Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Major Overhaul

Major overhaul of the page. I have removed the clean up and stub notices, as well as the Daily Kos and radio call-in refference. There are much better sources to be quoting on that topic (i.e.-Florida's largest daily newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times) -ALC 27 July, 23:31 UTC

Educator Category

Why have we put Crist in the educator category? I can't recall hearing anything about Crist's ever having been an "educator" per se, and I don't think his stint as Education Commissioner qualifies him for this category. ALC Washington 18:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My criteria for placing Crist into the Educator category was his service as Commissioner of Education. While he was not an educator in the traditional sense, as commissioner, Crist was the chief schools officer of Florida and controlled the education systems and how children statewide were educated. He worked to implement new systems for education and policies. This seems to be enough to place him into the Educator category. Prez2016

Don't you think this is misleading, though? Most readers will think that if he is in the "educator" category, he was an educator, not simply involved in the administration of state education programs-- much like Frank Brogan, who was indeed an educator and a Commissioner of Education in Florida. Would we include a prominent textbook manufacturer without classroom experience in the "educator" category simply because he was involved in the "education industry"? I think we would do well to leave the "educator" category to those who have educator experience, not people merely involved in activities ancillary to actual education, such as government administration of schools. ALC Washington 10:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ALC on this one. I think it's disingenuous to put a politician who has no "true" education experience in this category. Ufrh4 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)ufrh4

Given our discussion here over the last three weeks, and the lack of a response in the last week from Prez2016, I have removed the page from the "Educator" category. If there are lingering issues, we can discuss them here. ALC Washington 23:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Preference Information

Crist supporters may prefer not to have any discussion of his sexual preference on this page, but the simple fact is that the speculation surrounding it will be a major issue in the Republican primary, even if only through innuendo, because homosexuality itself will be a major issue in the Republican primary. See, for example, the comments on the St. Petersburg Times's blog to any post regarding the primary. As it was, I thought that the way I phrased it previously was fairly objective and relevant. It certainly is not libelous or false. ALC Washington 18:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a Crist supporter. I haven't made up my mind as to which candidate I will support in the Florida Governor's race--Republican or Democrat. My point in editing is that innuendo and rumor do not belong in an encylopedia, which should only embrace fact. In regards to the blog that you cite, it was specifically something planted by the other camp to raise speculation. In my mind, that does not belong in a factual biography unless it can be proven. It actually shouldn't have even been published by the paper--it did not meet journalistic standards.

Crist's sexual preference has become a major issue in this campaign. Not to mention it seems to be a poor decision.

I shouldn't have used the Times' blog as a evidence for my view. However, I would still make three points in favor of reinstating the language at the end of the article. 1) The langauge was not just about the speculation or the innuendo. It also included recognition of Crist's numerous public statements that he is straight and not gay. 2) The speculation surrounding his sexuality, while inappropriate in the minds of some (including my own), is very much a reality. A search of the St. Petersburg Times website (as Florida's largest newspaper) revealed a number of published stories which referenced the issue. Crist has recognized this by making several plain statements that he is straight, not gay. Here is the latest. If it were not an issue, Crist would not have had to make these statements as frequently as he had. 3) Issues regarding homosexuality are playing a big role in the campaign because of factors such as the ballot initiative to ban homosexual marriage in Florida. Some newspapers have reported that it is affecting Crist's ability to fundraise among the religious right. As a result, the recognized, acknowledged, published controversy regarding Crist's orientation is also relevant, as it related to this issue. 4) You write that, "In my mind, that does not belong in a factual biography unless it can be proven." What can be proven is that there is speculation, that Crist has denied the rumors, and that it matters in this current primary. That is what was included and why we should include the information. ALC Washington 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Count me as a vote for inclusion. The sexual preference has been covered quite extensively in the Florida media. Moreover (though this alone is not sufficient evidence) this tpic seems to be one of the first things that come up about Crist when Floridians chat about Crist (in my experience). Interestingstuffadder 20:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a good argument and perhaps you are right, ALC Washington. I made my assumption based on sources within the Gallagher campaign who have stated that it will be an "undercover" issue in the campaign and I guess I just have sympathy for those who are subjected to a rumor mill. As I stated, I felt the "Times" was wrong to include the topic in the story that they wrote--it was an obvious plant. In response to Interestingsuffadder's comments, I don't buy into the "extensively" argument. Yes, it has popped up here and there, but always as gossip (or Crist's boneheaded response to gossip, which he should have never acknowledged)--no doubt as a result of an underhanded campaign. As far as fundraising goes, I think the numbers speak for themselves. User:ufrh

Given our discussion here over the last three weeks, I have reinserted the sexual preference information, though I have changed it to "is hetersexual," instead of "is not homosexual." This seems more NPOV to me. If there are lingering objections, we can discuss them further here. ALC Washington 23:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Though the last photo was good, I have changed it out for a different photo from the campaign website which appears less like a campaign flyer photo, and appears to be more NPOV. This photo is also more of a head-on shot, and has less of a shadow over Crist's face. ALC Washington 23:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-write 3/4

I appreciate the large amount of research provided by Quberoot. As the governor's race get closer, however, we need to avoid the urge to include in Crist's article a summary of every other newspaper story written about the candidate. If it is really newsworthy-- think: "would this be talked about a decent amount in the week before the election?"-- then it should be included, but not as its own section. Usually one of two sentences will suffice. At this point in a long campaign, there are going to be a lot of extraordinarily non-notable stories written involving Crist. The politics sections fill their pages with information about every minor interest group or union endorsement, and every fundraising hiccup. They don't usually merit a full section.

For instance, I have successfully defended leaving in information about the sexual preference speculation. But it certainly does not merit it's own section, and as a result I have folded it back into the main bio. Please also try to condense information, limiting yourself to what is relevant to Crist in particular: Lee Drury DeCesare's name doesn't belong in this article. Avoid the temptation to include lots of extraneous information.

If we do this, the article should remain strong, and a good reference for those looking for information on the race on the web. ALC Washington 11:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think anyone researching Crist would want to know WHO is making allegations regarding his sexuality. Also, the Crist campaign did not return checks from both of the donors: it returned two company checks and says it never received one from the Ukranian official. Please do research before changing others' work. Quberoot

Hi, Quberoot. Please note that I have made a good faith effort to work with your edits rather than reverting them all, in the spirit of Wikipedia. I- and I am sure the entire Wikipedia community-- would appreciate it if you would do the same. Wholesale reverts of anything but vandalism are inappropriate. As a result, I have reverted back to my original edit while incorporating the information you have provided in the mean time. As per your two specific points above:

1. The speculation regarding Crist's sexuality is just that-- speculation. There have been no out-and-out accusations regarding Crist's sexuality, just a lot of rumors which have fed the speculation. Lee Drury DeCesare's question was certainly not an accusation. It was perhaps the first time Crist had denied being homosexual publicly, but this fact does not merit the controversy its own section. Everything that can be confirmed and which the voter needs to know can be encapsulated in the sentence on his sexuality as it existed before your edit.
2. In fundraising, the reason I put it as "the checks in question" is because the checks in question are checks from the company under investigation, not the Ukrainian official. The controversy surrounding him was not that he paid to for the dinner but that he attended. The manner in which I modified your edit reflects this, so there is not factual inaccuracy here. I did, however, pare down the information a great deal to reflect the relative importance of the controversy, which really only deserves limited mention at the moment and will probably deserve no mention by July. In fact, come July or so I would probably support consolidation of the information into a single clause of a single sentence, perhaps beginning, "Crist has not been immune to funding controversy in the primary;..." in the fundraising section. What I want to emphasize here, however, is that your wholesale revert of this particular section was not justified by what you perceived (erroneously) to be a factual inaccuracy. In such a situation, the proper move would have been to correct the content of the content of the sentence within the new edit. The whole point of my edits has been to condense information and eliminate extraneous summarizing of newspaper reporting. If you have issues with that-- as opposed to factual accuracy-- then we can discuss it here before you revert anything else.

I would also remind you that if this continues you run the risk of violating the WP:3RR. No one wants to see that sort of thing happen, so let's sit down here and iron our differences. In the mean time, I am reverting the page to the version I last edited (though I have inserted the two new platform planks you have included, and thanks for that research). I would recommend you leave it that way for now and we work off that after discussions on this talk page. ALC Washington 18:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to include speculation any more than the next person, and have removed such talk from other pages before regarding projected what-if scenarios after elections. However, the relevance here is not his sexuality per se, which personally I could give a damn about, but that there even is an issue. Everyone I have ever met who knows who Charlie Crist is has heard this rumour, and it seems valuable to me to know who is making that accusation. It would be like writing an article about Truman and the Democratic party in the Cold War era without mentioning Senator McCarthy: The President was not in league with the Communists but the accusation was a big issue at the time, much as Max Cleland was painted as being unpatriotic in his election he lost to Senator Chambliss. I think it does a real disservice to anyone interested in the race to not mention the issue openly and point people in the right direction on who is making the accusations, so that the reader can draw their own conclusions. As it stands now the article just says people are accusing him of being gay. I fail to see how removing evidence to the contrary and references adds to the article. As it is you are removing valuable content and replacing it with spelling errors and ideological attacks. Quberoot

Quereboot, you have failed to provide a response to my objections to your edits, except for the one regarding sexual prefernce, where you have misdirected the discussion away from the issue at hand. Your re-revert was unexplained, uncalled for, and goes against Wikipedia policy. I have been swamped with work the last three days and unable to respond to your specific objections (scanty as they may be). Once I am free today or tomorrow, however, I plan to do so. In the mean time, it would behoove you to provide specific reasons that my objections as stated above are invalid in your eyes. This would help us iron out differences of opinion in how the page should be constructed. ALC Washington 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To allow Crist's detractors to repeatedly deface his page without allowing people to post who is making the accusations is, to me, absurd. I would think someone doing research on Crist would like to know who it is that is making the accusation rather than allowing Wikipedia to be used as someone's own personal rumour mill. My stance is still that we should present all of the facts and let people make their own decisions. For instance, several reputable papers in Florida are reporting that Crist now has a steady significant other and have even published her name. We could head off ugly allegations at the pass by posting this information, but apparently some users would rather not do that for their own reasons. Quberoot 20 March 2006

This is not too hard to see, Quberoot (or 172). You are misrepresenting the state of the page before your edits. No one has "accused" Crist of being homosexual (certainly not Lee DeCesare), so it would be impossible to name an "accuser." There has, however, been media speculation about his sexuality. Because several analysts in the media have predicted that the race will have a focus on "family values," this speculation has become relevant to the election. It is worth about a sentence in this article. We are not here, however, to offer potential voters a point-counterpoint on whetehr or not Crist is gay, as it hardly merits that much space in this article. It is enough to say that there has been speculation, and Crist has denied it repeatedly.

I would remind you that Wikipedia is not meant to be a store of all information in the world, nor is it meant to be a candidates guide for potential Florida voters. It is meant to be a store of encyclopedic information. The article on Charlie Crist is intended to be an article on the man, not the candidate. His candidacy is certainly an important part of his life, but it should not be the exclusive focus of the article (this is why, for example, I think his gubernatorial platform is relevant but his AG platform from 2002 would not be). What also is not relevant, however, is your summarizing every minor piece of news that cmes out about Crist in these coming months. Unless controversies develop into more than a minor dust-up, they do not belong in this article. All of your hard work and research is appreciated, but please keep it relevant.

I have been away for a few weeks and so unable to remedy these things, and will likely be away for a few more down the road. You can, of course, revert, if you like. But to do so would be a very perverse interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Better to discuss it here and we can iron something out that we can all agree on. ALC Washington 11:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to express what a great job ALC Washington did on the last round of edits putting everyone's work together. The article is now concise, accurate, and balanced. User:Quberoot:Quberoot

Platform

It would be very beneficial in achieving balance between the Wikipedia entries of all candidates if we could add more platform positions for everyone in the race. Does anyone have more information on Crist's stances on various issues?Quberoot

Crist's abortion and health care stances are now public, and his public policy teams are up on his website. Fundraising is also a little more clear with the split among Bush's Rangers and Crist's excellent outreach to mid-level donators. I would like to see us get the same platform info up for all candidates so they can be compared, if anyone knows more about the other candidates than I do it would help. Quberoot

Anti-fraud Work

Would anyone with a telecommunications or law background be able to contribute a more in-depth analysis of Crist's work on preventing fraud in this area? It is mentioned in the article as it is today but it such a huge part of his public work it is a shame not to elaborate, or at least provide relevant links and citations. Quberoot

Nickname

Crist said he was dubbed "Chain Gang Charlie" during his days in the Florida Senate when he sponsored a successful bill that required prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. The legislation included an amendment to revive chain gangs, which Crist said he noticed as a child and later thought would serve as a visual deterrent to others. The idea passed. (St. Petersburg Times)

So was he really 'best known' for the chain gang thing, or just for generally being tough on convicted criminals? That is, is "chain gang Charlie" well-deserved, in that he vigorously advocates chain gangs as a punishment or deterrent? Or is it an epithet opponents tried to hang on him because of their advocacy about chain gangs, i.e., an opposition to anything that might make convicts feel uncomfortable, inconvenienced, or embarassed (i.e., "punished")? --Uncle Ed 13:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Passive criticism

Cut from article:

Crist's qualifications to be attorney general were challenged during the 2002 election, when it was revealed that he had failed the state bar exam three times before passing. The attorney general, often described as the state's "top lawyer," is required by the state constitution to have passed the bar.

Shouldn't we say WHO challenged his qualifications? And what's this about "it was revealed"? Had he been hiding his 3 failures or lying about it? The text I cut makes it sound like he had been masquerading as a competent lawyer when (surprise!) we all found out that he really was a failure. A hasty read might even mislead you into thinking that, required to have passed the bar (but revealed to have failed it), he cheated and defrauded the voters!

If that's a POV someone wants described in the article fine, but please source it. I bet this point of view comes from one of his opponents. Anyone got time to google it? --Uncle Ed 13:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bar Exam Information

Cut from article:

Crist's qualifications to be attorney general were challenged during the 2002 election, when it was revealed that he had failed the state bar exam three times before passing. The attorney general, often described as the state's "top lawyer," is required by the state constitution to have passed the bar.

Shouldn't we say WHO challenged his qualifications? And what's this about "it was revealed"? Had he been hiding his 3 failures or lying about it? The text I cut makes it sound like he had been masquerading as a competent lawyer when (surprise!) we all found out that he really was a failure. A hasty read might even mislead you into thinking that, required to have passed the bar (but revealed to have failed it), he cheated and defrauded the voters!

If that's a POV someone wants described in the article fine, but please source it. I bet this point of view comes from one of his opponents. Anyone got time to google it? --Uncle Ed 13:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The other candidates in the race (one Republican candidate in particular, I recall), challenged his qualifications on this basis. The user wrote that "it was revealed" because bar exam scores are not public knowledge, and when this was reported, it was new information that would not normally be public. The last sentence, about the constitutional requirement to pass the bar, made it relevant to the race and makes it relevant here. I agree, though, that source information would be useful. Someone should find the SPTimes article (or other Florida paper) and reinsert the sentence as it was before, with the sourcing added. Would that satisfy Uncle Ed's objections? 202.156.6.54 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Deputy Secretary Appointment

There is an odd sentence in the background which indicates that Governor Jeb Bush "appointed" Charlie Crist as Deputy Secretary of a state agency. That does not sound right. I believe Secretaries of agencies appoint deputy secretaries....not governors. It could certainly be true that the Governor ordered one of his Secretaries that serve "at his pleasure" to hire Charlie Crist...or this sentence could be an attempt to show much-sought-after support of Jeb Bush for Charlie Crist. Wouldn't it be organizationally dangerous for an agency secretary not to hire the deputy secretaries working under him or her???

It says "Crist is a signatory to the gay marriage amendment petition in Florida." Is that the amendment supporting gay marriage or the amendment against it ("Defense of Marriage Amendment")? --Pygmalion

Can someone please look at this point? Crist's website says he's against marital benefits for gays but is for legally binding contracts?

2006 Race

Might want to add in that there are currently several outstanding accusations that Crist is/was a long time lover of Bruce Carlton Jordan, a man serving parole until 2011 for fraud/theft. ----

If there are reliable sources for it from a reliable source, which means not a blog, then maybe we can insert it. Captainktainer * Talk 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV !??

This article would certainly be a credit to any staff supporting a Crist campaign. However, it is an embarrassing discredit to Wikipedia. I hope an editor with more ability to defend himself than I will dispute NPOV on this one. Quickly.

Ryvr 01:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be more specific with my concerns. I hope others join the discussion on this.

The tone, with language like "During his time in office, Crist has been applauded by civil rights and consumer groups ..." sounds very much like campaign material... "Crist had by that time already won the attorney general's position." again ... "won" not "elected" the word choice in many, many sentences consistently uses a word which "glows" far more than a NPOV-reasonable word would.

"Crist's fundraising activities were not immune to controversy." When the article addresses possible criticism it uses weak language in contrast to the enthusiastic language used to describe what are perceived as his positive qualities.

'Is "pro-life and pro-family," however, he has no plans to change abortion law in the state of Florida ... ' Sounds great, doesn't it?

"Crist's website says Crist strongly supports Florida's Defense of Marriage Act which is generally opposed by gays and lesbians." Uh, and were Jim Crow laws "generally opposed" by African Americans? Opinions on civil rights are not normally limited to the group against which discrimination occurs. I would think "strongly opposes equal marriage rights" would be quite accurate.

"Right to Die: Promote the availability of end of life choices, including living wills and coordination with hospice care." This sounds fishy and sneaky. I think it is only mentioning the very positive interpretation of a political position here. Great for a campaign brochure!

Anyway, I am personally indeed a liberal. Which gives me very careful pause to dispute NPOV here. But I do think my judgment in this case is unclouded by my personal opinions. I want the opinions of others too. Perhaps we can find an article which glows and glows toward a liberal politician and make that fair too.

Please, please discuss!

Ryvr 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put an NPOV "check" request on specificly for violation of "fairness of tone" NPOV policy. See my comments above for examples.

Ryvr 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Personal Life section

While I was not the one who removed it, and am a bit troubled by the fact that it was by someone who has never edited here before, I support the deletion. As I pointed out above, there were some sourcing issues with it, and the section about his new girlfriend appeared to be nothing more than a weak attempt at a rebuttal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Horologium (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the insertion of the "new girlfriend" and thought it seemed a bit excessive, but I let it go. I didn't read the previous paragraph...which now seems irrelevant considering his governorship. I think your decision to remove the whole paragraph was a good one. Cary Bass ^demandez 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It was all over the news the other day, and if we get to talk about him and his male love interests, why can't we talk about him and his female love interests? I'm okay either keeping everything or deleting everything but let's be consistent. Philwelch 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I undid the removal because it was removed by someone who never had done any prior editing and without any discussion... that just doesn't sit right with me. While I don't agree or think the section should be in there, i'm not going let it be deleted without a discussion. --Napnet 06:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP necessitates that unsourced or unreliably-sourced information of this nature must be "immediately" deleted. JGHowes ^talk - 14:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote requested: Restore/Keep off - "Controversies while Governor" section

An editor removed the new section below saying in his/her opinion that it was not really a controversy. See June 26, 2007 for how the new section and references appeared in the article (the source code here also contains the references). Please vote below to Restore or Keep off this new section. 5Q5 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Restore. The Governor took a power away from local governments to protect their citizens and instead he protected big business. At least four counties, Palm Beach, Charlotte, Alachua, and Hernando were affected when they lost their emergency fireworks bans (might be more, did a quick search). I am sure the people in those counties consider this action by the governor controversial and alarming. His signature on the bill affected every city and county in the state. 5Q5 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep Off I don't think this really has any value for an encyclopedic article which was why i removed it. i tried to move it to the talk section but my mobile phone wasn't cooperating. To me it is similar to the gay issue... also, what law is passed that isn't controversial? are they all going to be added into this section? i just don't think this has garnered enough 'press' to be considered controversial (this was the first and only place i have heard about it and i am in tallahassee). anyways just my opinion. --Napnet 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course controversies should be included. Wikipedia is supposed to be a balanced NPOV source of information, not a censored, sanitized version of a politician's life. The article should be neutral, but include warts and all. We can get the sanitized press release version on the politician's website. Wikipedia should be a more complete view. I plan to reintroduce this section, but I welcome any comments before I do so.--MiamiManny (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason that criticisms can't be included as long as they cite reliable sources and are not written from a biased perspective. I have removed some content in the past but only because it was uncited.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Convicted Felons

I deleted the section on convicted felon voting rights, as it was a clear violation of NPOV. Use of term 'pander' shows the person who added it had an axe to grind, and also couldn't be bothered to spell Gov. Crist's name correctly. Schoop (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gay?

Perhaps someone should add something about the allegations that Charlie Crist is gay?

• http://browardpalmbeach.com/Issues/2006-10-19/news/norman_full.html
• http://www.politics1.com/blog-1006a.htm#1025
• http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/10-23/news/national/outed.cfm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanojyaku (talk • contribs)

I added the charges and denial. Arbusto 05:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure I would call them "charges" -- makes same sex desire sound like a bad thing. 24.250.234.251 23:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Many people think is is a bad thing. But besides that point, it is a charge if he's lying about it not being true. In other words, it's a charge of dishonesty. Personally, I think it's rubbish, and should be removed from the article, however.--216.199.161.66 23:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? A gay governor would certainly be notable. The existence of this controversy is verifiable per reliable sources. Interestingstuffadder 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be only one source in the three references linked. The politics1 link is simply a link to the Broward/Palm Beach New Times piece, and the New York Blade quotes Max Linn, who, like the anonymous source quoted by the New Times, is a former Republican-turned-independent who just happened to be running for Lieutenant Governor as a Reform Party candidate, opposite Charlie Christ and Jeff Kottkamp. (The New Times says the source "is not active in Democratic Party politics", which is technically true, but exceptionally deceitful, if he was in fact Max Linn.) And for what it's worth, the New Times author also outed Mark Foley in 2004, and is on a crusade to out gay Republicans (as he states in the linked piece).

Horologium talk - contrib 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that all you care about "gay people"? Who cares if he's gay. 76.110.82.251 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, it pretty much excludes him from being McCain's running mate, which makes it pretty mentionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.161.143 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He looks the part. But I don't believe we should add that to an encyclopedic article unless he either comes out on his own and/or is "outed". WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, it's an urban legend that keeps popping up. Do a Google search and you'll find literally hundreds of articles and blog posts on this. Most aren't particularly substansive, but its existence as an oft-repeated rumour can't be ignored. I'd argue in favor of mentioning it here, since there will probably be plenty of people looking up this article to find out the details about his sexuality. Although it would be best to emphasize that it's little more than a rumour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.130.75 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Granted there are going to be rumors about any good-looking, single male politicians, but the rumors about him being gay might very well cost him the VP nomination. The fact that it is widespread rumor deserves mention at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.236.143 (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Crist's Connection to Zimmerman Scandal

Al Zimmerman is the recently charged Florida DCF press secretary who offered teenage boys alcohol and money to pose nude for porn videos. In addition to working in the Crist administration, Zimmerman actually listed Crist on his resume as a personal reference. According to the Tallahassee Democrat, "Zimmerman listed Gov. Charlie Crist as a reference when he applied at DCF in 2005. Crist, attorney general at the time, said he knew Zimmerman slightly as a TV reporter in the Tampa Bay area and probably recommended him —as he'd do for almost anyone."[1] Crist's connection to this nationally publicized scandal is deserving of mention. I am rather surprised that the personal life section has been deleted here since the last time I visited. I plan to restore the personal life section as well as Crist's connection to the Zimmerman scandal, but I welcome the comments of others before I do so.--MiamiManny (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely support a Personal Life section on Crist, as long as it is neutral, and merely mentions only specific facts in an encyclopedic context. If any allegations about his personal life are capable of being cited, as was asserted above, and those allegations can be summarized in NPOV and without utilizing copyrighted info, then they absolutely should be in here as well, just as for any major public figure, regardless of the specifics. Even positive facts should be eligible for a Personal Life section, provided they meet notability, NPOV, and other guidelines. P.F. Bruns (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He is the first Republican Florida governor to succeed a Republican Florida governor?

I have removed that statement from the opening paragraph, as, according to the following page, it is not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Florida Mmortal03 (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But it /is/ true that he is the first Republican /elected/ to succeed a Republican (the other cases are Lieutenant governors who succeeded a governor who died in office.) It's noteworthy enough to include a corrected version in the article. --Heath 128.173.146.4 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Crist's sex life; Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine

I deleted references that Crist "has been linked to" a number of women, the names of some of the women, etc. "Has been linked to a number of women" -- pure trashy gossip. This does not belong in Wikipedia. Also note that the zeal to insert such material is arbitrary: it's because Crist has been single for a long time. We do not see attempts to list the last four or more lovers of every living person who gets an article in Wikipedia. This information is available about Charlie Crist because the mass media have set themselves to reporting it. That mere availability is one reason people insert it into Wikipedia. For those who need to be hit with a 2x4 to understand what the issues are: (1) the fact that Charlie Crist has dated rich, famous, powerful women has nothing to do with his notability; (2) sometimes in the last 35 years or so Crist has also dated women who weren't rich, famous, or powerful, but nobody wants to put them in the public glare. About the gay rumors, somebody wrote here that Wikipedia has to acknowledge them because they're there. This is a misunderstanding about Wikipedia in general, and it is a direct violation of the BLP rules. If you want to know the gossip about somebody, search elsewhere on the Web. Read gossip magazines. The fact that a person becomes the subject of a permanent rumor campaign that they are homosexual is NOT, in itself, notable for Wikipedia purposes. Wikipedia is not about "everything". On top of that, probably any honest who has looked into the subject of gay rumors can cite cases of false "gay rumors". Hurmata (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

His sex-life is actually very important. If he was a star baseball player I might agree that his sex-life is pure gossip that is unfit for an encyclopedia. However, politicians are different. Voters place a huge emphasis on a candidates personal life. Being plain single versus being single while being involved with multiple relationships will make a major difference in votes. Therefore, the lack of information on his multiple relationships is at best a major void in the article and at worst misleading. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In prologue, I cite from WP:BLP:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

One of the consequences of this policy is to REJECT as a criterion for publishing something in a BLP that "voters place huge importance" on it. I also object to your resorting to the notion of "mulitiple relationships". One of my major earlier points is that most people have had mulitiple relationships. Wikipedia has decisively rejected the notion that by you being a politician, you give the news media and every Internet entity carte blanche to gossip about your multiple relationships. All that aside, understand that one of the things Wikipedia is *not* is a voter information project. Hurmata (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is the correct policy to apply to this situation, however, the focus is placed in the wrong subsection. The applicable subsection of WP:BLP is WP:WELLKNOWN, which refers to well-known public figures, and states:

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....

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Crist's gayness is undocumented. There is a persistent rumor he is gay. His being gay will NEVER be well documented unless (1) Crist declares it, or (2) the media stalk him 24/365 and catch him in a series of trysts, or (3) documentation is developed of indicators of a long term intimate relationship (purchase property together, spend major holidays together, designate each other as heirs, etc.). Likewise, under the status quo, those who insist on believing the rumor will have room to do so. Reporting persistent rumors is JUST the kind of thing BLP is designed to squelch. Hurmata (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Many people raise the fact that Gov. Crist "has been mentioned as being under consideration as a possible running mate" to the Republican party's presidential nominee. This claim of notability is bogus. Wikipedia notability usually EXCLUDES flash in the pan events/developments like being RUMORED to be under consideration as a VP running mate. Recall that presidential nominees do not divulge who's on their list of possibilities. There is virtually NEVER *documentation* as Wikipedia defines it that politician X is a VP possibility. What there are is hundreds of lists by pundits or reporters. All they are is gossip accompanied by half hearted disclaimers that "this list is just my thinking, it's an exercise in futility that we pundits all love to repeat in every presidential election", blah blah. Recall also that as soon as the two selections are made, the rumors about every other possibility immediate turn as stale as that loaf of bread you've had in your fridge for two weeks. A politician can't put on their resume, "TWO presidential elections ago, three leading newspapers reported I was RUMORED to be on the VP short list". In sum, being rumored to be a VP running mate possibility is NOT notable for Wikipedia. Hurmata (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please see WP:WELLKNOWN. Rumors, when they have significant coverage in reliable sources, do belong in a politicians bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gay rumours?

There's more to it actually. The Telegraph thought it worth mentioning that his recent marriage has been suggested as a riposte to those who say that he may be gay. Whether he is or not, this is an issue worth mentioning (since it reflects on his political beliefs - the Republicans are against gay marriage, but Crist is not)). The issue is valid. Malick78 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and this information was included in the article until recently. See subsection above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept this reasoning. You can get 100 reputable newspapers to repeat gossip -- that doesn't legitimize the insertion the gossip into Wikipedia. This new "riposte" is just a ruse to keep the rumor alive. And it incorporates circular reasoning: "He's gay. Oh, well, if he gets married, it's insincere, because he's gay". I suggest that your reasoning turns on several misunderstandings: a misunderstanding of the "valid source" rule, a misunderstanding of the policy stated at WP:BLP, and a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. As to the last, we don't need to substantiate he's *not* gay, we need rather to substantiate that he *is* gay. When discussion departs from specific *acts* a living person may or may not have carried out to address their traits, then it is sometimes *not* sufficient to find a "valid" source that says that *people are saying* claim X is true. No, what Wikipedia needs is a valid source that says that *the claim X is true*. To take a similar example: an endless stream of reports that *there are* some people who *want* to believe Tom Cruise is gay *does not substantiate* the claim that "Tom Cruise is gay". Claims of this kind, namely titillating, *objectively* unsubstantiated, and liable to "have legs" for 50 years -- are EXACTLY the kind of claim that WP:BLP is meant to exclude. Bottom line: Wikipedia is NOT about everything that the masses want to talk about. Besides, your statement, "it reflects on his political beliefs" [what is "it"?] has the type of carelessly reasoned statement that needs to be scrubbed from Wikipedia articles. It's a superb, fabulous example of that phenomenon, a statement that's totally false, but it's succinct to the point of elegance while any refutation of it takes lots of sentences. Here goes. You seem to be engaging in circular reasoning:

"Crist bucks his party's stance on same sex marriage. *If* Crist were gay, then it would be even more interesting that he's doing so. I want Crist to be a greater source of interest. Therefore I embrace the rumor that he is gay."

Next, we can't tell precisely what you meant because your wording is so ambiguous. It *could* be construed as "whether you are homosexual or heterosexual will likely determine your stance on legalizing "same sex" marriage". But what you (almost certainly) meant is that "whether it is alleged that some prominent Republican is homosexual" "reflects on his political beliefs". EITHER WAY, since there are Republicans of either sexual orientation bucking their party on this, then by logic, one's own sexuality is irrelevant. Hurmata (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please see WP:WELLKNOWN. Rumors, when they have significant coverage in reliable sources, do belong in a politicians bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The link from The Telegraph is acceptable to me. Bob Norman, the author of the piece in the New Times Broward/Palm Beach, has stated that he wants to out gay Republicans, simply because they are gay and Republican, and I'm not sure that he is a reliable source in this case. (The link is to a piece he published in 2006, in which he was pushing the exact same story, the week before Crist was elected. One of his sources in that piece was running against Crist in the governor's race as a minor-party candidate. Another of the "sources" (and I use the term loosely) is known to have a casual relationship with the truth, and another doesn't know Crist personally.) One reporter pushing a fable does not a story make, but the Telegraph piece (which eliminates some of the more overheated rhetoric) is probably enough to adequately cite the rumors. It's not libelous to state that someone is gay, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to report falsehoods as fact. Horologium (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Rolling back edits

I have rolled back a whole series of edits because of the carnage done to the citations. Removing the URL, title of the article, author, and access date is not wikifying, it's rendering useless. Please use the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates if you wish to rework the citations and standardize them. ({{cite book}} can be used for references out of a book.) Standardizing references is a good thing, but stripping them of content is very bad. Horologium (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added in a {{cite news}} template for reference #3, the Adam Nagourney article from The New York Times. Feel free to use it as an example for fixing the other references. Horologium (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have apologized to the editor in question, because he was quite correct and I was wrong. I misread the format he used for notes and citations, and jumped to conclusions. Horologium (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another sources RE: gay rumours?

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2008-02-28/news/the-talk-of-the-green-iguana/ Cheers, Conor (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the source which was previously listed in the article, and it is problematic. See the discussion (above) regarding this source and its provenance, and (even further up) in this discussion, in which I address some of the issues with the sources used by Bob Norman. An ideological axe-grinder like Norman should not be used as a source for a contentious issue such as asserting a sexual orientation of another person that conflicts with that person's own stated orientation, without evidence to the contrary. Innuendo and insinuations are not justification to make such statements, and Crist has made it clear that he is offended by them. Horologium (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change citation format

The format I prefer uses two sections for citations, "Notes" and "References". Citation is kept short in the footnote (newspaper name and article date only, or book author name and book year and quotation page number only), and the full citation is given under References. A description is given at WP:CITE. Some of you have manifested your disagreement with this format. Please discuss your objections to it. Hurmata (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't like it, takes up too much space. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost missed this. Since I was the editor in question who objected to that style, I have to agree with Brewcrewer that it takes up too much space. If we were dealing with a technical subject with many references to different pages in the same publication, it would make more sense; for a biography where most of the references are only cited once, it's needlessly confusing. A quick glance at the "References" section reveals that only one link is used more than once—the first one, which is used twice. I fully support converting all of the citations to the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} formats as applicable, but I don't like divorcing the citation from the link. Horologium (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Takes up too much space" is perhaps the one argument I can't understand without help. It's certainly one I never imagined. We have endless space available. Two reasons for separating notes from reference list: it looks cleaner when your note is a comment and not just a bibliographic citation; text in markup form is easier to read the shorter the inline notes are, because inline notes interrupt the text. You make a ridiculous situation when an inline citation is written margin to margin and it takes up three lines. Granted, this can be remedied to a large degree by putting a carriage return at the end of every field in the citation template, and since we have endless space available, that'll work. The opinion that doesn't like it my way is reasonable for this article, but I still dislike the "cite" template -- that's a separate issue from whether to separate notes and references. The cite template is excessively detailed for most citations for most articles. I particularly dislike that people include reporter's name. I'd like to see someone justify this -- not just say they want it, justify it. The reporter's name is irrelevant 99% of the time. What people take note of is that "CNN says that" or "The New York Times says that", not the reporter's name. It would be different if we're using an opinion piece, a book, or a magazine feature article. Hurmata (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't relate to you doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to understand it without help. Believe it or not, there are those in this universe that don't have some super-duper-faster-than-light internet connection. Those that live in rural areas or those that cannot afford high-speed connection should not have to wait a few more minutes for the page to download because you think its cooler to have references listed twice. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

IRT the author's name fields for newspaper citations, the reporter's name is included because most referencing formats include the author's name when citing a newspaper article. It might not appear to be terribly relevant, but (especially for well-known reporters) knowing the author of a newspaper article can be a useful tool. It also allows for tracking by author, which might be important if that author's work is called into question (Jayson Blair, anyone?), or for dealing with inconsistencies from different authors from the same source (The New York Times employs many writers, and sometimes they have conflicting accounts of the same news item. Tracking citations by author allows for a compare-and-contrast, which can be useful when attempting to maintain NPOV balance). Horologium (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To Brewcrewer and Horologium. Geez, brewcrewer, if I am used to super-duper Internet connection, then why *would* it cross my mind that there are people whose downloads take minutes? Especially when you chose your words poorly: you said takes up too much "space", not too much "time downloading". I humbly announced I had no idea what you were talking about. To Horologium. Your points are reasonable, but I think they are unlikely to apply to these specific citations, which are seem not to be lengthy, deep investigations whose prose is at the literary level. *That* is when the reporter's identity matters. These stories are not about "on the night of May 17, did X meet privately with Y, or take a certain action Z, which might be part of a chain of events with a sinister purpose?" They're typically along the lines of "on May 17, Crist issued some routine announcement", "on May 17, Crist sat down with a reporter and declared X". This is not Jayson Blair writing 10,000 word features, not Judith Miller writing 20 articles over 12 months (or whatever) building a case for war, not Tom Friedman writing a Pulitzer worthy exposé of massacres at refugee camps while the Israeli army looks the other way. To summarize my advocacy: footnotes with full citations are clumsy to read, and they make for text that is tedious to edit. I concede that for this particular Wikipedia article, the case is not a slam dunk. One last point: I just would like people to notice that in the majority of times, maybe the vast majority, citations of news reports omit the reporter's name. Hurmata (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna chime in here and agree with brewcrewer. For articles with almost as many footnotes as references, splitting the two up doesn't seem to make sense. In this case the article cites 24 references in 31 footnotes. I don't see a big enough bonus in splitting them out. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

name pronounciation

How is his name pronounced? (And obviously it should be added to the lede) Is it like "Christ" or "Crisp"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a native Floridian, so I hear his name pronounced often, it's not pronounced like Jesus Christ, the

"I" in his name is short so it's pronounced like "Krist". Hope that helps KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment (RfC) regarding whether to report rumors about sexual orientation

I am the editor who has issued the RfC. There has been a copious and constructive debate on this matter for close to two days, with no agreement reached. The debate is to be found in the immediately preceding section, Crist's sex life; Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. In particular, does the policy statement given in WP:WELLKNOWN allow the reporting of this type of rumor? Hurmata (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked over a lot of the sources, both the ones presented here and the ones on Google News right now. To me, and granted I could be wrong, but to me it seems like the rumors exist mostly because he fits a few stereotypes that make him convenient fodder for late night talk shows. Most of the sources are either satire or mostly humorous in tone. There's no evidence, it's just basically a "Hey, he's old and not married, he must be gay" sort of thing. I'm not really sure Wikipedia should repeat that sort of stuff just because a respectable source or two picked it up. Granted, if hundreds of sources ran with it that would strongly suggest notability... but as it is, it's a bunch of blogs, satire/joke newspapers and a UK-based newspaper. So it's really just a rumor, with very marginal sourcing... from what I can tell so far it doesn't belong. Making jokes about how Christ fits a certain stereotype is fine for some sites, but I think for an encyclopedia, we just shouldn't include a non-notable rumor. If the rumor can be shown to be notable, I'd reconsider. Hope this was helpful and not too rambling. --Rividian (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a sticky matter that we deal with at WP:LGBT. I've placed a link to the RfC at the project talk page. If we take a look at two similar issues: Jodie Foster and Larry Craig, our actions in the past have been to tag the articles and cite excellent reliable and verifiable sources that state the person him/herself has stated s/he's gay or lesbian, or that someone else has irrefutable evidence of a same-sex romantic or sexual relationship. Jodie Foster has not said in public to a reliable source that she is a lesbian, although she made some "comments of interest" about "her beautiful Cydney" with whom she has raised two children and lived for 20 years. All we can report, despite the huge amount of speculation in the gay press, is that she said those comments, and the facts known about her relationship. Larry Craig had not admitted he had same sex relationships, but being arrested for it let that cat out of the bag. Rumors to smear a political candidate can come from dubious sources. I would use mainstream news press in Florida, no talk shows, and nothing politically motivated (i.e. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or other radio/TV pundit shows). If Crist had the same depth of relationships as Jim McGreevy, I betcha we would have heard a lot more by now, particularly in Florida—a very conservative state. --Moni3 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and please bear in mind that unlike WP:WELLKNOWN, which is the Wikipeida policy that supports the inclusion of rumours (whether substantiated or not) that were reported in reliable sources, conclusions reached at the WP:LGBT Wikiproject aren't Wikipedia policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni3 did not say that they did, but the LGBT project has a good deal of experience with this topic, as flashing the gay card seems to be a fast-track to an edit war. [[WP:WELLKNOWN]] also notes that material that merits inclusion in an article will have a "multitude of reliable sources", which is not the case with this issue. We have one reliable source (The Daily Telegraph) and a not-so-reliable source (a columnist with an axe to grind), and a swarm of blogs out to smear Crist because he has an "R" after his name. I've already noted above that I am not opposed to including the allegations (using the Telegraph article as a citation), but this probably falls short of the threshold for inclusion under WP:WELLKNOWN. Horologium (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A very real threat to the encyclopedia is spreading rumors that are unsubstantiated. Crist is probably aware of the rumors and since he hasn't addressed them, doesn't really seem to mind them. But Tom Cruise has successfully sued to rescue his reputation. --Moni3 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(yada, yada) can't stop misapplying WP:WELLKNOWN, whose relevant passage is "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources". Some Wikipedians are not distinguishing between an *alleged event* and *media coverage of an allegation*. I think the context imposes the interpretation of the word "allegation" not in the strict sense, but rather as the *incident alleged*. (So let's try to fix the bad choice of wording of "allegation".) Brewcrewer also fails to distinguish between a trait or creed -- which is a general thing -- and specific *acts* or *incidents*. The rumors about Crist do not involve "well documented allegations" of specific acts or events. Only most recently do we have ANY allegations of specific acts or events, namely the reports that *name* two men who claim -- or have it claimed about them that they bragged -- to have had sex with Crist. But these "allegations" are not yet well documented. If they ever become well documented, then those who resort to citing WP:WELLKNOWN will still have to convincingly argue their "notability" and "relevance". Hurmata (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, a swirling rumor is an "incident". Secondly, and more importantly, the understanding of Wikipedia policy does not require statutory interpretation, where words like "incident" have to be thoroughly analyzed. We have to follow the general idea and rationale of the guideline presented. The basis for WP:WELLKNOWN is quite elementary - politicians live in the public limelight and are therefore prone to rumors, whether valid and invalid, in the media. If the media reports on rumors Wikpedia cannot bury its head in the sand. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think, at the very least, linking this issue to the Mark Foley scandal as that's where issues of Crist's sexuality came into more prominence. I would fully support adding "dogged by gay rumors but denies it" or similar.

1. John McCain's would-be VP Charlie Crist to marry after being dogged by gay rumours, The Daily Telegraph
2. Crist Denies Trysts: GOP frontrunner: I have never had sex with a man; New Times Broward-Palm Beach - this article shows the connections between Charlie Crist, Bruce Carlton Jordan and Jason Wetherington, both of whom claim to have had sex with Crist.

I'm sure more is available but we should step cautious here. Banjeboi 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely dead-set against the New Times piece. I have detailed why it is not a suitable source several times on this page. Norman ran the same story twice, in 2006 and again in 2008, after his first run didn't gain any traction. This time, precisely one reliable source nibbled. If there was any real substance to the rumors, I daresay that they would have received wider play by now, since Crist has met with McCain at his home in Arizona, and consistently appears on short lists of likely VP candidates for McCain. Horologium (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some of those detailed explanations have been archived as I only see one detailed above. Regardless, I also don't agree on eliminating this source as being useful. I'm not using it to show Crist as being gay but that he has been accused, and denied those accusations. The piece seems to delve into that these two gay guys claimed to have sex, the claims are unprovable and Crist denies the charges. Is that really that problematic? Banjeboi 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Some more reliable sources: [2], [3][4][5] [6].--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I am not willing to pay for the articles, I cannot assess them (although I agree that the sources are acceptable), and I am 300 miles from home, unable to visit the archive at my library. Only one of the articles mentions the gay allegations in the portion I can read, but I have to point out that your third source (from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune) and the fifth source (from the Star-Banner) are the same article. All of these sources, however, appear to be more reliable than the Bob Norman piece I have been railing against. Horologium (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Here's another source about how the rumors are intensified as he is being considered for a VP spot. NYT Sunday Preview: Those Charlie Crist Rumors .

Opponent outs GOP candidate for Fla. governor: Crist has denied rumors, opposes gay marriage Here's another article which details Crist being outed and then a few instances of being asked by different media if it's true (he denies). It also explains the potential tension being gay would hold in light of his record against some LGBT rights. Banjeboi 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that Washington Blade article was the other one I addressed in last year's discussion. As I mentioned, the source in that article was running against the Crist/Kottcamp ticket (as the Reform Party's Lieutenant Governor candidate), and is not an appropriate source. Horologium (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Again I have to disagree with you, if it's an issue that his opponent was outing him then we simply state that - such as "Crist's opponent in the race outed him but Crist has steadfastly denied the claim in several subsequent media interviews." Your concern would seems to be with the original claim not the sourcing or reliability of the reporting. Banjeboi 00:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Banjboi should not speak so loosely. We don't yet have "opponent outing Crist", rather "opponent *claiming* to out Crist". In any case, Wikipedia is not a forum for outing people. I myself accept the principle of outing people who would prefer to keep their sexual orientation private, under certain conditions; but I also believe with equal intensity that Wikipedia is not the place to carry out outings. BTW I have no knowledge about Crist: I've never lived anywhere near Florida, I don't know anybody who knows the man. I personally have no real evidence he's gay -- and I haven't seen any reports that persuade me that anybody else has any real evidence. Hurmata (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually i was using the exact terminology of the media report - "Opponent outs GOP candidate for Fla. governor: Crist has denied rumors, opposes gay marriage". I understand there are myriad reasons for people remaining closeted about facets of their lives but also see that once someone is more honest then the issue generally goes away by itself. If Crist is gay it's generally his business but if he denies it meanwhile blocking legislation that benefit LGBT people as a way to preserve that closet then I definitely have little patience. I believe in the Netherlands they dismissed a high-ranking official not because he was gay but because he was closeted and concerns were that it would be used against him to influence voting. I share similar concerns. Banjeboi 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"If Crist is gay ... while". IF, IF, IF. "I believe such and such happened in some other country -- I don't have enough specifics, but I believe it happened anyway". Laughter's good for the soul, the saying goes, so thanks for the laughs. Besides, what you wrote is total foolishness: you can't "dismiss a high ranking official" for refusing to acknowledge being gay; you can't "dismiss a high ranking official" on the grounds that people might disapprove of them. No; you hold the election, and see whether the people vote against the person. For your claim to make any sense, "they" would have to be the person's party, not the government. Now, I don't know parliamentary systems, but most likely even in a parliamentary system, a party can't dismiss an *elected* official just because he/she is one of them -- the official was elected by the voters at large, not by party members only. Nonsensical, loose talk like yours is *exactly* why Wikipedia should keep itself an oasis of sophisticated evidence checking. PS. The media report should have said "Opponents claims to out ... " You can't "out" somebody for being something who is not that something. Hurmata (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad you are amused. I find homophobia to be rather deadly too often so apologize if my explanations to your response didn't seem to be un-"foolish" enough. You can now also stop correcting me on what "outing" is, I know what it is. I was using it in the same way the media report was so let's move on from here and agree that we need reliable sourcing whatever we report on Crist. Banjeboi 02:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Benjobi: Please excuse my semi-harsh tone, but you seem way busy too busy advancing your agenda about closeted gay politicians. Chris Christ is not about closet politicians and this talk page for sure doesn't need the LGBT Wikiproject plastered on the top of the page. At the most, there should be a brief mention in the article about being dogged by gay rumours, and that is the end of the story. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, I was the one who suggested "being dogged by gay rumours" and agreed that for now that was probably all that needed being done here. As for "plastering" the LGBT Wikiproject tag it's no more plastered than any other wikiproject tag and simply means the person is of interest to the LBGT project; obviously this BLP is of interest. As for my "agenda"? It was to respond to what I found to be a bit offensive but I simply tried to respond. That I can't remember the name of the closeted politician in my example doesn't mitigate that these scenarios do happen and that closeted politicians certainly have existed before. If you wish to invent some agenda behind that I guess I can't stop you. My agenda remains to improve articles and I intend to stay focussed on that. Banjeboi 03:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Glad you are amused. I find homophobia to be rather deadly too often so apologize if"[. . .] why not say instead, "I apologize if I feel I don't need to use valid reasoning or get the facts straight. Just say any damn thing I please so long as it's in the name of opposing homophobia"? More reaction to your incoherent "dismissed Dutch high ranking official" story, which is supposed to be an excuse to spread rumors. The Netherlands is legally the most gay friendly country in the world, so we're supposed to believe that either being gay or being closeted would even be a campaign issue there? Your fairy tale is unfeasible to Google because there are so many possible ways it could be a distortion (if indeed it derives from an actual event). In what country? Was an official dismissed from a governmental post, or was the member of a private organization or a business ousted from some job? Was it proved that the person was closeted, or were there mere allegations he/she was gay? Hurmata (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Hurmata that is a leap of bad faith and I hope you consider striking much of your comment. Assuming I'm just saying "any damn thing"? Please. I don't need to do that here even if that was my interest. And you can stop berating me for bringing up the case of the closeted politician. If I figure out who he was I'll post it. The example was to demonstrate the changing tide in how LGBT people are seen. He wasn't being admonished for being gay but because he was closeted about it and concerns were that he would be blackmailed in some way because of his closetedness. There are many cases of closeted politicians so let's just move on and agree that as far as this article is concerned there is only, as of yet, reliable sources presented to put "dogged about rumors", etc. Banjeboi 12:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to remark commencing with "Outdent". The best offense is a good offense, so Banjeboi is "hoping" that *somebody else* will "consider striking" *their* comment. Banjeboi is the one who should be retracting the false sanctimony of "huh, excuse me for being so concerned about the deadliness of homophobia that I feel free to use Wikipedia content to gossip about unmarried Republicans". Yeah yeah, stonewall forever Banjeboi, like Republican VP Cheney on Iraq. *Why* "can [we] stop berating you" for putting forth a self contradictory, conveniently vague story? You situate the alleged event in a country that is as gay friendly as any on earth, whose culture is world renowned for its general tolerance and respect for privacy. The *Netherlands* is hardly a country where a politician can be "blackmailed for being a closeted gay". Besides which, if he *was* dismissed for being closeted, that *outed* him/her -- hah! *Unless* you wish to claim that this incident occurred without publicly naming the "official" -- in which case, it's an *unfalsifiable rumor*! B seems more concerned with the graphic design of his user ID than with the substance of his arguments. The bottom line about B's arguments is they are lame excuses to spread gossip, which flouts the WP:BLP and the mission of Wikipedia. Hurmata (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hurmata, please don't reformat my comments and I'll try to respect yours as well. I did the "outdent" to improve readability. Per WP:Talk I'm going to ignore the rest of your comments here as my only interest was to respond to the RfC. I encourage you to focus on improving the article rather than finding issues with my comments. if my example didn't work for you, so be it. Banjeboi 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi alias Banjeboi: It is not your place -- or anybody's place -- to exempt your own (their own) comments from scrutiny and discussion. (An aside: Improving readability is all very nice, but I encourage you to help readers follow the sequence of the thread by not deformatting your comments -- or as you have pseudoaffably put it, "outdenting" them.) You can come to terms with the fact that your talk page comments are part of your impact on the quality of articles and will accordingly evoke responses. As will your actual edits, of course. By misapplying the LGBT project tag on July 20-21, you are behaving imperiously, trying to make an end run around this whole discussion you have participated in. On another front, you consistently take flamboyant steps to create confusion. There is the matter of your UserID: it is Benjiboi, but your graphic uses the spelling Banjeboi. Then there is your disruption of the thread outline. Hurmata (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Hurmata, I find your behavior and comments directed at me rather than about the subject of the article more than a little offensive. You win. I'm leaving this article and removing it from my watchlist. Please desist from insinuating I was doing anything but trying to help improve the article; whether you believe it or not that was my only intention. As for the LGBT tag I'm not that bothered either way, obviously if he is revealed to be gay it should be re-applied. Banjeboi 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

From latest experience, we know not to take you at your word. Just yesterday, Benjiboi issued a similarly humble announcement, but it was cover for the low blow of putting on the Project LGBT tag! *That's* what he did in just the last 24 hours to "improve the article". Putting this tag on any BLP article where the subject does not acknowledge being gay would usually be dirty pool, but of all BLP's, this one has an RfQ discussion going on -- here where you're reading -- about whether to report gay rumors and Benjiboi is a participant in it. So, what does Benjiboi have up his sleeve *this* time? Hurmata (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I am an RfC responder: I agree that the sexual orientation issue is relevant to the bio, and should be incorporated. Anyone who pays attention to politics has heard them. They are widely published, and they will certainly affect Crist's chances of getting the VP slot.Verklempt (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Template

Resolved

since this page section is now linked to the village pump,

... can someone please install a line (replace this one!) or two of context explaining and linking whatever the hell it is these abbreviations, acronyms... mean or refer to? Jargon at the least needs context! // FrankB 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The LGBT studies template is not to be added to BLP's where the subject is "dogged by rumor". WE may not consider the insinuation that the subject is a closet homosexual as defamatory, but I'm guessing as a republican governor, he does. If Charlie Christ comes out of the closet (assuming, of course, that he is in the closet) and becomes an advocate for LGBT rights, then we can add that template. I fully expect to have my removal of the template reverted, but I would appreciated a cogent explanation of why the template is allowed to stay on the talk page of of a BLP. I'm also going to take a look at the "dogged by rumor" part of the main page. Again, insinuations of homosexuality are not de facto defamatory but our tolerance for different lifestyles is not an excuse to leave innuendo on the biography. Protonk (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed "gay rumor" comment. When this is subject to some reporting beyond the speculations of the telegraph, we can replace it. Please keep BLP in mind. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, your objection is absolutely correct. Hurmata (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the removal of the minor mention of the major issue of the gay rumors, I do agree with the removal of the LGBT template. The argument for its insertion (it says nothing about him, it only means that he's of interest to the LGBT project) does not outweigh the fact that we are dealing with an wp:blp and the detriment of the template plastered on the top of his talkpage does not outweigh the fact that one editor thinks that this is of interest to the LGBT project. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to be reverted for the main article one. I feel that was more bold than the talk page one. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a shame. I just saw this discussion. The LGBT template in no way implies that the subject is gay. It only implies there is information in the article that members of WP:LGBT need to ensure is accurate. Members of WP:LGBT are intimate with the issues of WP:BLP and act so strictly to it that it does not advance any perceived agenda we may have. We watch articles of people who have been rumored to be gay or bisexual and make sure the article says only what has been printed about the person from reliable sources, often removing categories or other information that implies or states right out that the subject is gay. See the talk page battle on Jodie Foster. We also tag articles that are associated with LGBT issues, such as Jesse Helms and Fred Phelps, neither of whom ever admitted being gay (though such rampant homophobia may suggest otherwise, between you and me). Furthermore, I would not conceive of removing the tag of any WikiProject, though it seems our tags are frequently removed based on one or two editors' bold decisions. I take no interest in edit warring with anyone, but the removal of the tag, according to this discussion, was done based on poor reasoning. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this interpretation. I think that a talk page template on bigots is more obvious--no one is going to confuse the intent of the template. Here we are dealing with someone who is dealing with persistent rumors of homosexuality. Whether or not the rumors resolve to something we feel is negative, it isn't a stretch to assume that the subject would feel the rumors are negative. If we have a situation where we can avoid adding innuendo, we should avoid it. I thought about this for some time before removing the template and I don't consider my reasoning poor. This is different than putting (say) a template on bill shakespeare based on the notion that he is of interest to the project. Charlie Christ is alive and we should be mindful of the impact that the template will have. Protonk (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What I see as poor reasoning—and feel free to correct me if this does not apply to you—is that the information about the rumors is in the article and cited as rumors. What I'm reading is a concern that the WP:LGBT template on the talk page will somehow confirm those rumors beyond a shadow of a doubt to curious readers who stray to the talk page. These are two divergent issues. I understand your concern about BLP policy, but WP:LGBT cannot be responsible for what people assume by the existence of the template on the talk page. The talk page template does not state fact in the article, and in fact has an explanation on it as to why the subject has been tagged by the project. The majority of readers on Wikipedia actually have no idea that a talk page exists, with project that do article assessments. I don't feel that removing the LGBT template adds to the safety of BLP, of erring on the side of caution. As I said, if I'm misunderstanding this, please feel free to clarify your position. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni3, thanks for your response. Yes, I *do* think your arguments are misapplied here -- and I don't think you're even thinking them through to their consequences. You share points of information that are good to know *in general*; in particular, that the career (and/or life) of a nongay person may be relevant to gay society. But you really seem to hurry past the issue of whether this BLP genuinely falls within the scope of Project LGBT. As you wrote, "the template ... in fact has an explanation on it as to why the subject has been tagged by the project". To be precise, the template has a field to be filled in with the reason, and well, the reason given was that this person is dogged by rumors he's gay. Well, please stay with the scenario you yourself raised: if a naive reader finds the talk page, and sees the tag, and is savvy enough to *open* (expand) the tag, and they see "reason this falls within the project: dogged by rumors", then do you disagree that most likely this reader will come away believing that Project LGBT considers being dogged by rumors you're gay to throw you within the project's scope? I'll say it again: there are those of us who *don't* accept that as a valid criterion for the LGBT project. I also don't like you implying it was the LGBT project who deemed this BLP to fall within the scope. In fact, the Project LGBT tag was put on by a lone gay activist with an agenda (namely, to out gay Republicans) who was participating heavily in this talk page and not making headway persuading skeptical editors to report gay rumors in this BLP. Crist does not even come close to Fred Phelps in the degree of relevance to gay politics. Oh, he has stands on gay issues -- but so does almost every holder of high office. *I*, at least, don't think you put every one of the 535 Congress members and 50 governors in Project LGBT just because they have to take sides on same sex marriage, civil unions, etc. *I* am the one who very recently added mention in the article that Crist opposes adoption by gays. I think that's a big enough issue to include (and maybe somebody who actually lives in Florida might disagree eventually). But I don't think *that* puts his BLP in the scope of your project either -- do you? Hurmata (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What I love so dearly about Wikipedia are all the words we use to clarify our positions without any understanding achieved. Perhaps this is the root of all human conflict. At the risk of promoting this yet being ever the optimist, let me try to clarify.

1. A tag on the talk page is not applicable under WP:BLP issues because the tag does not reflect information in the article, only what WikiProjects should be watching the article.
2. Though not everyone who has ever had gay rumors about them might fall under WP:LGBT scope, someone on the short list of VP candidates does. Specifically if his opinions about gay issues may influence his VP selection or vice versa. Similarly, if he is being smeared as a political tactic, I personally would wish the kind of adverse affect from the rumor not to exist. If this is the work of a political machine or individual, rumors about his sexual orientation should be removed and WP:LGBT should assist with that.
3. I wasn't trying to compare Crist and Phelps as being comparable in homophobia, but as two people who have not admitted they are gay, whose articles are relevant to WP:LGBT interests. Helms and Phelps were off the top of my head.

Short and to the point, I hope. --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some bulleted responses:

1. IMO, you were right to think of Phelps/Helms as off the cuff examples. I understood (I hope!) where you were going with it.
2. Scope of projects: I don't think there is an understood, universal consensus about what the templating actually means. We use different words to describe things (as you say) and this results in different outcomes. I might look at Wikiproject:Economics and think that all articles under that scope are there only because they fall under the field of knowledged studied academically by economists. Someone else may look at it and think that all articles with information that would help us better understand economics (so more broad than me) would belong under the scope of the project. To me the "importance" tag provides some textual clues, but I can't expect that to be a universally held assumption. In this case, I see the LBGT banner as stating knowledge of charlie christ furthers (in some way) encyclopedic knowledge of LGBT studies in general. In some meta sense this may be true. We may look at the rumors themselves, the responses to rumors and so forth as good information about where we are with respect to treating LBGT people as full members of society. Even this discussion here can serve as evidence of that. But I find (without that meta claim, and such a claim is poorly supported by the article in current form) that knowledge and understanding of the biography of Charlie Christ is not particularly helpful in understanding LGBT studies as a whole. This, as you say, stems from my understanding of the template purpose.
3. WP:BLP. I am prepared to argue for the broad interpretation of BLP in almost all cases. Wikipedia is a high traffic, high page rank site. Hell, my userpage is in the top 2-3 pages for various uncommon terms (and number one for "protonk", even over the eponymous rocket). We should always err on the side of caution when dealing with issues like this. As I said above, if the same level of rumor existed about a dead person, I wouldn't have a problem with attaching the tag because there is little downside. In this case, there is the small but non-trivial risk that the average user would interpret the LGBT tag as some substantiation (among the wiki userbase) of the rumors regarding this man's sexuality. the argument that the man's VP status is the 'real' reason for the project tag is unconvincing. John McCain is not tagged, even though his views on gays and lesbians have potential to change much more than any potential VP's. Neither Mitt Romney nor Tim Pawlenty are listed. Same same with Bobby Jindal, rick Perry and (gasp!) Rudy guiliani (despite his interesting choice in garments sometimes...).

But I do want to thank you for your patience and your intelligent, reasoned responses. This is a debate I'm glad to have. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you as well for a polite and intelligent discussion. Even on the talk page of WP:LGBT we disagree over what the tagging means. Most recently over the very controversial inclusion of the loathsome organization NAMBLA. We tagged it, however, because their history and that of the US LGBT rights movement converges at some point, and their interests have been lumped in with the rest of the LGBT community's - something the LGBT rights movement wishes to divorce as far as possible. So accuracy, in this regard, is tantamount. Not everything related has been tagged. I find some things that should have been tagged upon creation, but haven't been for some reason. Similarly, some of Mary Wollstonecraft's work includes bisexuality, but the articles are so far advanced that I'm not sure what function tagging them would serve. The editor who contributes the most to those articles on Wollstonecraft is by far a greater scholar on her than any of us in the project. I, however, think it's an interesting conversation to have, so I placed the question on the talk page of BLP. You can see it here. --Moni3 (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Paramount, not "tantamount". :) Hurmata (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Moni3, we might possibly be making slow progress toward common understanding. But again, you are pointedly offering generalities in a discussion where that won't suffice. I second Protonk's remark No. 3, and move on.

1. How does the LGBT Project list an article for watching? You keep seeming to insinuate the project wanted to watch this article, which would seem to be false (unless the whim of any single project member is enough to enlist the project). And why would Crist be of interest to the project? You do move toward an answer there: he's "on the short list of VP candidates". In point of fact, he's rumored to be on that list. Is the LGBT project actually living up to your proposal, is it watching every one of the dozens of people who have been elevated to one or another pundit's "short list"?! I have already argued on this page that being under consideration for VP is not worthy of being reported in Wikipedia; but I grant that reasonable people may disagree. Instead, I point out that being on the VP short list is not a good reason for any Wikipedia special interest group to watch somebody. Watching this month's (this week's ;) ) VP prospects is the province of newspapers, magazines, politics Web sites, and blogs. By your logic, nearly every Wikipedia project (feminism, cancer research, etc.) should watch every person rumored to be on the short lists for VP for both parties, because the President of the USA affects life all over the globe because the USA is that powerful. I don't buy this reasoning yet. So, I challenge you to defend that the LGBT project should be following presidential election year politics day by day. Even if so, one still ought to wait until Crist actually becomes McCain's running mate.
2. Plus, I think you engage in sophistry in saying "particularly if his views on gay issues might influence his selection". I make that objection for two reasons: (1) it's a tautology, every vP prospect is going to have stands on gay issues, and every stand a prospect has on anything is going to influence their selection; (2) Crist is not out front on gay issues. His stands on gay issues are in themselves ordinary Republican fare, and his level of militancy on gay issues seems ordinary, which is to say mild. The only remarkable thing I have found about his gay stands is the adoption ban issue. I think it's remarkable because the ban is unique among the 50 states. But beyond that, Crist is run of the mill Republican antigay, one of hundreds. Hurmata (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Universal, not Paramount. Sometimes I can't remember the word "spatula" so it comes out as "sputum". Thanks for the correct for the neural misfire. Piff.

I actually brought Charlie Crist to WP:LGBT in this thread because it was at RFC.

The combination of factors involved with Crist warrant the tag: 1)the rumors, 2)the interest in his policies and opinions, 3)and the fact that opinions could be voiced in response to the rumors. Coincidentally, I wrote Restoration of the Everglades and expanded the Everglades article substantially within the past 2 months. The announcement that the State of Florida bought US Sugar was astounding, and so much unlike previous government action toward the Everglades that I assumed Crist and McCain had worked something out, to balance McCain's vote to support Bush's veto for the Water Development Bill in November 2007. The only impediment to Crist's placement on the ticket were the rumors. Sure, this is all WP:OR, but I didn't place any of this in an article.

This is a common discussion WP:LGBT has with more than one article. I recognize that this WikiProject's effect is different from most others, but I don't know of any other project that is asked to justify its existence on Wikipedia. The tag means what it says, that WP:LGBT "tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia", nothing else. --Moni3 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling the existence of the LGBT into question. That's not fair. There are so many personalities and topics that clearly fit the stated mission. We're dealing with a BLP here. With your combination of factors argument, you have finally made a clear statement that can be debated pro or con. I now fault your argument for the assuming it to be a fact that Crist is the frontrunner. This is not OR (original research), it's UO (unoriginal opinion). That can only be an opinion given the publicly available information. In liberal blogs I am not even seeing a groundswell of agreement with this notion (which would all still be mere opinion). Hurmata (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

<Reset indent> I don't see how the existence of WP:LGBT template on the talk page is involved with BLP. BLP involves information in the article, not the talk page. The template says WP:LGBT will help with this. Everything else is a tangent, which I think I've been pretty sporting about. --Moni3 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a point that we are going to disagree about. While I think the talk page is mostly out of the scope of BLP, the templates seem inside it. I can think of one reason to think of them that way off the cuff. If and when this article reaches GA or Featured status, it could very well be in here as a short list of LBGT featured article (actually, a longer list than a lot of other projects). As a navigational tool, the template points to this article. It isn't as bad as having a category at the bottom of the page "possibly gay politicians running on an anti-gay platform", but it is one step down. And partially I think it falls into that category because the tag is here only because of article content. If he wasn't rumored to be gay, the tag wouldn't be here. Just my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni3 argued for a "combination of three reasons: 1)the rumors, 2)the interest in his policies and opinions, 3)and the fact that opinions could be voiced in response to the rumors". (1) is a phony reason, as has been argued. Therefore, it doesn't legitimately combine with another reason. (3) is explicitly anti-BLP to the extent that all he has done is deny rumors which are unsubstantiated. You are stretching things even further with "opinions could be voiced in response to". To me, this shows you are looking for pretexts to advance an agenda. And you're saying explicitly that "of interest to LGBT" doesn't have to be justified the content of the article! Protonk's immediate preceding comment is insightful. The "justifying existence" objection that Moni3 raised -- a false objection -- touches precisely on what we're seeing, that some LGBT arbitrarily declare a person of interest to LGBT in acts of overpoliticization. Basically, Wikipedia tags demand stricter criteria than "being of interest". In the real world, potentially every Republican politician might be tracked by gay advocacy organizations. Wikipedia is a different world. Hurmata (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Note. I was wrong. BLP apparently applies to all parts of the project, FWIW. Protonk (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has prompted WP:LGBT to explain why it puts its template on talk pages, which pages it may choose to add that template to, and what function the templates play in the project. That discussion is taking place at WP:LGBT. I continue to maintain that WP:LGBT is well within its bounds to add a template to the talk page of any article it has an interest in. The entire project has an interest in seeing the most accurate information in this article. This does not mean the project is interested in proving that Crist is anything but what reliable sources have claimed him to be. If he is not gay or bisexual, we would wish that sexual orientation cease being a political point of leverage for any public figure. If he is gay or bisexual, then care must be taken to ensure only what has been printed in the best fact-checked sources are reflected in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Following from the Village Pump

After reading Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 51#Justification for WikiProject tags?, I'd like to chime in with just another viewpoint. First and foremost, I think the idea that adding a LGBT project tag somehow reflects negatively on a BLP (and such is subjected to WP:BLP) is rather POV-oriented and frankly, OR for the talk page. It's reading into something that is simply not there and assuming a negative application. The tags says nothing about the subject being gay (and there are quite a few non-gay biographies with the project tag) but only that one particular project has an interest in maintaining accuracy and standards. That's it. I can't help but wonder if there would be such furor if this was any other project tag. As a member of WP:WINE, I could have probably tagged this article without much problem. Throughout his career as AG and Gov, Crist has played a fairly important role regarding Florida's ban on out of state wine purchases that has contributed to the national debate on the subject. I have plenty of reliable sources to craft a paragraph on that and then add the WP:WINE tag for follow up. I doubt neither of those items would have stirred up even a fraction of the controversy that the LGBT tag has. But in all honesty, the wine project doesn't have enough time or active members to dedicate to maintaining accuracy and standards for this article so I'm not tagging it. However, the LGBT project is far more active and ready with participants to monitor important BLPs like this. The only difference between a WP:WINE tag and a WP:LGBT tag is that some editors add their own views and assumption to what the LGBT tag means--things that the tag itself or the LGBT project does not introduce. Kinda like Phil Gramm's "mental recession"--this is a "mental BLP controversy". There is no inherent negative attachment to the LGBT tag, unless an editor creates their own personal negative attachment. But that is the personal POV and opinion of the editor--not the tag. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, BLP does govern non article space, but I don't know where the claim of original research on the talk page is coming from. Hopefully most of the talk page contributions are original research.

As for the "if this were another project tag", let's not stick our heads in the sand. Homophobia is alive and well in this country. If Charlie Christ were gay, then he would not be a serious candidate for the VP spot (nor a republican governor for long). Rumors of homosexuality dog lots of politicians who remain unmarried throughout their career--especially those who look more like Charlie Christ than say, for example, Jon Tester.

Whether or not homosexuality carries a "negative" or "positive" or "neutral" connotation in my eyes is unimportant. What is important is the perception to readers and to the subject. Since I was the one to remove the tag, I guess I'll respond directly to the suggestion that my personal views drove me to remove it. they didn't. As I explained and outlined above, I tried to keep my personal views out of it. I simply feel that someone outside the project (and especially, outside the encyclopedia) would see the talk page as a 'confirmation' or 'agreement' with respect to those rumors. furthermore, even if that is an unrealistic assumption, affirmative explanations from the LBGT project as to why the tag is attached to this bio have been less than satisfactory. It's not there because of his stance on gay adoption (otherwise it would already be attached to most of the national republican politicians for dozens of like policy positions), it's not attached because of his possible VP status (no other VP hopeful has an LBGT tag, neither does John McCain). The only thing separating him from the rest of the field are these rumors, and that's why the tag is there. And that helps to cement the view that wikipedia is somehow endorsing or failing to guard against these rumors. Protonk (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote you "I simply feel that someone outside the project (and especially, outside the encyclopedia) would see the talk page as a 'confirmation' or 'agreement' with respect to those rumors." EXACTLY! This is the "OR-ish" thinking that I'm referring to. In your capacity as a single Wikipedia editor, you have pre-ordain the thoughts and conclusions of other readers coming to this page. You have determined that they simply must assume some negative connotation to the LGBT tag that runs afoul of BLP. That is a far reaching grasp of omniscience in the name of "protecting" a BLP. I think the "assumed" and OR-opinion of what possibly readers might think is rather unfair justification for removing a project tag---especially when the project tag ITSELF does not convey anyone of those negative attributes. If we play on this playing ground, just about ANY project tag could be removed because of someone's "omniscience" of what might offend readers. Rampant pacifism is alive and well and the military history project tag on George H. W. Bush could cause someone to associate Bush with Attila the Hun who is also tagged with the project. Surely associating some with the "Scourge of God" would reflect negatively on a BLP? Is that argument really any less absurd if we substitute Attila & scourge for Judy Garland and camp? It's POV to weigh which group we want to use our "omniscience" to avoid offending more--the pacifists or the homophobes. If we're going to use our "omniscience" to determine what people are going to think, we might as well be NPOV about it and go all the way with the absurdity.

As for the argument "It's not there because of his stance on gay adoption (it would already be attached to most of the national republican politicians for dozens of like policy positions)" it is missing a rather large point. Every Republican with a vocal stance on gay issues CAN be tagged for just that justification. However the large point and purpose of tagging is because a project wants to take an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards. Like any human endeavor time, volunteers and resources are limited so a project is well served by only tagging those articles that they have an active interest (or editor) that can devote time to that article. (Like my example of WP:WINE above. I could tag this article for WP:WINE but I can't dedicate the active attention it deserves so I'm not) As the LGBT project grows and increases in activity, those other Republican articles may very well get tagged and some active attention. But the fact that they are not yet is a moot argument that has no bearing on this discussion. So again. we are long on OR and POV and short on valid reasons why the LGBT project should not be free to tag any article that they have an active interest in maintaining. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) I am not convinced that it was the LGBT project that placed the project tag. I have made this point already and as far as I am aware, nobody from the project has responded (altho people from the project *have* joined this discussion generally). (2) You don't seem to understand what "original research" means, since you are misusing the term here. Hurmata (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) So would you object to the LGBT project adding the tag if they have an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards in the article? (2) I'm using "Original Research" in the real world application of "Original Thought"--i.e. claims that are not supported by independent, third party sources. The "OR-ish" opinions and claims that have dominated this discussion generally relate to the assumed negative connotation of the LGBT tag on a talk page that somehow damages a BLP article. These are opinions that are out of thin air and based on nothing more than personal opinion or claimed omniscience. We wouldn't accepted that type of "OR" in our articles, so why accept that reasoning for removing the LGBT tag? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Belated response to Agne27, 06:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC), inserted in this position before earlier responses. No, I would usually not object to the LGBT project tagging an article. The proper thing would usually be to defer to any project's judgement that the article falls within the project's scope. This was an unusual case for two reasons. The first involves the fact that you're supposed to justify deeming an article within scope, hence the project tag has a field for the reason. Ohh hohh -- the reason asserted by Benjiboi aka "Banjeboi" was "is dogged by rumors he is gay". Some of us saw this as a violation of BLP, so we overrode Benjiboi's act on that ground. Second, you need to take into account the circumstances in which Benjiboi tagged the article: he was in the middle of a very active discussion on this talk page on whether the article should report these rumors, and he tagged it at a moment when the discussion could be interpreted as going against his opinion that they should be. Therefore, his action was clearly an end run around the discussion: he could at least report the rumors in the LGBT Project tag, with an implicit assertion that the Project wants to do this. I've been arguing: (1) we can override a Project's wish to engage in actions that have the effect of violating WP:BLP; (2) one Project member doesn't necessarily represent the wish of the Project members at large. If you will note, no LGBT project member who has joined this RfC has seconded Benjiboi's action. Instead, they (and you) have addressed the matter in terms of general principles, just as you have with your WP:WINE example. In effect: "there are any number of reasons why an article might fall under the scope of the LGBT Project, and Charlie Crist might be one of those articles." I think a project would usually have an easy time justifying a project tag. Wouldn't you agree that one project member should not invoke their project for actions the project majority would find too extreme? Of course people can ask me: how big a worry is that? Usually, a project group can trust in the judgement of its individual members, e.g., I expect that the Wine Project doesn't need to subject every Wine Project tagging to a discussion and a vote. But when it comes to politics, religion, morality, then yeah, you can easily have a case where a Wikipedian with a fanatical ideological "agenda" (like "outing leading gay Republicans") invokes the prestige of his Project -- without getting the Project's approval -- in a desperation move to push through his unpopular opinions elsewhere in the Wikipedia community, outside of the project. Hope this brings out my views more clearly. (!) Hurmata (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent). this is the talk page. original thought is encouraged. I think you mean to say that it is MY supposition that the LGBT tag would be misinterpreted that I am projected onto the hypothetical reader. that is a perfectly reasonable criticism. I don't think we can answer that completely in this discussion. But I don't (I really don't) understand the parallel you are making between WP:NOR and behavior on the talk page. I'm not claiming omniscience. I'm just making a supposition. and frankly, it is being borne out by the responses I'm getting. You tell me that every republic can be tagged by LGBT but yet the only ones that are tagged are certified bigots and republicans who are rumored to be gay. The proof is in the pudding. If those are the only two republicans tagged by the project, what am I supposed to take away? that Charlie Christ was NOT tagged by the project because of the gay rumors? what support is there for that argument? and if he WAS tagged because he is rumored to be gay, that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid in this case. Protonk (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The articles that are tagged by ANY project tend to be the one where there is an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards. Whether or not Crist (or any politician) is a bigot or in the closet is ultimately irrelevant. As a very public figure Crist's comments and views on LGBT issues are relevant to the broader topic of LGBT studies and is such of interest to the LGBT project. I agree that there are other politicians with views on LGBT that are also relevant to the broader topic of LGBT studies (Mitt Romney, John McCain, Tim Pawlenty, etc) but if there is not an active interest (or editor) dedicated to maintaining accuracy and standards in those articles, then they shouldn't be tagged at this moment. The reasons those articles aren't tag yet is much the same reason that I'm declining to tag this article for WP:WINE. There is just not the active interest, project volunteers and resources to dedicate to the article yet. If later, there becomes an active interest or LGBT project editor who wants to work on those other politician articles (or a WP:WINE editor for this article) then they should be tagged with the interested project. The only thing that the LGBT tag on the talk page indicates is an active interest in maintaining the accuracy and standards of an article--not that the person is gay/bigoted/whatever. The tags implies only one thing--one thing that is certainly not in danger of violating WP:BLP. Assuming it means anything else is pure POV conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion-leaving us short of any valid reason to object to the LGBT project adding their tag to this article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. we aren't making progress. You feel that project interest dictates tag placement and that project interest is value neutral. I feel that tagging the page presents an implication to the reader if LGBT tags are applied to bios where the subject is rumored to be gay. I can see where you are coming from with the wine argument, but I think that you need to look to the possibility that not everyone sees it the same way. I look at this talk page and see three tags:

1. Florida
2. Biography
3. FSU

and I assume that this is a biography, that the subject either is from or lives in florida and either attended or taught at FSU. Are those unreasonable assumptions? Should I have instead assumed that an editor from each of those projects took interest in this article and so tagged it so that he could better follow it? I see a talk page tag that says: Wikiproject:Florida on the current governor of Florida's talk page and I assume that the project tag has something to do with florida. I see a LGBT tag on a politican who has been plagued by rumors of homosexuality, what am I supposed to assume? Protonk (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote "You feel that project interest dictates tag placement and that project interest is value neutral. I feel that tagging the page presents an implication to the reader if LGBT tags are applied to bios where the subject is rumored to be gay." You're right in this assessment. But my view is drawn from the plain and simple text of the LGBT tag itself while your view is drawn not from the tag itself but rather apart from it and from your own personal views and assumptions. In other words, your adding something to the text of the LGBT tag that is simply not there. While you are fair to ask me to look at the possibility that not everyone sees things the same way, I must also ask you the same thing. What I see is simply what the tags says and the extent of my assumptions of what people see goes just to what is plainly written. What you see is extra-curricular and shaded by your own personal views and experiences. Are you to assume that everyone shares the same views and experience as you? That everyone (or even the majority) will look beyond the plain text of the tag and add some mythical and hypothetical meaning to the tag? On what grounds can you reasonably make that argument....besides omniscience, which you have already disclaimed having. To go back to an earlier metaphor about pacifists possibly seeing the Military History Project tag on George H.W. Bush and being troubled by the association with similarly tagged Attila the Hun-how far do we want to strain the absurdity that this line of thought follows? If get ourselves into the business of removing project tags because of what we personally think the tags says instead of what it actually says, then we begin to lose sight of more important things--like building an encyclopedia. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not sure which is the greater sin (Cross posting or carrying on the same conversation on two different pages), I do want to reference my "light bulb" moment from Talk:Larry_Craig#Talk_Page_Template because I think Protonk's comments above really illustrates something. As I noted on the Larry Craig page, I think the disconnect is coming from an overlapping (and out of place) association between categories and project tags. As Protonk seems to be implying above (and correct me if I'm wrong), when he sees a project tag he is really seeing a "category". As he notes that when he sees these project tags "I assume that this is a biography, that the subject either is from or lives in florida and either attended or taught at FSU." But a key point that is missing is that the article already has categories-Category:Florida State University alumni, Category:Governors of Florida, Category:Florida Attorneys General, Category:Florida Republicans, etc and the purpose of project tags is not to duplicate categories for the talk page. While categories say something about the subject or article topic, a project tag says something about the article-about WHO is interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in the article. There is a difference. It may appear subtle at first (and hence disagreements like this emerges) but it really is a substantial difference. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, a little while ago, you made an edit, and the edit summary was "replacing LGBT tag due to discussion on Keeper's talk page . . . .". What's "Keeper's talk page"? Hurmata (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keeper 76. It's archived now but we had a back and forth and I'm no longer convinced (As I was when I removed the tag) that the tag itself represents as significant source of harm as it did before. Protonk (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • He's referring to me, Hurmata, sorry about the confusion. If you would like links to the conversation (and my apologies that it got dragged around to different talkpages, the primary conversation was here on my talkpage, in response to my post here on Protonk's page. I was brought to this discussion, specifically because of this talkpage as well as another, by Moni3 as an outside opinion. My first gut reaction, honestly, was to not include the tag, but it wasn't based on facts, just overreactions and misunderstandings. I came around to some extent, and between Moni, Benjiboi, and myself, have been working on an "inclusion criteria" draft to simply avoid this level of contention/disagreement for the benefit of you, the LGBT project, and other concerned editors. If you'd like more info on the drafting, it's here. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As a Floridian who uses wikipedia for reference on a regular basis, I am shocked that there is no mention of allegations about Crists sexual orientation. The New Times, despite what others have said in this thread, influences a large readership in South Florida. Secondly, if you ask any 10 Floridians what they think of Charlie Crist, well... let's just say it's a relevant topic. There are many gay men who have reported seeing Charlie Crist at gay bars and even whom have said that they've had sex with him. These are not just any gay men either - the two mentioned above are active in politics within the Republican party. Crist's stance on Amendment 2 makes the topic all the more relevant to discussion - regardless of the stress that it might put on his wikipedia page. Someone should please add at least a statement that it is a controversial rumor. 98.211.129.152 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

General issue: justifying project tags

This creation of a new topic is inspired by the comment I posted just a few minutes ago. Gosh, I now discover that project tags don't necessarily include an explanation for why the article has been deemed to fall within the project. Gosh, regarding the tag insertion I objected to, I guess I have to give the placer credit for offering an explanation. Well, some tags don't need an explanation: a governor of Florida obviously falls within the scope of the Florida Project. But Wine Project or LGBT Project? Less often self evident, to put it mildly. Hurmata (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the reason for any project tag is, indeed, self evident--Editors within the project have an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards for that article. That is the only reason for any article to be tagged by any project--be it LGBT, WP:WINE, Florida project etc. Now what is the reasoning behind that interest is a different question--such as the Florida project being interested in a Florida governor. Though, admittedly, in many ways that question is as irrelevant as "Why does Hurmata have an interest in editing Wikipedia?" I'm sure fellow editors are free to ask you that question (and they should always assume it is because of the best of intentions) but you are under no obligation to answer and your editing privileges certainly shouldn't be removed or limited until you answer or give an answer that satisfy the subjective criteria of the questioner. (What if you are merely here to write on topics you're familiar with but the questioner is looking for an answer about actively combating systematic bias and writing on topics that they feel are often overlooked)

The same with a project tag. While the reasoning for tagging an article is self-evident, the reason why the article is of interest to any particular editor is a personal one and we should always assume it is because of the best of intentions. We are always free to ask and sometimes the projects will respond (the LGBT project itself has been working on a general inclusion statement to add to the LGBT tag). But ultimately the answer to the question of "why" they have an interest is irrelevant and it certainly shouldn't be used as a reason to remove their project tag. In Wikipedia, we look at the actions and assume good faith. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I should clarify my last statement. It has been brought up that a project tagging an article can somehow constitute a BLP violation. That statement essentially conveys that the interest of a project in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article can somehow negatively affect a biography of a living person. That comes dangerously close to assuming bad faith. It's assuming a negative connotation to the interest of an editor. That is something that is actively discouraged on Wikipedia, because we look at the actions of an editor rather than assume their intentions. It's like assuming one answer to the question of "Why are you interested in editing Wikipedia?" is to vandalize when the editor hasn't made one vandalizing edit. Now, I ask, is there anything that a LGBT project member has done in editing the article that caused a BLP violation? Is there any "actions" taken to cause a BLP violation? Is there anything in the project tag that says (an action) something beyond that members of the LGBT project are interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in this article? Is there something that says this person is tagged because they're gay? I think the obvious answer to all these questions is "No". We have no actions being taken to cause a BLP violation. All we have is the expressed interest by project editors (whether it be one editor or several, doesn't matter) in maintaining accuracy and standards in this article. The only way to stretch that into a BLP violation is to assume bad faith and to assume a negative reason for the interest of the editors in this article. Just like with our non-vandalizing "vandal", this is just simply not something we do on Wikipedia. We look at the actions and assume good faith. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You raise two points here I want to address. If you commit a BLP violation unintentionally, it makes no difference as far as the need to undo the violation. So you can stop waving the red flag -- or pointing out the red herring -- of "assume good faith". Next, you have asked, "Now, I ask, is there anything that a LGBT project member has done in editing the article that caused a BLP violation? Is there any "actions" taken to cause a BLP violation?". Earth to Agne27: that's what this whole talk page up to now has been about, or at least the first two of the current three main headings. Some have said yes, others have said no. But your question presupposes you haven't paid any attention. The answer to the question is: read this page. Hurmata (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well my response below tries to steer this conversation back to the main points--especially where I ask you to explain how the interest of editors in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article constitutes a BLP violation. In reading this talk page, several times, I don't see here (or anywhere in WP:BLP for that matter) where it is explained how the interest of editors in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article somehow constitutes a BLP violation. Oh I do see how some phantom tags (i.e. This tags says he's gay!) and imaginary, mythical categories could be a BLP violation but since the sources of those phantom, mythical intents have nothing to do with the LGBT project and are not derived from the project tag itself, we're still back at square one with this really important but still unanswered question. I'd like you to ponder that one awhile and get back to us on this since it is at the heart of the issue. Take all the time you need. I sense some growing frustration and encroaching incivility ("Earth to Agne", etc). It does become more difficult to articulate your points (and not just throw straw on the fire) when frustrations enter the equation. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(Agne27 made two posts under this heading on 22 Aug, the later one being an elaboration on their earlier one. This post replies only the earlier one.) You have tied yourself in knots trying to refute me with an argument that is in turn confused, silly, and arrogant.

• CONFUSED. You let loose two confusions in order to build your argument. First, the confusion as to the senses of the word "interest". To say a group "has or takes an active interest" in the accuracy and quality of a certain article is not similar to asking, "why is so-and-so "interested" in editing Wikipedia?" Agne27 can declare, as above, "I have a huge interest in wine", and Agne27 can also declare "I have an active interest in the security measures adopted by my child's school" -- and for normal people, the word "interest" doesn't quite mean the same thing in the two declarations (versus "stamp collecting is so interesting and so is ensuring my child's welfare"). Second, while trying to defend what actions a project might take, you switch focus at the end from projects to individuals, confusing the "interest" an individual editor has in editing some article with the "interest" a WikiProject has in editing it. In sum, your argument is senseless in part because the meaning of "interest" and the identity of who is asserting an interest change from one sentence to the next.
• SILLY. You draw a specious distinction between the "interest" of some project in ensuring the accuracy and fairness of some article and its "interest" in tagging the article. In fact, the project tag announces that the project "has an interest" in ensuring the article's accuracy and fairness.
• ARROGANT. The insistence that a project has no obligation to explain why it has a concern about or interest in the accuracy and fairness of article X. Hurmata (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So....rather than actually counter my contentions, you would prefer to build a strawman? Very well. Just try to keep that straw away from an open flame. However, I do have an active interest in this discussion so I will re-iterate the main points.

• Clintonian semantics aside (what the definition of "is" is), the self evident purpose of any project tag is to indicate that an editor (or group of editors) within a project has an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards for an article. Admittedly, I could not tell underneath all that straw if you were trying to dispute this or not.
• While anyone is free to ask any project why they are interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article--just as anyone is free to ask any editor why they are interested in Wikipedia, a project should not have to constantly defend their good faith intentions and reasons for their interest. Similarly Hurmata, I would not expect you to have constantly defend your good faith intentions and answer the question of "Why are your interest in editing Wikipedia". While you may claim this as arrogance, I just think its a common sense application of WP:AGF.
• Now to hone in on the heart of the matter. In previous places, you claimed the LGBT tag on the talk page somehow constitutes a BLP violation. Can you explain how a tag whose only purpose is to indicate an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards constitutes a BLP violation? Can you explain how the interest of these groups of LGBT editors can be a BLP violation? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agne, I agree with your points in the main and I've (as is clear from the page history) come around to your side of the debate in a lot of ways, but Hurmata is raising some valid points here. Interest from a project is distinct from editor interest. It is not the intent of Hurmata (nor was it my intent when I originally removed the tag) to assume that interest from LGBT project members is good, bad or indifferent to Charlie Christ. He is explicitly distinguishing the interest of project members from the tag itself and asking if the tag confers some negative BLP connotation. This distinction is not a strawman and is important. Without that distinction we cannot sanction interest without breaking some core wiki principles. With that distinction the answer is significantly less clear. Let's try and resolve how we can view this distinction (or if we can agree it exists) rather than arguing at cross purposes. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This debate started out being about the text that was put into one particular LGBT tag. Agne27 is trying to mislead us into thinking this debate as being about any LGBT tag anywhere in Wikipedia. She also simply refuses to read what has already been written. This is all so partisan.

• Note to the post 1980 generation: "hone in on" is a Malapropism for "home in on".
• Agne27 is digging herself into a deeper hole by accusing me of what she is guilty of, namely semantic obfuscation. All I did was shine light on her machinations. I forgot to point out Agne27's silly assertion that a BLP violation would never be committed by mistake. Of course, this assertion is a contrivance that Agne27 is forced into in order to try to build a case against me: it combines with the refusal read previous comments and the incantations about AGF.
• Protonk, I would like to remind you of what the issues are. First one is that if text, content, would be in violation if it was inserted into a BLP, then it would be a violation if inserted into a project tag. We had article content being challenged and one participant in the debate did put the challenged content in the LGBT project tag. My understanding is that you too disapprove of putting disallowed or challenged content in a project tag, so we can move on to the second. I say that a project has a duty to define its range of topics -- its mission (e.g., Russian history) and a duty to justify claiming an article if it's not obvious why the article falls under the project's scope. For example, why would the Russian history project claim to "have an interest in the fairness and accuracy" of an article on flower taxonomy. Could you explain why you are finding Agne27's arguments persuasive in this regard? I see you just announcing you're being persuaded, you're being persuaded. Hurmata (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm generally persuaded because while I feel that some possible harm comes to the subject from an added "assumed confirmation of rumor" that the harm is small indeed and it is likely outweighed by the legitimate interests of a wikiproject. If this were a WP:NPF, we would not be having this balancing discussion. Because Christ is a public figure, we are not bound to "do no harm". We are instead compelled to make decisions by weighing impacts. I found (after some long discussions here and elsewhere) that the 'harm' is small and the benefits are likely larger. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh...oooh. Sorry, while I'm trying to cut down on fragmenting the conversation in several places, I just had to jump on this one. I think it nails something down. Above Hurmata notes "First one is that if text, content, would be in violation if it was inserted into a BLP, then it would be a violation if inserted into a project tag." So you say that if the text of the LGBT tag was inserted in the article that would be a BLP violation. You mean the text that says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia."--i.e. that there is an interest by LGBT project in maintaining accuracy and standards? OR do you mean the phantom, imaginary text that says something like "This article is tagged because the guy is gay!"? In short, and this really does need to be clarified, are we dealing with the actual text of the tag or some phantom, imaginary added text that somehow appears and disappears depending on who is looking at the tag? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No clarification needed. You are repeatedly putting words in other people's mouths. You consistently show refusal to acknowledge replies made to you. You're participation in this debate now consists only of taunting and fencing with others. Hurmata (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So since you won't (or can't) offer an explanation or clarification to support your contentions, your next strategy is to "attack the man"? Interesting. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse restoring the WP:LGBT project tag as a member of the project and endorse Agne27's rationale. — Becksguy (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hey Protonk, I appreciate you shedding some light on the discussion. As an editor focusing heavily on project work, I appreciate the independence and collaborative spirit that goes with it. A single editor working within the project has the independence to put a project tag on any article that they are interested in. Generally the greater project community supports it because the overall goal of any project is to build content for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Now sometimes there are conflicts within projects about what should be tagged (See the famous Highways Arbitration case) because tagging does play into several organization templates and assessments. But those are intra-project disagreements which is quite different from an editor outside the project deciding that one particular project should not be interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article. To use one of Hurmata favorite words, that does seem a little arrogant does it? Much like an editor telling Hurmata that he should have no interest in editing linguistic articles. Who is anyone to tell anyone else, be they a single editor or an entire project what articles they should or should not be interested? Let's look at the edit history where we see Hurmata repeated removal of the LGBT tag-despite being added 3 different people-2 of them LGBT project members and 1 an editor who previously removed it but then changed his mind. Additionally we can see vocal support by LGBT project members on this talk page. How can we look at this picture and not see it as one editor telling another editor (or in this case groups of editors) what articles they can and can not be interested in maintaining accuracy and standards on? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh BTW.... just a friendly reminder that we're still missing the explanation for how a project tag, whose only purpose is to indicate that there is an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards in this article, constitutes a BLP violation. Just keeping you updated. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This question has already been answered. I wonder if we should all indulge in wine. Hurmata (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's always a nice indulgence. :) Though it appears that there is no substantiation to the claim that the LGBT (or any project tag for that matter) constitutes a BLP violation. There is, however, some substantiation to the inclusion of imaginary, mythical text to projects tags being a BLP violation. I suppose the next question is, why are we having this big fuss over imaginary, mythical text that doesn't exist? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I've been responding to you because you have addressed me directly. But you came to this dispute very late and nobody else is paying attention to you. Hurmata (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That last comment seems a bit unnecessary, Hurmata, although I'll assume good faith that it wasn't intentional. Agreeing with Agne, I also don't believe there has been an adequate answer to the question on why the WP:LGBT project tag, per se, is potentially a BLP issue. That makes about as much sense as claiming that the WP:WINE tag is a potential BLP issue because applied to a person, it might imply that the person is an alcoholic (specifically a "wino"). — Becksguy (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue to me (when I removed the tag) was empirical. If we attached WP:WINE to people with rumored or known alcohol problems, then I could make a case that the attachment of the WP:WINE project tag would represent some small negative connotation. We don't, so it is humorous to imagine that we would. In this case I noticed that politicians who were rumored to be gay had the tag attached. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Becksguy, glad you have asked. There is a myth that has been cultivated in this discussion that someone is claiming that, as you summarize it, "the LGBT project tag per se is potentially a BLP issue". This myth has been created by Agne27, who has been making a barrage of catcalls and misrepresentations, including (for another example) strewing comments in various places and then bemoaning "fragmentation of the discussion". This dispute was initiated by a user editing an LGBT project tag so as to create a BLP violation (this user was not Agne27, it was another user, although Agne27 does barrage us with catcalls that she can't find the edit in question). However, one of Agne27's manipulations has been to harangue about "editing the LGBT project tag" even when there is no editing taking place. Recall that WP provides templates for project tags; the tags usually require no editing, and I think we all know how common it is for project tags to be placed WITHOUT any editing. SUBSEQUENT to the initiation of this debate (again, due to a tag edit which constituted a BLP violation), a new objection has been raised, namely: the inappropriateness of placing project tags arbitrarily, without giving a valid account of the project's interest. It is hard for me to see what this per se has to do with BLP violation. Hurmata (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow myself up: I forgot to mention that the earlier complaint of BLP violation being inserted into a project tag has been largely put to rest. Not the general (philosophical?) conundrums of what things do constitute BLP violations, but the specific incident here. Hurmata (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. Since general BLP issues don't belong here, I'm marking this specific issue/thread resolved. — Becksguy (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A doozy of a comment. Why don't they belong here, and even more important, where do they belong? Hurmata (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Becksguy decided this topic was a subheading of another, so he reoutlined it. He did that with two topics. When I undid this reoutlining, the edit didn't even show up in the page history. So I'm trying again. This time, instead of just changing the heading markup (from === to ==), I'm typing in text that I can sign. Hurmata (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that general BLP issues, i.e. - those not related to a specific article or project, might make more sense and gather more participation in the Village Pump, or on the BLP talk page. If it's related to a specific project, then it might make more sense to have that discussion on the project talk page, also for wider participation. My comment was in response to your comment about philosophical BLP issues: Not the general (philosophical?) conundrums of what things do constitute BLP violations... which seemed to imply that general BLP issues may be separate from article specific ones. As to outlining, I was just performing housekeeping to group what looked like three logically related threads so that it was easier to follow, since all three threads seemed to relate to the concept of the talk page template in some way. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are unhappy with that, then reverting it is no problem. — Becksguy (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll hunt around the Village Pump. WP is not well organized, it's difficult to find answers and it's difficult to find the correct forum for asking particular categories of questions. The title of this thread indicates the issue has to do not with one project, but with any. And -- again -- it's not a necessarily a BLP matter. Hurmata (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are looking for one of these areas that deal with Wikiprojects in a much more general sense: Wikipedia:WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, or maybe this one Wikipedia:WikiProject reform that seems to discuss project tagging as an issue. I agree that the encylopedia is not internally well organized and it is indeed hard to find questions/answers or even the right forum. I find myself sometimes stumbling onto things rather than finding them in any really structured way. One seems to have to both know there is a specific answer available, and even more importantly, it's name before one can find it. In other words, for a working editor, it's like a massive book without a table of contents, and the index is the search function. — Becksguy (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sheesh, take a couple days off for perspective and a lot changes, though strangely a lot stays the same. Looking at the talk page history, it looks like we still have a US-Army style "Consensus of one" to remove the LGBT project tag under unclear or unsubstantiated reasons. Now we may have made some progress in uncovering this mythical BLP violation since the discussion has moved from pinpointing any concrete and definite BLP violation from the LGBT tag itself to now "... general (philosophical?) conundrums..." Becksguy has made an excellent suggestion about taking those general, philosophical conundrums to more appropriate venues. An influx of new thoughts and new voices would probably add more light and dilute some of the heat that seems to be coming across in the last few replies. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In an edit summary to this page within the last few hours, Becksguy claimed that it is arbitrary to claim that something is arbitrary. I call upon Becksguy to justify this logic. Hurmata (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unilaterally removing a project tag against consensus is arbitrary. It’s also wrong. Even discounting the gay rumors, Crist is a sitting governor with the power to impact the gay community, especially in Florida, and his anti-gay agenda makes him a person of interest to the LGBT project. The application of the project tag was not arbitrary, as clearly demonstrated in much discussion here by Agne, Benjiboi, and others. — Becksguy (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true Becksguy. A consensus of one is not consensus and it is quite arbitrary for a non-project member to tell a Wikiproject what articles that they can and can not be interested in maintaining accuracy and standards on. Hurmata, please, you've already said that your concerns are relating to "... general (philosophical?) conundrums...". Rather than wage this one man war against consensus over a project tag, please take your concerns over whatever general, philosophical conundrums you to the appropriate pages (WP:PROJECT perhaps?). This is getting a tad disruptive. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)