bad faith. As for apologies, I can't speak for HistoryBA or anyone else, but I would be happier if instead of that we could just get back to good faith consensus work. So, I'm going to start a section below on "Graham's Advocacy", which I think was the original problem and hopefully we can start over there. Okay? --JGGardiner 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that burst of common sense, JGGardiner. I think starting fresh would make sense. Certainly, I am willing to stop asking BDell555 to apologize for the inappropriate attack on CJCurrie, a request that seems to have gotten us nowhere. HistoryBA 17:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The point remains that you accused CJCurrie of acting out of political partisanship. Such is not "life as an editor," as the comment clearly violates Wikipedia etiquette and is unfair to the editor in question, given the editor's own record here. Suggesting that I'm thin-skinned for asking you to obey the rules is equally inappropriate. Am I to take it that you are refusing to apologize? HistoryBA 18:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
And what, exactly, do you envision as the alternative? It's either the abbreviation LGBT or the unwieldy phrase "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered". Which is probably valid on the first reference, but it becomes burdensome fast. Bearcat 01:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Abbreviating it after it's spelled out the first time would be fine. But think twice about whether the umbrella term for all four is really needed. In many cases only a subset will be related to the matter at hand. Indefatigable 12:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Having known CJCurrie personally I've never known him to be a member of any political party, Liberal or otherwise. Nor do I know of him being a Liberal supporter. Homey 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Homey is correct: I'm not a member of any political party. CJCurrie 00:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graham's Advocacy

This section is a stub. You can help JGG out by expanding it. Thanks. --JGGardiner 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/l/Talk%7EBill_Graham_d0de.html"