Talk:Larry Craig/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Larry Craig. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

LBGT Politician

Why can't we add that category? He's gay and a politician right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.46.190 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the individual whom the article is about stated that he is of a non-heterosexual sexual preference? If so, I see no reason why said category shouldn't be added; but until a reliable citible reference can be found to support such a statement, than I would say no. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would make since to have a category called "Scandals and Allegations," which would document his long history of gay rumors, but since he hasn't "come out," it's disingenuous to label him as gay. I'm of the mind that the evidence should speak for itself, and whatever he declares himself to be - no matter how contradictory - should be respected. --StacyOnEarth (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This article was protected because it is "linked to from high-traffic sites," even though there was no vandalism by IPs before its protection. It says it was set to expire on September 1, 2007. If that is so, then why can't I edit it? (Also, see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred.")--71.108.54.16 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is protected indefinitely for new and anonymous editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with anon here and raised this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BL#Semi-protection due to linkage from high traffic sites? Nil Einne 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected. We can always re-protect if anon vandalism ensues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny

"craig did not flush the toilet" lol who cares ~~anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.123.72 (talk • contribs)

I think the idea is that since he didn't flush the toilet it shows/proves that he wasn't in there to actually go to the bathroom. Anyways, --Tom 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he just has bad toilet manners? Nil Einne 18:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What editors think the reason may be is irrelevant. Pairadox 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that factoid relevant to the article? Should it be included? Why is it included? Anyways, --Tom 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pairadox, given that you yourself are an editor, if what editors think is irrelevant, then what you think is also irrelevant. Thus, there is little reason for any of us to pay any attention to you. If the editors think this factoid is worth mentioning, that's fine, although I wouldn't comment on what it means in the article. After all, none of us has any real idea if he actually intended to use the toilet or not, it's speculative at best to say that the reason why the toilet wasn't flushed is because he had no intention of using it. But, it's perfectly acceptable to say that the toilet was not flushed, and leave it at that. Wandering Star 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What editors think the reason may be is irrelevant. Pairadox 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not criminologists and can't decide what evidence points towards the existence of a crime. We should avoid using the police report as a source just because it may include unimportant material, or misrepresent the importance of details. Instead we should use the press and legal experts when we need to decide what to include. This detail is perhaps as relevant as many of the other details that we include. The problem, IMO, is that there are too many details. I've never seen a misdemeanor arrest described so intricately. I hope that over time we can trim details about the incident, arrest, and interrogation (which together represent perhaps an hour's worth of activity). (Personally, if I were on a public toilet "for its intended purpose" and some hand popped under the divider, holding a police badge and motioning me to get out, I might be so flustered that I'd forget to flush or zip up, etc. While I can see how it might be relevant, I can also how how it might be irrelevant. The cop should have done his duty by checking for doody.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Will, if your argument is A) We're not criminologists B) Only criminologists are qualified to analyze why the toilet was unflushed therefore, C) we cannot comment as to why the toilet was unflushed, why did you just comment on why the toilet was unflushed? The only difference between what you just did, and what ThreeafterThree said, is he interpreted it in a way that suggests guilt, while you interpreted it in a way that suggests innocence. If TAT is unqualified to make that comment, so are you.

Exactly my point - it can be interpreted in different ways, but it isn't up to us. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think detail is fine, and poses no harm, so long as we don't try to interpret any of that detail. I'm also okay with using original source material, like a police report, as opposed to the press, since the police report is much more accurate than any press account could ever possibly be.Wandering Star 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A police report is a primary source that should be treated with caution for that reason. Better would be to use one of the numerous secondary sources. Also, I would agree with Will, that in due course we will need to trim down that section to the necessary details for an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No...not funny, and here's why.

The statement, "Craig left the stall without flushing the toilet" is relevant to the probable cause that the arresting officer may have relied on to arrest Craig on the lewd conduct charge. The reference to Craig not flushing the toilet is mentioned in the formal criminal complaint filed in the District Court (see Complaint in Minnesota v. Craig, Case No. 07043231 (D.C. Minn., Jul. 2007)). Nothing in the complaint mentions whether Craig used the toilet; the complaint only mentions that he did not flush it. So, in this case, I'm relying on the formal complaint that was filed in a District Court in Minnesota as the primary source of information regarding the allegations against Craig, rather than secondary news reports that rely on this same source.

Here's what was mentioned in the complaint that was filed with the court in Sen. Craig's case:

"At approximately 12:19 p.m. Sergeant Karsnia showed the Defendant his police identification under the stall and pointed towards the exit, at which time the Defendant exclaimed "No!" Sergeant Karsnia again pointed to the exit. Sergeant observed the Defendant exit the stall with his bag and without flushing the toilet."

The officer's action occurred about four minutes after that same officer observed the foot signals used by Craig during the solicitation attempt for the lewd conduct (see page 1, paragraph 3 of the Complaint) and about six minutes after the officer first observed Craig peeking through the crack of the door on the stall occupied by the officer.

This action (i.e., not flushing the toilet during Craig's "foot dance and toe tapping") shows intent as part of the basis for what lewd conduct charge -- that is, the officer alleged that Craig was not using the restroom for its expected function. Also, the lack of using the toilet, from the officer's view and taken together with the other actions, shows that Craig's intent was only to use the restroom for soliciting an invitation to engage in a lewd activity (a key indicator, from the officer's view, based on behavior observed during other incidents of this activity).

Since this information was included in the complaint, it's definitely relevant as to forming the probable cause to support the the allegation against arrest Craig (the link to the report that mentions this lack of action on Craig's part can be found among the citations and also in the External links section). So, the description of the incident should be left as that, regardless of whether the mention of it offends some, relying on the principle "Wikipedia is not censored." The statement should not be viewed as a gratuitous one added to the article to hype the story. Representing the incident as anything less would take on an appearance of sanitizing the incident to conform with pronouncements by Craig -- that is, the incident is what it is regardless what we think it should be.

I purposely left out of the article the context of this statement (that would be WP:OR), so the statement was provided as is to remain neutral; the reader of the article can figure out what the mention of that statement means to them. On the one side, the officer may have included this fact to support the probable cause for the Craig's arrest, while on the other side,Craig may have been simply surprised and startled by the police badge that was flashed at him during his state of disbelief -- but, I had to consider the information important because it was mentioned in the formal complaint for the charges against Craig.

Hope that this explanation clears up the reason that this information was important to include in the summary of the incident. →Lwalt^♦ talk 01:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are ALWAYS better than secondary sources. Why? Because secondary sources have already been re-interpreted by somebody else, and carry the bias of that interpreter. A primary source will, by it's nature, carry some bias, but not nearly as much as a secondary source would. When you were children, did you ever play a game called "telephone"? It's where someone would whisper something in your ear, and you'd have to whisper the same thing in someone else's. With a big enough a group, after it goes around a few times, by the time the last person is asked about what was whispered in their ear, it's always radically different that the original whisperer's statement. Always. That's human nature. And a secondary source means the data has been altered since the primary source started the whispering game. Wandering Star 02:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and as such it relies mainly in published third-party sources. See WP:V#Sources and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We're aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. However, as for analyzing legal issues, one can't get a source no more verifiable than a court of law when the testimony from dueling sides is tested against established laws and statutes because the public is bound by those same laws and statutes. Craig decided to settle for a plea instead of letting the case play out at trial to really test that truth. So, the truth -- or what is represented as the truth -- by both sides is the best that can be stated in the article sans the analysis -- that's the reader's role to determine the meaning of the information. If a secondary source in its summary of information from a primary source left out key details so that the story takes on a different meaning and a shift in context, then the secondary source is elevated in a way that suggests that its version is one of reliability and truthfulness, even when something points to a different truth. Seems to me that what we really have here is softening the story to appeal to the senses of many. The context is different when one states that "he left the place with the police after he was arrested for signaling his intentions for unlawful behavior" versus "he left the place with the police -- without flushing the toilet, after he was arrested for signaling his intentions for unlawful behavior." Same incident...different story. I'll leave it as that for right now. →Lwalt^♦ talk 04:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Did any source report whether crime scene investigators secured samples from the toilet bowl to determine whether it was actually in need of flushing? Could be a CLUE.Edison 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I again removed the part about him not flushing the toilet. The reader can go see the report. This section is already to long imho, and we are not including everything from the report. It seems that a single purpose acct wants to keep adding this back in??Anyways, --Tom 15:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the intent of article to inform or not? If it is to inform then whether he flushed or did not is relevant and useful to the reader. (If would be equally so had he flushed.) Sure it is funny, but it is one of the first questions in a reader's mind who is attempting to weigh the stories. No compelling argument has been made for excluding this information. Excluding it hinders rather than helps the reader. Red Harvest (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the first thing I wanted to and needed to know is if he flushed the toilet. Are you kidding? If he flushed he is innocent but if he didn't flush he is guilty?? Anyways, --Tom 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So much for "neutrality", Tom. Why are you so eager to suppress relevant information? You seem to be on some sort of crusade (ironically the way you have labeled another above.) I did not say it would determine guilt or innocence. It is however relevant circumstantial evidence. This is afterall a circumstantial case where one story must be weighed against another and the individual's credibility comes into question. When one side's actions don't match with their story, the reader deserves to be informed of the discrepancy. One doesn't have to couch the explanation in prejudicial language, but suppressing it equally violates neutrality. It has direct bearing on Craig and the officer's widely divergent claims of what was occurring. Red Harvest (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen, if you want to add it, go for it..flush away :) As long as it is in some kind of context and isn't just inserted for its own sake, whatever. It just seemed like people were intent on including it and not other details. Anyways, --Tom 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of reference to op-ed

Removed the sentence referring to the op-ed by Jack Cafferty. The editorial is not a news story by CNN as a news organization. An editor added the sentence "The restroom incident was referred to as "Pottygate" on a CNN commentary" when the editorial shows the disclaimer "the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer." Instead, the editorial is opinion by Cafferty as an observer, not as a news reporter.

According to what I could find, the term "pottygate" appears to be used in various contexts when it is mentioned in the content. such as references to Bush/Rice, some incident in the UK, etc. I found the term mentioned mostly in forums, message boards and blogs and a few editorials written by others, but not in a news story about Craig. As to references about Craig himself, the word "pottygate" was used mostly as a keyword to find stories about him without a mention of the word in the story. The sentence that includes this term can be restored in the article once it is used in general news reporting as it relates to Larry Craig. →Lwalt^♦ talk 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of it, either. If the term gains traction, then it might be appropriate, but right now it seems low on the WP:WEIGHT scale. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.. look, I know Watergate was a really big deal to all you baby boomers out there, but coming from a slightly younger perspective, do we have to have every scandal that ever comes up called [insert one item in scandal]gate? C'mon, have you people lost all sense of originality? Can't we call it something like "The Shithouse Shuffle" or something else which doesn't try to relate every event to Richard Nixon? Pottygate sounds freaking juvenile anyway. Who, over the age of 5, refers to the toilet as a 'potty'? Grow up, please Wandering Star 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Craig article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Pairadox 02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As I read it it's a discussion on whether to allow the use of the newly coined word pottygate or not in the article, so it IS about how to improve the article! Algotr (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

October 2006 allegations

An editor removed this information:

In October 2006, gay activist blogger Mike Rogers, who has earned a controversial reputation for outing political conservatives, alleged on his blog that Craig was gay.<ref"SOAPBOX ABUSE; Our View: Blogger's claim about Craig is dubious, irrelevant;" Spokesman Review. Spokane, Wash.: Oct 20, 2006. pg. B.4 ref Craig called the claim "completely ridiculous."ref "Senator Pleads to Disorderly Conduct" STEVE KARNOWSKI, The Associated Press, August 27, 2007ref

With the edit summary, " Not substantiated enough to be repeated. BLP" [1] I'm not sure what the BLP issue is. The allegation received widespread coverage in major media at the time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It did? The reference says its "dubious, irrelevant" so why include it? The 1980's section should also be removed or rewritten since the sources are poor/non exsistent. --Tom 04:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it did, I'll look it up again in the newspaper archive and post some clippings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that it's been mentioned in much of the current media coverage too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: the reference that called it "dubious, irrelevant" was an editorial. See also the Michael Reagan opinion piece below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some I can find from 2006:

Sen. Larry Craig on Tuesday called allegations from a gay-rights activist that he's had homosexual relationships "completely ridiculous."...Craig, who is married, denied the allegations through his staff, saying they "have no basis in fact." Sid Smith, spokesman for the Idaho Republican, said it would be hard to independently check Rogers' sources, adding, "saying you have anonymous sources doesn't seem very convincing to me." A lawsuit "isn't out of the question," but Craig hasn't considered it at this point, Smith said. "That would be taking it a little more seriously than it deserves," he added....Rogers said he has a track record of successfully "outing" homosexual members of Congress, including a report a year and a half ago that Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., was gay. Foley resigned last month when confronted with sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages he sent to congressional pages. "I have never been wrong, and in this, you can't be 99 percent right. It's 100 percent or nothing." Rogers said. But even if he is right, revealing something so private about a public figure can be controversial. "CRAIG CALLS BLOG'S CLAIMS 'RIDICULOUS'; Self-described activist says senator had gay relationships" Jim Camden Staff writer. Spokesman Review. Spokane, Wash.: Oct 18, 2006. pg. B.1
SEN. LARRY Craig is blasting a claim that he's gay. Blogger Mike Rogers, who was among the first to out former Rep. Mark Foley, alleges that the Idaho Republican had sex with men - sometimes in the rest room of Washington, D.C.'s, Union Station. A spokesman for Craig, who is married, told the Spokane (Wash.) Spokesman-Review a lawsuit "isn't out of the question," but that "would be taking it a little more seriously than it deserves." Rogers, who brands Craig a hypocrite for opposing gay rights, counters: "I have enough information ... to protect myself." "EVEN AS A TEEN, ROVE COULD BUG THE OPPOSITION" GEORGE RUSH AND JOANNA MOLLOY WITH PATRICK HUGUENIN AND CRISTINA KINON. New York Daily News. New York, N.Y.: Oct 19, 2006. pg. 34
Journalists love to expose hypocritical politicians, like environmentalists who drive SUVs or the traditional values pols who frequent strip clubs. But the mainstream media (aka "old media" or MSM) have long been reluctant to write about closeted gay politicians, even those espousing an anti-gay rights agenda. A blogger obliterated that line last week....Sen. Larry Craig, D-Idaho, vigorously denied the claim made by self-described gay rights blogger Michael Rogers that Craig has had sex with men for years. Rogers claimed, on his blog (www.blogactive.com), that he interviewed four men who said they had sex with Craig. Rogers said it was a legitimate posting (he also made the claim on the nationally syndicated liberal talk show of Ed Schultz) because Craig supports an anti-gay rights agenda. But Rogers did not identify the men he talked with. Still, despite Craig's denials and the anonymity of the accusers, some bloggers immediately accepted Rogers' assertion as fact. Unfortunately, we may never know the truth. The mud is now splattered on the wall and there's not even a consensus on what stuck. But as a sign of where old and new media diverge, the story that cascaded within hours through the blogosphere barely made it into mainstream media. Some will commend the MSM for downplaying or ignoring the story. Others will call the MSM chickenhearted and right-wing lackeys. For an insight into how conscientious news professionals handled it, go to the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Wash., at http:// www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/briefing/ archive.asp?posted(EQUALSIGN)4167. "It's unfortunate" that "unsubstantiated claims" became the most discussed item on the blogosphere, Craig's spokesman, Sid Smith said the day after Rogers made his allegations. "Blogosphere buzzes with anonymous 'outing'" CHUCK RAASCH. Gannett News Service. McLean: Oct 19, 2006. pg. 1
Mike Rogers is a scandalmonger who calls himself a "gay activist blogger" devoted to "outing" alleged closet-gay Republicans. He claims that his sleazy activism is justified because it reveals the alleged hypocrisy of Republican homosexuals who refuse to promote what he insists is the real gay agenda. Last week, his target was Republican Rep. David Dreier. His latest target is Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, whom he charged has engaged in homosexual sex with at least four men -- a charge the senator denies. Rogers is one of the so-called gay activists who is going on nationally syndicated radio shows and writing newspaper columns to punish what he believes are gay Republicans for not agreeing with the liberal agenda of gay marriage or whatever else the gay issue of the day is. "RADICAL GAYS UNFAIRLY TARGET GAY REPUBLICAN OFFICEHOLDERS" Michael Reagan, The Post - Tribune. Gary, Ind.: Oct 25, 2006. pg. B.6
Gay bloggers have emerged as the most influential voice in a new wave of journalists who are redefining the way the information game is played...Rogers, considers himself a "gay activist blogger" and targeted Schrock because of his antigay voting record, including support in 2004 of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Rogers also outed Idaho Republican senator Larry Craig, another antigay marriage supporter, after talking to several men who said they'd had sex with Craig in recent years. Craig's office called the reports "almost laughable." "Larry Craig was the biggest search term on the Web for two days," Rogers says. "I was on four radio shows in Idaho and in lots and lots of print media-so much so that the senator issued a nondenial denial. It's extraordinary the change that has gone on." "The cyber mafia" Greg Hernandez. The Advocate. Los Angeles: Jan 16, 2007. , Iss. 978; pg. 48, 5 pgs

While the "mainstream media" treated it with kid gloves, it did get attention ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess like everything here, its how the section is written/reported. Whats reliable, relevant and in what context is it being reported? Is there a balance to "claims" as opposed to known facts? Why is the material being added and how does it improve the article? Is it biased? Anyways, I am not really arguing with the material, but with how and whether it should be presented. Thanks,--Tom 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can decide how best to cover the issue. I think its chief relevance here is that the 2007 incident is not the first time that the issue of Craig's orientation was mentioned in the press. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively in October when it happened. No mainstream source has corroborated the allegation and there was zero mainstream coverage of it when it happened. Basically it simply shouldn't be repeated in his biography without corroboration. A blogger is not a reliable source. It has since been mentioned in articles concerning his arrest. That is the only context in which it could possibly be included here but certainyl not as a separate incident indpendant of the arrest. --DHeyward 05:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The Idaho Statesman corroborated two of the allegations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No it is correct. They didn't corroborate anything. They repeated it. WaPo and NY Times would have went with it if it were corroborated. Both news outlets put reporters on the story and were unable to meet their standards. In fact, IIRC, the Idaho Statesman was roundly criticised by journalism organizations for repeating it. This was all discussed last October. -- ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The section on Mike Rodgers seems notable enough, and well-sourced enough, to include. Mike Rodgers is a blogger who has generated debate on the ethics of "outing" closeted politicians; his allegations at the time generated some coverage in the mainstream media; and most importantly, his allegations caused the Idaho Statesman to start a long investigation into Craig's sexuality and sexual history (the investigation and its results are discussed elsewhere in the article) (ref'd here). In other words, whether or not the allegations were reliable, the allegations themselves are notable. Fireplace 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone still advocating keeping the Mike Rodgers paragraph out? In case there's any RS or N questions remaining, here are four more mainstream sources on his involvement: [2], [3], [4], [5] Fireplace 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Early 1980's section

It looks like that whole section needs a rewrite and better sources. The page scandle broke and Craig issued a denial. Thats as much as I can tell so far according to the articles. Any ideas about how to improve that section? TIA--Tom 05:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the section:In 1982 the mainstream media reported claims that Craig had had sex with men.^[1]‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} In 1982, Craig appeared on NBC News to deny rumors about cocaine use and sex with male teenage congressional pages.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Craig stated "Persons who are unmarried as I am, by choice or by circumstance, have always been the subject of innuendos, gossip and false accusations. I think this is despicable."^[2] --Tom 05:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a source on the first sentence. Why did you add a citation request? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should have used I am skeptical of it tag :) I don't know. Do I need to go look at the article in the library? --Tom 05:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What you might have been wanting is the ^{[need quotation to verify]} tag. I'll find a quote for you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing NBC news looks better and now matches cite, thanks for that. I still would like to see the NY Times article myself. Is that soucable anywhere else? The other articles make it sound like Craig was not accused of anything back then so this contradicts that?--Tom 05:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The NYT has an extensive online archive and most libraries in the U.S. have an archive of it too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the most relevant passage:

Rumors circulating today on Capitol Hill linked at least seven members of Congress, including two members of the House leadership, to homosexual activities, and the names of six other members were being mentioned in the reports of cocaine trafficking. Members generally avoided making public statements about the accusations, lest they seem to give substance to the charges. But Representative Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, issued a statement saying that the reports of homosexual activity reflected a "concerted effort at character assassination." "When all else fails," he said, "persons who are unmarried by choice or circumstance have always been the subject of innuendoes, gossip and false accusations. This is despicable." "AUTHORITIES MEET ON CAPITOL SEX AND DRUG INQUIRY" ROBERT PEAR, New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jul 8, 1982. pg. B.9

Other stories have mentioned how odd it was that Criag made this statement without any known prompting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the first sentence entirely because the source didn't confirm it. The other sentences suffice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the NBC appearance is documented at YouTube here. I'm not sure whether we can link to that clip under copyright laws, but I believe a reference to an unlinked dated news report is an acceptable source. Fireplace 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That link should not even be on the talk page, yet alone the article page, IMHO. --Tom 23:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

References

^ "AUTHORITIES MEET ON CAPITOL SEX AND DRUG INQUIRY" ROBERT PEAR, New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jul 8, 1982. pg. B.9
^ Cite error: The named reference idahoaug28 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Legal Basis of Motion

User Pairadox jumped all over me a while ago for explaining that the legal basis of the plea withdrawal would be that the guilty plea was not VIK, that is not voluntary, intelligent, and not knowing and therefore in violation of his sixth amendment right to counsel. He said I was speculating, and not editing and therefore wasting time. I probably didn't bother to reply. You don't edit in a vacuum, you have to know where a story is going, so you can be alert to developments. In fact, when the motion was filed, the CNN story mentioned intelligent and knowing constitutional basis. In another story, Sen Specter mentions his plea was not intelligent. The gulty plea Craig signed by mail did not include a waiver to counsel form and may also be deficient. I know blogs are not wp:rs but Jeralyn Merrit who is a counselor, and writes I believe for the WashPost has a discussion on it. JeralynGodspeed John Glenn! Will 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)redited Godspeed John Glenn! Will 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you placed it in the article before such motions were filed, then it was speculation; informed speculation perhaps, but still speculation. If you placed it on the talk page, then it was merely discussing the topic of the article and not related to editing the article as it was at the time. Kinda like this section isn't related to editing the article. Pairadox 03:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the article Prometheus is Greek for foresight and Epithemeus for hindsight. "Voluntary" part of VIK is not in article yet nor Sixth Amendment but I'm positive it's in the motion and once it shows up in the media, then it goes in. Observation is a two way street. You have to know what you are looking for. The "spec" is like an APB to emerging media articles. Look for the mailed guilty plea not containing a written waiver of counsel to be prominent in the decision to grant a new trial. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 13:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Constitutionality of arrest"

I am removing this section which appears to be entirely based on the uninformed and biased Worldnetdaily article cited, which is obviously written by someone with no concept of constitutional law. The idea that this is what Billy Martin was referring to when he mentioned "serious constitutional issues" is entirely speculative and almost certainly wrong.

The "Speech or debate" clause does not grant legislators total immunity from criminal proceedings (imagine the anarchic consequences of such a view! this would extinguish the rule of law.)

Rather, it has two parts, most importantly, it provides immunity ("shall not be questioned") only for "speeches or debates" in Congress; which has been interpreted quite narrowly to communications legitimately related to the legislative process. Secondly, except for "Treason, Felony, or Breach of Peace," lawmakers can't be arrested in session or going to and from the same. This only applies to arrests, not to prosecutions. This is to keep the executive from interfering with the legislative process by arbitrarily detaining legislators. A senator driving to Washington can be cited for speeding and required to answer the charges later, but obviously cannot be arrested and prevented from going to vote for an offense like speeding.

In the Craig bathroom saga, it is clear that this clause is of no help at all. Craig may have been en route to Washington, but when he was arrested the officer had no idea he was a senator until after he was booked, Mirandized, and Craig waived his rights. Once Craig literally played the Senator card, the police officers actually did all they could to make sure Craig did not miss his flight (calling the airline), did not detain him against his will, and Craig in fact made it to Washington to vote.

Afterwards, Craig had more than three weeks to consult an attorney and think the case over, and chose to waive all of his constitutional rights by pleading guilty—that is the very nature of a guilty plea. The only issue at this point—where Craig is trying to withdraw his plea—is whether his waiver was valid, and the standard requirements for waiver that every law student knows are that it be knowing and voluntary. To suggest that a United States Senator, released on his own recognizance after three weeks mailing a signed waiver from home is not acting knowingly and voluntarily would be a prosecutor's nightmare and would basically eviscerate the very concept of the guilty plea. For a sophisticated former prosecutor like Arlen Specter to suggest otherwise is entirely disingenuous and obviously his attempt to help out a colleague, but neither he nor Craig has suggested that a senator is constitutionally immune to prosecution for lewd bathroom conduct.

Lastly and most obviously, Craig was arrested for lewd conduct and plead guilty to disorderly conduct. Lewd conduct, and possibly even disorderly conduct, could certainly be interpreted as a Breach of Peace and exempt from this no-arrest clause. NTK 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Craig article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Pairadox 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that NTK's analysis constitutes original research, but as the editor who originally added the section on Article 1, Section 6, I agree it should be removed (or at least reduced to a one sentence summary). The argument has *not* been taken up by the mainstream press (see here) and none of the major law blogs have raised it either (see here). The likely reason is discussed here: "The phrase treason, felony or breach of the peace is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege." (citing Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 446 (1908)). Given all this data, I think that the brief furor over Article 1, Section 6 was the result of non-legal scholars misinterpreting the constitution -- a misinterpretation which never made it past non-law blogs and a couple minor news stories. I don't think it's notable enough to include. Fireplace 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is interesting, and it does go to explain why NTK deleted the apparently incorrect material sourced from WorldNetDaily. In general we should not be making our own evaluations of consitutional or legal issues, and should rely instead on reliable secondary sources. It looks like we'll need to be more careful about picking our sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously what I wrote is "my take" although it is backed up by the sources cited in the Speech or Debate Clause article and not exactly rocket science when it comes to Constitutional law. I did not insert my "research" into the article, I was showing that the material inserted from the WorldNetDaily article was in fact original and fatally defective research, and that is why I removed it. If I did not justify the removal, someone would probably just revert it and claim that it was censorship or bias.

Also, it appears that Fireplace is correct and I was wrong insofar as the "freedom from arrest" clause seems to be virtually obsolete and applying only to civil cases, with the exception encompassing all criminal matters—a good example of the pitfalls of constitutional law. All in all, Section 6 is clearly of no help to Craig. NTK 03:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeralyn in discussing this topic points out that this matter has been adjudicated and the Speech and Debate clause protects from Arrest and NOT prosecution. It could be used to suppress his statements after his arrest as "fruit of the poison tree." His best bet is no waiver of counsel form in the mailed in guilty plea, motion for new trial, then a deferred prosecution, and a dismissal by the prosecution (not the court and therefore no plea, no verdict no record) upon a short passage of time and his good behavior. All of this would depend on the prosecutor wanting to play ball- an inherently political and discretionary act. This is not in the nature of speculation but to provide insight to non-legal editorsGodspeed John Glenn! Will 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Free speech

(in plea withdrawal section) The ACLU filed an amici curiae brief presenting a different constitutionality argument:

" When free speech rights come into play, police enforcement actions must be "carefully crafted" so that they don’t unnecessarily ensnare people who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech." and that "the defendant should be permitted to withdraw his plea, and, should the state recharge him, to contest the constitutional validity of any prosecution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nearly Human (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The update from Jeralyn is that plea w/d motion did not include the ground of the failure by the Court (the printed guilty by mail form) to inform him of his right to counsel. I was not able to look at the pdf motion due to a software snafu. She, therefore, thinks the motion will fail. By the way, does the article anywhere mention that Minneapolis is the site of the 2008 GOP conventionGodspeed John Glenn! Will 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination?

It seems a bit premature to me to nominate this for GA. Point 3 of the GA criteria is stability. With the number of edits to this article, and the fact that it is still an ongoing event, this article will not meet that criterion for a while yet. I suggest holding this nomination until the dust has fully settled. Jeffpw 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Second that. At the least, the GA nomination should be held off until after resolution of the hearing on overturning the plea agreement or his final resignation from the U.S. Senate, which ever occurs last. →Lwalt^♦ talk 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Glory hole (sexual)

Feel free to delete this for BLP reasons but are there any reliable sources which mention what he'd likely been planning to do? Was he likely planning to use a Glory hole (sexual) or simply waiting for the police officer to let him into his stall (or perhaps for the police officer to enter his stall)? Nil Einne 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't image how a reliable source could tell us what kind of sex he was planning to have since he's denied planning to have any. The Idaho Statesmen does have a description of one alleged sexual incident involving the subject from which readers can draw their own conclusions. The subject pleaded guilty only to a vague crime so we have to be careful about presuming too much. We can report on important commemtary, but we can't speculate on our own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the plea petition, Craig only pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct as a misdemeanor as alleged in the complaint filed against him in the Minnesota court. He was charged under Minnesota statute 609.72, subdivision 1 under part (3), and that was the charge to which he pleaded guilty in his petition that he signed and mailed to the court. The wording of the statute explains the nature of the misdemeanor charge and guilty plea to this charge, which does not include disorderly conduct as it pertains to sexual conduct nor mentions a specific sexual act. Readers can interpret and decide for themselves what this information about the charge means to them. Any interpretion of this information for inclusion in the article would be original research, since no media source has reported what sexual act he actually did or intended to do in that incident. →Lwalt^♦ talk 05:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tourist attraction

I removed this material. If the airport starts to charge an admission fee, then maybe its worth a mention. thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

it has certainly made the news w/ pix of the stall, but it probably doesn't belong in his BiO article. All kinds of articles, people asking directions, asking to be photographed, etc.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The sites of many famous crimes, major and minor, become points of interest, if only briefly. The condominium entrance where Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered was a major tourist site until the owners redesigned it. I suspect that people will lose interest in this location over time. The fact of its notoriety isn't really relevant to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: It might be worth noting in Minneapolis Airport, where I see it's already been added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

'left without flushing the toilet'

i removed a line that stated that he left the stall without flushing the toilet, with the edit summary 'remove speculative commentary'. that was incorrect - it wasn't the line in the article that was speculative commentary, it was the edit summary justifying the addition that was speculative commentary - to wit "actually...it kind of implies that Craig wasn't in there to go to the bathroom, since he didn't flush the toilet)". *that* is speculative commentary. another perfectly reasonable speculation might be that having been confronted with an officer arresting you, you might as easily forget to flush the toilet too. whether he did or didn't doesn't imply anything - the reader can only infer from it. and we're not in the business of adding content to an encyclopedia with the intent of having people infer one way or another from it. hope that's clear enough. Anastrophe 06:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Readers can and will interpret whatever is in the article. We already include a number of details of the crime and arrest. I'm not sure why the hand and foot motions are more important than the non-flushing. For so long as we include some details I don't see a bsis for deciding on some while omitting others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so important to include this part of the police report in the article? Folks can go read it if they want. The rehashing of the report in the body of this bio is already too long/weighed for the article, imho. It appears that a single purpose account is pushing for inclusion of this material? Thanks, --Tom 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we flushing or not flushing the toilet again? Funny that we're revisiting this issue. I agree that leaving out information that was included in the criminal complaint changes the context of the incident. The context of the incident as stated in this article does not represent the same one that formed the intent for the arrest -- talked about that too and the significance of the omission. →Lwalt^♦ talk 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

unless the criminal complaint is included in the article verbatim, editors are making their own judgements about what is or is not relevant. that's POV. either the entire criminal complaint should be included, or it should simply be linked to. Anastrophe 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds pretty reasonable. You sure you're at the right place :) I would vote/argue for just linking the complaint and being done with it. Cheers! --Tom 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It'd be better to remove all details of the arrest rather than picking and choosing which we think are relevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that we type in every word of an indictment or arrest report, or refrain from mentioning anything in it. I do not know what policy would restrict us to those two alternatives. The criterion is what from the report or indictment has been discussed in reliable independent third party sources, such as newspapers and magazines. If reporters and editors there find that hand movements under the stall divider, foot tapping and foor contact are important but leaving without flushing when the officer tells him he is under arrest isn't important enough to discuss or analyze, then we do not have to include the non-flush in the encyclopedia article. Non-flushing is a regrettable common action, unlike the other actions. If you examine any other legal case, you will find many statements in the arrest report or the indictment that are not included in the related encyclopedia article, for good reason. It is original research for Wikipedia contributors to decide what has probative value, and to construct defense or prosecutorial arguments which might have been presented if there had actually been a trial. Edison 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way, as proposed some time ago, to lift the weight is the split the article. However, that proposal was not agreed upon either, with an administrator leading the way (reason given was that the article was not long enough for a split). Efforts to cherry pick publicly known details present the appearance of sanitizing the article. But, we know that Wikipedia is not censored, nevertheless.

Now, for the news: links to "higher quality" sources from the mainstream media that repeat the bathroom scene from the police report.

Craig: I did nothing inappropriate in airport bathroom. (2007, August 28). CNN. Retrieved on September 26, 2007.

Senator Craig Pleads Guilty to Disorderly Conduct. (2007, August 27). KPVI-TV (Pocatello, ID). Retrieved on September 26, 2007.

Bolstad, E., Hahn, G. & Sewell, C. (2007, August 27). Larry Craig quits Romney campaign as news of men's room arrest spreads. The Idaho Statesman. Retrieved on September 26, 2007. →Lwalt^♦ talk 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if we're going to include some details then media reports are the best guide. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Washpost has some video that gives you tour thru the Sen. eyes. Upon Arrival at the gate, he passes by seven other restrooms to get to the spot. He then takes a wide stance in a 32" stall. It looks pretty unconvincing for him.VideoGodspeed John Glenn! Will 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Quickfail

The People

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. As this event is currently unfolding, and has not managed to stay stable for very long since it was nominated, I'm quickfailing the article for now. I suggest that the events are allowed to unfold before this article is re-nominated. In addition, there seems to be a huge lack of balance here, in that half of the article discusses one event in his life and the other half is left for everything else. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 19:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Dating

"On October 18, 2007, Craig announced his intention to appeal the decision of the court."

Considering that it's now October 15th, and the reference for this article brings up an error, can someone fix this? I haven't yet heard this, so I don't know what the proper date is (but assume it's probably today, the 15th). --CWSensation^t 05:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed. Anastrophe 06:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Incorrect Dating." Yep, that's what he was charged with! Joegoodfriend 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

New rumors about gay sex

New rumors have surfaced about Larry Craig having sex with a young man named David Phillips in 1987 and should be added to the article. This is reported by Sfist: http://sfist.com/2007/10/25/larry_craig_had.php PageOneQ: http://pageoneq.com/news/2007/Man_I_had_sex_with_Larry_C_1025.html Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/politics/larry-craig-sex-exclusive!/exclusive-i-had-sex-with-larry-craig-314897.php Village Voice: http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/runninscared/archives/2007/10/larry_craig_goe.php Town Hall: http://kevinmccullough.townhall.com/g/af1e546a-d6c8-416c-a273-96daa4be071f 67.169.43.75 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

None of those are acceptable reliable sources for a biography of a living person. FCYTravis 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the village voice is an extremely valuable source. Having had seen fox news and the heritage institue cited on w-pedia, a newspaper which has a history of accurate and groundbreaking reporting shouldn't be ignored.

If the Village Voice link led to any original reporting and research on the issue, you'd be right. Instead, it's just a link to the Wonkette blog's piece. A reliable source merely posting a link to a non-reliable source does not magically make that non-reliable source acceptable in a BLP. FCYTravis 04:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Another source that I just found: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/10/will-craig-sex-accusers-make-the-cut.php

67.169.43.75 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We need more than gossip sites and blogs. Just wait until it hits the MSM. If there's substance to it, it will soon enough. FCYTravis 21:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

interesting. the section title and first sentence have been modified from "New allegations" to "New information". it's amazing how the credibility of the sources is growing by the minute. as FCYTravis suggested, this is just gossip, and the sources aren't WP:RS. Anastrophe 22:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed that because I felt the word "allegation" has a negative connotation. Speciate 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, allegation implies criminal behavior, which this certainly wouldn't be. Gross hypocrisy is not actionable in any court except that of public opinion. FCYTravis 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

while some people may infer that 'allegation' implies criminal behavior, that's more the fault of the inferrer, rather than the word, which is not limited thusly. Anastrophe 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Words have power. Speciate 23:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

so do cordless drills. your point? never mind. it's not worth another argument about the rise of the lowest common denominator to pre-eminence. Anastrophe 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The only one that looked like it might be reliable at first glance was the Voice, but that's just another bloggy rehash of the Wonkette info. If this bear ends up on Larry King, then maybe there's something publishable. - Crockspot 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote:" Having had seen fox news and the heritage institue cited on w-pedia"

What is the purpose of the mention of Fox News? If you are inferring that they are disreputable because they do not align with your personal politics, then that amounts to nothing more than the equivalent of a schoolyard taunt. You could just as easily say "Having seen NBC cited" I think it's important, even in this context to keep things on a factual basis, and not waste other people's time with imbecilic little political digs. Fox is no more conservative than other media outlets are unabashedly liberal in their bent. If that is the yardstick for journalistic integrity, then all media outlets are disreputable by your definition.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC))

Mugshot

I have discussed this with Jimbo, I do not believe it is acceptable to include a mugshot in this way. The Hugh Grant mugshot was a meme of its own, I don't believe this is. It serves no purpose as identification (the existing free image is fine for that). Please do not restore it, this is a WP:BLP article. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

please provide a pointer to your discussion with Jimbo, so that we may read it as well. WP runs on consensus, not "what jimbo said" claims. yes, this is a WP:BLP. and within that definition is that of a public figure, which mr. craig assuredly is. Anastrophe 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the Jimbo discussion that Guy is referring to, also. But, the way that this editor is handling this situation has me wondering whether circumvention of the process is being tried once again to thwart collaboration and consensus, which were also the issues at hand in the Deletion Review a while back. →Lwalt^♦ talk 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to invoke Wales in this matter. The question is whether the photo's prurient value is outweighed by its importance to the article. In the case of some criminals and celebrities, the mugshot is one of the best-known images. In the case of Craig, the mugshot has not become especially well-known. On the other hand, making the mugshot a main image on Wikipedia will tend to make it one of the most accessed photos of the subject. Since it was a misdemeanor, and since the subject isn't a criminal per se, using a mug shot seeme to be unnecessarily derogatory. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

that's a reasonable rationale, certainly more so than invoking "jimbo says so", which i find contemptuous of the process we're ostensibly supposed to work within. Anastrophe 06:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Will is right, and that's what I said too. Lwalt has now twice reverted my removal of the mugshot, and I'm rather hoping he won't do so again. As to invoking Jimbo, I don't particularly care if the anti-establishment crowd find anything he says to be an excuse to do the opposite, my experience of him is that he is very clear-sighted when it comes to WP:BLP issues, which is the problem here. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

interesting, but completely unresponsive, while attempting to imply motive via apparently a crystal ball. so, WP:CIVIL apparently goes out the window too. is this any way to run a consensus-driven encyclopedia? Anastrophe 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I expect that JzG's initial posting may have failed to include a fuller description of the issues about the photo because it has been discussed before here and elsewhere. Another point he may not have made fully is that we try to minimize the user of "fair use" images for a variety of reasons. With one free use image already available there is even less reason to use a a "fair use" image. Some points, like copyright rules, are beyond article-by-article consensus and have been decided on a project-wide basis. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Anastrophe, consensus is represented by WP:BLP, which has very many edits and solid support. What that policy says is, we must be extra careful where an article subject is a living individual. Now you may think it pretty trivial what goes on in a Wikipedia article, but I have seen many emails from people who are hurt and distressed by what we say. Being careful means we carefully weigh whether any content genuinely improves our understanding of the subject. In this case, including the mugshot does not do that. It does not illustrate the text, because a booking photograph is taken for all persons charged so is not especially bound to the event, the case or the aftermath. It is not a meme of its own, as the Hugh Grant mugshot is. And of course it is listed as unfree, which as Will notes is a problem in itself. But the major issue is that of WP:BLP. However hypocritical the subject is, and however much we may laugh at his calamity, Wikipedia is supposed to rise above that and state the facts in terms of studied neutrality. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if this has already been asked and answered, but aren't mugshots free use, given that they are government pictures? Jeffpw 15:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that works of the federal govt. are public domain, but works of the various states are copywritten by the states. Most mug shots are done by state entities, not federal. - Crockspot 15:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

i already concurred with user Will Beback's initial rationale. you are continuing to avoid and deflect what i consider an egregious abuse of the wikipedia process: saying "jimbo says so". i'm interested in how i might procure such a backchannel to mr. wales, is there a process for gaining access? are conversations in that regard 'off the record', but citable within wikipedia as enforceable policy? for that matter, what is to prevent me or any other editor claiming - without any need for a WP:RS reference - to have "spoken with jimbo"? WP:AGF only goes so far. please provide a valid citation for this conversation with jimbo, so that other editors and readers may verify for themselves that it took place. thank you. Anastrophe 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that's not what I said. I said, I have done this, here is why, please don't undo it, I'm talking to Jimbo about it. I'm perfectly well aware that no article can be too critical for some, this is after all an article about a politician who appears to have engaged in gross hypocrisy, but the fact that he's a hypocrite is not an excuse to gratuitously include content designed to make him look bad. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

i formally give up trying to get an honest answer on my inquiries. every response has been evasive, and has been uncivil in suggesting ulterior motive without any evidence to support it ('no article can be too critical for some'). reading your userpage, there are indications that you're a WP admin. if so, i'm appalled. Anastrophe 15:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I agree that the mugshots should not be included at this time. However, I am finding the tone of your comments to be unnecessarily confrontational and not fun to be around. Comments like "an excuse to gratuitously include content designed to make him look bad" are not constructive in the least. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I note that Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who was arrested in a very public incident, has a normal photo and not a mugshot. Wouldn't your "fair use vs. public domain" argument demand that Blagojevich's mugshot be used? RichardWrite01 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)RichardWrite01

Infobox

Oughtn't there be a line in the infobox that lists the most recent time Craig (or any Senator, for that matter) was elected? Seems to me just as important as who preceeded him. Maybe it could go after one of the "incumbents". Thanks. Mdiamante 02:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC) added: Just checked some other Senators' articles; many have the end year of the current term in parentheses after the second "incumbent", viz, Barbara Boxer. Mdiamante 02:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Credibility

Is there anyone who believes Craig's version of the incident? If it's someone in public life, it should be noted for balance.Dynzmoar (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

you seem to be making a point, but i'm not clear what it is. it isn't relevant to the article whether anyone believes Craig's version of the incident. Anastrophe (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Five Men Claim Gay Sex with Larry Craig

USA Today, Miami Herald, Houston Chronicle, etc. are reporting that five new men have come out saying they have had gay sex with Larry Craig:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5345035.html http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2007/12/idaho-statesman.html http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/reporter-conduc.html http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/paper-more-gay.html http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/idaho_statesman_dishes_more_dirt_on_craig.php http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/226703.html

24.6.22.80 16:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been added to the article. -- ALLSTARecho 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And changed of course (what controversial information isn't?). I've got issue wuth Anastrophe taking out "describing" as that's the basis of the source - you can actually listen to the recordings and descriptions of the alledged sexual meetings. Therefore, it's not "implicit" as Anastrophe claims and are in fact 2 seperate pieces of the puzzle if you will. -- ALLSTARecho 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

of course it is. please explain how someone can allege xyz without describing xyz. Anastrophe 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The descriptions given are not alleged, they are actual primary source recordings and news reports. To say alleged sounds like one is disputing that the five men described what they described. The sex acts with Craig may, nor may not be alleged, but the descriptions are most certainly are not. They happened. As far as how one can allege without describing... easy just leave out all the details. Then it's no longer a description, just an allegation, and nothing else. Description is not implicit in allegation, they are two different concepts. Granted allegations may also contain descriptions, but it's not necessary. At this point two established editors agree that "describing" belongs in the article. — Becksguy 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but i have to say that's nonsense. "as far as how one can allege without describing...easy just leave out all the details.". please provide an example, this should be an interesting exercise in communication.Anastrophe 19:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

it should also be noted that these allegation, while referenced, may violate WP:BLP. it is impossible to determine whether the claims made by these persons are truthful; they may or may not constitute slander, and since the claims can't be corroborated, they shouldn't be included in a WP bio. Anastrophe 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure they should and you should stop trying to censor and whitewash the controversial information. -- ALLSTARecho 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, but please be civil. i'm not trying to "whitewash" or "censor" anything, i'm trying to have the article remain encyclopedic and within policy. please don't imply motive when you have no basis for it. Anastrophe 20:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck... The basis speaks for itself. It's obvious "alleged" and "describing" are two entirely seperate things in this instance. But don't worry your self over it any longer, I'll edit the section in a bit so that they are seperated and then you'll get your way and the rest of WP will get accuracy. -- ALLSTARecho 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

you are being exceedingly rude. you are attacking me based upon what you are assuming are my motives. your assumptions are incorrect. but don't let that stop you from being verbally abusive to a fellow editor. Anastrophe 21:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone says "A criminal act was committed", that is just an allegation without any information that describes what, where, who, when, etc. It's not a description and contains absolutely nothing of use in establishing credibility.

WP:BLP is separate issue, but with a reliable mainstream news source, The Idaho Statesman, backed up with recorded interviews with five separate men and background investigations into them and Craig, the cited sources satisfy the verifiability requirements. Associated Press has added it's imprimatur, and several other reliable and reputable mainstream newspapers, by reporting the story, also believe it's credible. There is only one sentence in the article, which is obviously not giving undue weight to the this issue. So I believe it does not violate WP:BLP, although it's a good question to being up and merits serious consideration. Thank you. — Becksguy 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

we're pushing into semantics pretty badly here, but "a criminal act was committed" describes an allegation. i see your point, however. if anything, if this remains in the article, it should be expanded (do you hear that, allstarecho?), so that these specifics can be clarified - a single sentence in the article is not adequate to explain the above. however, even though mainstream news has noted it, it still falls into a somewhat grey area wrt a WP bio. however, his standing as a public figure almost certainly trumps that. Anastrophe 21:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't ask me if I hear something, apparently you missed my expanded related comment when I said I'll edit the section in a bit so that they, "alleged" and "describing" are seperated. BLP doesn't come into play when it's sourced by legitimate outlets. -- ALLSTARecho 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

again, more pointless rudeness. you seem to have missed the finer subtleties of my parenthetical, which was intended to demonstrate that your accusations of censorship are baseless. but, this isn't productive. you may have the last - i expect uncivil - word. Anastrophe 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

With these five new men coming on the record, including four publishing their names, and considering what they independently have described, it's now just far beyond belief to continue resisting the categorisation of this subject in Category:Gay politicians, or at least Category:LGBT people from the United States.81.177.16.151 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy does not allow that until the allegations are proven. See WP:BLP. -- ALLSTARecho 04:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The article is already tagged with WikiProject LGBT studies. Are there any persons in Category:Gay politicians or Category:LGBT who absolutely deny that they are gay? Or only persons out of the closet? Joegoodfriend 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No. It is established policy that only persons who self-describe as gay or lesbian will be categorized as gay or lesbian. FCYTravis 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Now Eight Men Claim Gay Sex

CBS News, Associated Press and others are now reporting eight men have come forward claiming to have had sex with Larry Craig.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hnzMHYGd-aXQbgughBA40pWNvlxQD8T9UU2O0 http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/04/publiceye/entry3572031.shtml 24.6.22.220 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Law & Order Reference

On the Law & Order episode that was broadcast on 30 January, Larry Craig's "Bathroomgate" incident was fictionalized. Should we include a quip about that? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

as an encyclopedia, 'quips' about living persons are generally not tolerated. fictionalized representations of a living person are probably not going to be welcomed either. did the L&O episode mention craig by name? no? then it has no place in this article. Anastrophe (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I am simply asking if it was appropriate. You did not need to get hostile with me. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry you took it as hostile. i consider it merely blunt. Anastrophe (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And I consider you, sir, to be extremely rude, to say the least. Mind your manners in the future! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

likewise - your comment on my talk page to "not act like an a-hole when you speak" puts me in mind of the pot calling the kettle black. my comments above addressed your arguments, i didn't call you an "a-hole" for bringing it up. as i said, it was blunt, but hardly hostile or rude. now, can we get back to discussing the article, rather than your feelings? Anastrophe (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anastrophe is off base... that Law & Order bases an entire episode on someone is usually often notable enough to mention in their article. Law & Order would never mention the person the episode is actually based on in the episode, for obvious legal reasons (they include a standard fiction disclaimer). The problem is referencing that the episode was based on Craig and that it was at all notable... so far I see a blog, Raw Story, and a "Today on TV" column from The Deseret News. I'm not sure what "Raw Story" is exactly but this doesn't seem like fantastic sourcing right off the bat. But if this gets wider coverage, as something of actual sociopolitical importance, I'd say it's fair game for inclusion in this article. --W.marsh 02:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

it strikes me as barely notable. at random, i just checked the Natalie Holloway and Valerie Plame articles - the former mentions that L&O did a show ostensibly based on her story, but the latter makes no mention. i think it falls into the 'if a wikipedia editor saw the episode they probably added it' syndrome. meh. knock yourselves out. i see it as just adding garbage to a BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And you're probably right, given the lack of concern for this episode beyond 2 blogs and a "tonight on television" page. I honestly thought a few more sources would have cared enough to mention it... but I guess it really is not notable, based on the evidence thus far. But when deciding whether to include something in an article or not, we should look to the sources first, rather than try to make categorical decisions based on our own values. In this case, the sources do seem to bare out that the connection wasn't very important. Had I gone with my own gut instinct, I would have said "include it", by the way. --W.marsh 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

since i haven't seen the episode (and likely never will), i don't know in what manner they fictionalized the incident, or what degree of objectivity or accuracy the episode had. i do think though that since this is a BLP, it falls into a very grey area. what if, at the end of the episode, they had the ostensible mr. craig publicly 'coming out'? since it's a fictionalization, there's nothing that would've prevented them from having that as the outcome of the episode. and that would likely fall into the 'leave it out' realm based on BLP standards. i dunno. 'grey area' seems to sum it up for me. Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of campaign funds for private purposes

Is there any information on the legality of using these funds without permission from the respective Senate comittee? Here (and in the newspapers) it says that this is not correct, but is this just an ethical question (i.e what Craig does is not okay, but no one can do anything about it except admonish him) or can it be prosecuted? --Bernardoni (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Born Lawrence?

I know for a fact that Larry is a nickname for Lawrence. Is it possible that Larry Edwin Craig was born Lawrence Edwin Craig? 205.210.159.33 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:American criminals, or not?

I've noticed a revert war starting to brew on this issue. Most people consider only felons to be "criminals", not those found guilty of misdemeanors. That's why I strongly favor not including Craig in the Category:American criminals. I say that even though my personal politics differ markedly from Craig, his supporters, and his anti-gay track record. Furthermore, I personally created the website Repervlicans.com which contains 13 video segments each making fun at Craig's expense. But for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity and neutrality, I strongly oppose his article being in the Category:American criminals. --Art Smart (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pleaded" versus "Pled"

It is my impression that "pled" is a colloquial Americanism for the past tense of "plead." Any reputable legal journal (or related paper) appears to use "pleaded." (cf Columbia Journalism Review). I've tried fixing this article once, but my edits were reverted. So, rather than engage in an edit war on the topic, I'd like to raise the issue explicitly -- why are people actively reverting "pleaded" to the less-formal "pled"? Shouldn't encyclopedic content be formal instead of colloquial? - AdamRoach (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I have determined that the guilty party is a permanently blocked user who has been repeatedly disruptive in a manner similar to this (so I presume he will not comment here to defend his position). I will fix the article accordingly. -- AdamRoach (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "pled" sounds better. The past tense of "lead" is "led", not "leaded". The word "pled" is more common in the legal world. Round55 (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that, in spoken, informal speech, "pled" rolls off the tongue more naturally than "pleaded" -- in the same way that "wanna" comes out more easily than "want to." But the tone of wikipedia is intended to be encylopedic, which tends to more a more formal writing style. I'm not certain about your claim that "pled" is more common in the legal world -- the CJR article I cited collected actual data on the point and concluded: "A Nexis search turned up 'pleaded' overwhelmingly." If you have evidence to the contrary (that is, anything other than anecdote), please present it. The same article, speaking of formal writing, indicates: "The Associated Press stylebook, the guide on such matters for most American newspapers, condemns 'pled' as colloquial. And the New York Times stylebook, also influential, prescribes 'pleaded' without comment." I'm not saying your opinion is invalid, but I think we'd need some fairly good arguments, probably with citations, to second guess the editorial staff of the AP and the NYT (as well as actual recorded formal usage by lawyers in Lexis-Nexis). --AdamRoach (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think “want to” and “wanna” is comparable to “pled” and “pleaded” because “pled” is a word, “wanna” is not. That’s a tremendous difference. Also, how can the word “pled” not be considered appropriate if it is routinely used by lawyers and judges?

One more thing… the past tense of “lead” is “led”, not “leaded”. He wanted to lead, so he led.

Thanks for the discussion, even though we disagree. Round55 (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The plural of "mouse" is "mice." The plural of "house" is "houses." According to your logic, one of these is wrong.

Your assertion that "pled" is routinely used by lawyers and judges is still just an unsupported assertion. Cite something. For example, you could say something like: "This article, published by the Washington State Bar Association, warns against the use of pled.'" Except you'll want to find find one that supports your position. ("I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true" was meant by Lewis Carrol as irony, not guidance). --AdamRoach (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Two things of note. Pleaded is the correct term to use in situations like this, unless you are quoting someone who said "pled". And User:Round55 is almost certainly another sockpuppet of User:Improve2009. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link AdamRoach. I hadn't heard that. Seems like a very credible source supporting the use of "pleaded". That gives me something to think about. Please note, I have not changed "pleaded" to "pled" on Sen. Craig's page. I've just been participating in the discussion on the talk page. Round55 (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also...we don't say "readed", "bleeded", or "speeded". To me "pled" sounds better. I won't change any pages though, you've convinced me. Round55 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(A repost of my comment at User talk:Round55) - No, but we do say heeded, weeded, seeded, kneaded, cheated, defeated, bleated and a host of other similar constructs. "Pled" is an unusual inflection that is not in formal use. It is the kind of word used by illiterate TV reporters. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote: "Former senator"

74.166.89.205 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The article begins with "This article is about the former Idaho senator". I believe Larry Craig is still a sitting senator.

I've fixed it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Template

I've stirred this pot over at Charlie Christ, but can anyone provide a clear explanation as to why an LBGT studies project tag is on this talk page? This conversation started here and expanded to the village pump later. In my opinion, application of an LBGT project tag to a BLP solely on the basis of rumors relating to the subject's homosexuality is improper. I'll wait a while and see if someone can provide a clear explanation of why either that view is wrong or why Larry Craig is under the scope of LBGT studies. If not, I'll remove the tag. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would assume its tagged for the same reason that the WikiProject Biography, WikiProject U.S. Congress, Minnesota WikiProject and WikiProject Idaho have tagged the article--there is an active interest by project members in maintaining the accuracy and standards of the article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 07:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

... So that's why the tag was added right after his scandal, right? Protonk (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters what exactly the "spark" that ignited the interest was but the act of tagging does indicate an active interest by project. That interest in maintaining accuracy and standards of the article is the only thing that the tag conveys--and frankly, the only thing that matters. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 08:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, that edit summary you linked to above just switched a "light bulb" for me and sheds some light on the disagreement over at Talk:Charlie Crist. I think there is some overlapping association with what categories conveys versus what a project tag conveys that is root of the problem. Tagging an article with an LGBT category implies something completely different from the LGBT project tag. A category says something about subject that is concrete and definitive. While a project tag merely indicates that there is an active interest (for whatever reason) by a particular project in maintaining accuracy and standards for an article. The project tag doesn't really say anything about the subject beyond the fact that there is some interest by an organized project on the topic. I fret that some editors are associating the LGBT project tag on the talk pages of Charlie Crist or Larry Craig with a some phantom "Possibly Gay Republican Politician" category. It seems that this type of discussion (particularly the one at Talk:Charlie Crist) uses the connotation of this phantom category with the LGBT project tag almost interchangeably. That's a bit off course since the two could not be further apart in implication and reality. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 08:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the LGBT project tag only gets applied to pages where the republican is either a genuine hateful bigot or possibly gay, then perhaps we should treat it as a 'possibly gay republican or horrible bigot' tag. I understand what you are saying, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, then why are we calling it a moose? We can add the layer of 'the project takes interest in...', but then we just show that (among republicans) the project only takes interest in horrible bigots and possibly homosexual people. But that layer doesn't change anything. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The LGBT tag (like any project tag) is only being applied to those articles that there is an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards on. That is it, as boring and mundane as it is. There is simply no reason to assume negative connotations and create imaginary, phantom categories out of thin air when the only things that your fellow Wikipedian editors are doing is working to improve the encyclopedia. The core of your contention rest on a confusion between what categories are versus what a project tag is. As I explained on Talk:Charlie Crist, 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. In this discussion (and the one at Charlie Crist), your entire argument is based on an imaginary, phantom category that you've created and then misapplied it to a Wikiproject tag. It's like someone who doesn't like drinking creating an imaginary, phantom "Drunken, belligerent fool" category and mis-applied it to every biography with the WP:WINE tag. It's silly and is not a valid argument to remove a project tag. We don't accept imaginary, phantom sources or imaginary, phantom article subjects. Similarly, there is no reason for us to accept imaginary, phantom categories as substitution for project tags. All these imaginary, phantom things do is cause us to lose focus of what we're here for---building an encyclopedia. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 17:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see the concern from both angles, here. There does appear to exist some minor BLP concern, as a tag on a talk page - regardless of the fact that it is a boring, mundane maintenance-related sort of tag. It is not beyond the realm of reason to suggest that someone unfamiliar with the purpose or scope of wikiproject tags to assume that the tag is some kind of implicit endorsement by the Wikipedia community that the subject itself is LGBT. I don't think it's the sort of problem that warrants any kind of active policing, but since our BLP policies tend to err on the side of caution I would say that perhaps the same should apply here - if an editor has expressed concern that the inclusion of the LGBT wikiproject tag on a subject's talk page might be misconstrued in its meaning or intent, perhaps it is safer to remove the tag. Shereth 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BRD. Well, I'm waiting for some sort of positive justification. BLP advises caution and the burden is on the editor adding content or information, so I'm sorry that this hasn't been produced. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to explain the difference between categories (which says something about the topic--i.e. the living person) and project tags which merely says something about the article in regards to WHO is interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in that BLP-but apparently to no avail. You seem to be introducing some new concepts and applications of BLP which would probably be better approached in a Village Pump thread. A current reading of WP:BLP doesn't seem to suggest that mere attention and interest in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article by a certain group of editors constitutes a BLP violation. Such an applications would certainly be a radical one for Wikipedia and deserves more discussion than what has been achieved on this talk page and at Talk:Charlie Crist alone. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making. I think that it is a technicality. Even if we add in the layer of 'subjects under the interest of X', we still get back to the reason why the subject is of interest. That reason is plainly because the subject is rumored to be gay. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article of interest to the Idaho project, to the Minnesota Project, to the US Senator project? Why does it matter what sparks the interest of ANY Wikipedia editor or group of editors to want to maintain accuracy and standards in an article? Why should any group of editors be explicitly excluded or prohibited from taking an interest in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article because their interest is being interpreted as a BLP violation? The difference between a category and project tag is far more than just a technicality. This radical and far reaching interpretation of BLP based on the "confusion" between categories/project tags essentially has the effect of labeling the interest of editors in working on an article as a BLP violation and such those editors should be banned from the article. That's a very chilling interpretation and one that shouldn't be brushed aside as "technicality". Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Look. Wikipedia isn't a social force for good. It is an encyclopedia. There is a SOCIAL reason why rumors about sexual orientation are considered unseemly and descriptions of state of origin are not. We aren't going to solve homophobia and marginalization here and I suggest we try not to. BLP is the governing policy here and the guidance from that policy is to avoid rumor and innuendo about living persons on and off article space. This sucks for LGBT. It sucks bad. It means that project attention might be misinterpreted in some cases. It is NOT our job to rectify that misinterpretation just like it is not our job to argue that rumors about homosexuality aren't 'negative' or 'defamatory' in articlespace. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia isn't a social force for good. It is an encyclopedia." You are 100% right. All the more reason not to inject "social POVs" into mundane, maintenance aspects of the encyclopedia---things like project tags. We should be focusing on the encyclopedia, on maintaining accuracy and standards in our articles. Wikiprojects are here to do the same thing that every other good faith editor is here to do---build an encyclopedia. Focusing time and energy to label their interest in maintaining accuracy and standards in articles as a negative under novel interpretation of policies is counterproductive. We should be focusing on the encyclopedia, not on pigeonholing and excluding other editors because of "social forces" who happen to not like their lifestyle. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent). how droll. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, considering that I have never introduced "homophobia or marginalization" into the conversation (and frankly consider them irrelevant to the discussion), you may want to set those red herrings aside. The topic is what purpose does Wikiproject tags do. As I've been consistently noting, Wikiproject tags (whether they be MilHist, WP:WINE, LGBT or whatever) merely serve to indicate that some editors are interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in articles. The topic of conversation is about building an encyclopedia, not about social forces or homophobia or whatever. Throughout this discussion (and the one at Talk:Charlie Crist) you seem to want to steer it away from the encyclopedia building to introduce these social forces, homophobia, mythical and imaginary categories, etc. As I noted above, these red herrings are a bit counterproductive and distracting from the core topic. I suggest reviewing your contentions to try and clearly articulate what is wrong with a group of editors wanting to maintain accuracy and standards in an article and why their good faith contributions should be excluded or "banned" from an article. Again, my interest and contentions have been on the encyclopedia building aspects--if you wish to counter my contentions it is best to stay on topic and not drift off into other arenas. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to insist that I'm breaking the magic circle here. When you ask why LGBT is different from WINE, what sort of answer to you expect? I'm also glad that you're accusing me of bringing in homophobia to wikipedia. That is AWESOME! All caps awesome. Hell, I should go back and bold it. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I wasn't clear. I meant that you were introducing these things to the discussion when frankly, they should be irrelevant. We're talking about encyclopedia building and the role of a project tag--not social forces, homophobia etc. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 23:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry there was that confusion. I think what "brings" all that hateful garbage into wikipedia is the requirements from BLP (not that BLP is bad, just that it tethers us to what people may consider negative 'out there'). In this case, that is the connection. I don't think I'm inserting it artificially, just reading it from BLP. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue is brutally, mind-numbingly, stunningly simple. If you are not a members of WP:LGBT, you should not be moving the talk page template. If an ArbCom case has to be set up to determine this, then let's get on it right now. How intelligent adults can't come to any kind of agreement is beyond me, but I completely and catastrophically fail to understand why it's anyone's business outside of WP:LGBT what we template. I would never assume to know what WP:MICHIGAN, WP:JUDAISM, or WP:FEMINISM finds worthy of tagging. --Moni3 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN applies to Wikiprojects, as well. LGBT does not have sole discretion over whether or not articles get the tag. The above statement has absolutely no foundation in Wikipedia policy or procedures. Shereth 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"WP:OWN applies to Wikiprojects, as well." I agree but then I don't believe that a Wikiproject dictates any ownership. Those that do try to claim ownership are doing so outside the purpose of project tag--which is merely to indicate that a group of editors has interest in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article. Moni contention is that is rather fruitless for people outside a project to tell a Wikiproject what article that should or should not have interest in maintaining accuracy and standards for. A large point of contention is whether anyone has the right (outside of an Arbcom topic ban) to tell any editor what articles they should or should not be interested in. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are unnecessarily confounding the question of "Is the tag appropriate" with "Telling editors they should not be interested". Perhaps the question of "questionable" WikiProject tagging is one for a broader audience than just here on Senator Craig's talkpage, but the dire proclamations of refusing an editor/group/project from "taking interest" in an article is a logical fallacy and bordering on absurd. Shereth 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No...it really is the core topic of this entire discussion. A wikiproject tag indicates nothing else but that a group of editors have an interest in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article. It doesn't indicate WP:OWNership. It doesn't say anything about the subject, only that a group of editors are interested in the article. This discussion is about the LGBT Wikiproject tag and therefore objections to the tag are objecting to the LGBT project having interest in maintaining accuracy and standards in this article. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

sigh - I never said that a tag was an attempt to claim ownership of an article - I was merely pointing out that a Wikiproject does not own the placement of a tag and they are not the final arbiters in the question of whether or not another editor may remove it. Shereth 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So that's a yes? We need to get admins and arbitrators in this? Well, let's do it, then. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are other, less drastic dispute resolution measures than arbitration - there's no need to blow this out of proportion prematurely (and, for what its worth, admins are already involved). My point is that your statement to the effect that "Only members of WP:LGBT can alter WP:LGBT tags" so flagrantly flies in the face of the core essence of a wiki as to be shocking. Shereth 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it? Would someone be acting within the core essence of a wiki to remove the WP:WINE tag from Cabernet Sauvignon and tell the Wine Project members that they shouldn't be interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in that article? Again, looking at the core issue here. Outside of an Arbcom topic ban, where is it in ANY policy or guideline that any editor on Wikipedia has a right to tell any other editor (or groups of editors) what articles that they should or should not be interested in maintaining accuracy and standards on. In this entire discussion, along with the one on Talk:Charlie Crist and in numerous Village Pump discussion, no one has tackled that core issue. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does. Now, generally speaking, it is sensible to assume that editors with limited knowledge of a topic should abdicate in preference to those who have a greater knowledge when the subject arises - however, the whole point of the wiki is that anyone can edit as they see fit. If there is a dispute regarding an edit there exist procedures to tackle the problem. However, we can never never EVER tell someone "you can't touch this tag, because you are not a part of this project". Now, really, what is the core issue here? You keep insisting that the removal of the tag is tantamount to "tell[ing] the ... Project members that they shouldn't be interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in that article?" This assertion is nonsensical. No one is telling LGBT to sod off and forget this article. No one is preventing them from watching it, putting it on a list, from coming in and editing it. An editor has raised a concern that the existence of a tag might be problematic - that is it. Tackle the issue for what it is, and stop setting up a straw man to attack. Shereth 22:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right in that anyone can remove any project tag. But I can tell you, as a member of WP:WINE, if someone removed the Wine Project tag from Cabernet Sauvignon, I feel that the Wine Project would be justified in re-adding the tag. Why? Because there is an interest on the part of the Wine Project in maintaining accuracy and standards in that article. Similarly, I feel that ANY project is justified to re-add their project tag if it is removed from an article that they have an interest in maintaining accuracy and standards on. You say that " No one is preventing them from watching it, putting it on a list...", which is what a project tags does. It's a maintenance tools that puts it on various assessment tables/noticeboards etc that allows a Wikiproject to organize the interest that they have in maintaining accuracy and standards in these articles. If no one is preventing this, then why the fuss over the tag? It seems that there is desire to have this one particular project play by different rules than other Wikiprojects. Admittedly, I can't see a valid encyclopedic reason why the LGBT project should play under different rules than MilHist, WP:WINE or any other project. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me attempt to be concise. A tag gets placed because someone wants to add this to a wikiproject - that is fine. Another editor feels there might be an issue with the tag and removes it - that is also fine. Someone else reverts this because they don't agree - still fine. So far we're all comfortably within the WP:BRD cycle. The breakdown is in the fundamental assertion that the project has an inalienable right to tag the article. Your example is a little simplistic because it would be inane for someone to argue that a WP:WINE tag on Cabernet Sauvignon is problematic, but we have here an editor who has expressed a good faith concern that the LGBT tag on this talk page might be problematic. Instead of dismissing this editor's argument outright, discussion on the matter should ensue, rather than a breakdown of process by trying to unilaterally railroad the issue with the idea that Wikiproject tags are immune to scrutiny. I'm not suggesting that LGBT tags should be treated any differently than MilHist, Wine, City or any other Wikiproject tags, but when an honest concern arises the appropriate thing to do is resolve the concern rather than attack it. Shereth 23:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It enters the realm of "omniscience" to try and imagine what tags/articles that any editor might find problematic. What we take for granted as common sense, could be someone's cause du jour. You never know. I choose a simple example because the point is simple--Wikiprojects tag articles that they have an interest in. If members of WP:WINE were not interest in Cabernet Sauvignon than we wouldn't tag the article--regardless of what other editors may think or how "commonsensical" it may seem for it be tagged . If there is no interest, there is no tag. As for good faith concerns, I agree that they should be discussed (and hence we're discussing them). It is through the course of this discussion that I've come to understand where some of the conflict is coming from (such as the confusion between categories and project tags). Rather than attacking or railroading, we're trying to focus on the heart of the issue. Looking at the history of this conflict (on this articles and others), it seems one of the reasons why so little progress ever gets made is because it is easy to be distracted with the periphery. I apologize if an interest in progressing the conversation comes across as an attack. That was certainly not my intent. 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agne27 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem moving this to dispute resolution. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Convenience break

Now that we're both pretty shocked about the entire affair, and this issue has already been discussed without resolution on Charlie Crist, the Village Pump, and the BLP talk page, and I know you're not going to persuade me, and I've run out of patience with the devil's advocacy hypothetical nature of this ongoing dispute, it seems time that Wikipedia address this once and for all. We're arguing because no policy explicitly addresses this problem. So, clearly, it needs to be resolved.

Does a WikiProject have the freedom to tag any article it finds in its interest?
Does a talk page template violate BLP?
What steps do editors need to take to remove a WikiProject template from a talk page?
Does tagging an article talk page have anything at all to do with WP:OWN?

I'm tired of the back and forth. This is neither productive nor fun. Let's get some questions answered. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, if you want to answer these broader questions I have no real issues with that. However, I do have real issues with dragging this into arbitration as it is a matter of policymaking - this is the sort of thing that needs to be decided on by the community as a whole. Suggestions on how to further approach a resolution? Shereth 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. (ec)

No
Yes
edit it
no, but refusing to allow people to touch a tag if they aren't members of a project does.

We've been discussing these questions all along. I agree with you that these are the core questions, but I'm pretty sure that if we haven't answered them to your liking in this discussion format yet, we aren't likely to. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And obviously reasonable people disagree on the answers to those questions. But as Moni pointed out, there is no policy speaking to those "yes and no" answers that each side can offer. Hence, the reason to open this up to a wider discussion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be to bring it up at WP:VPP as it is a potentially policy-making decision. Shereth 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Though I would add as a fifth question "What is the purpose of Wikiprojects/project tags" Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanity break I'm going to take a day or two off from this conversation. In re-reading my replies, I fret that my tone maybe coming across badly and I certainly don't want to risk derailing civil discourse on the topic due to poor communication on my part. I think we may be making progress with the idea of taking it to the Village Pump and really try to pinpoint some consensus and answers. I'd like to participate in that but I feel that I need a few days to take a sanity break and work on some more wine articles. :) Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Should there be any mention of Larry Craig's significance in popular culture, specifically relating to his arrest? I know that after his arrest, there were at least two song parodies recorded: "Tap Three Times" (Knock Three Times) and "(My Men's Room Date's A) Senator" (Centerfold (song)). Also, there was a "Bobblefoot" doll distributed by the St. Paul Saints and a Craig action figure with bendable legs, a rainbow triangle T-shirt, and a voicechip that repeats his infamous "I am not gay, I have never been gay" line. Finally, Jack FM parodied him quite often in their station identifications right after he was arrested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Should there be mention of the allusion to the case in Ep 8 of the fourth season of Boston Legal where Alan Shore claims that Denny Crane "is being Larry Craig'd" when Denny is charged with solicitation after a similar incident in a public toilet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrackercol (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

For a a former Senator who served over 10 years, it appears that the 2007 event may have undue weight in the article. What is the consensus of the editors regarding this section? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is often the case that peole toil away in obscurity for decades, and then achieve much greater notability for a brief series of events. Is it undue weight to focus on those notable events, or should we decide that equal weight should be given to important actions that received relatively little coverage? I'm afraid that Craig left little mark as a legislator, and it was the events that led to his retirement for which he'll be best known. If more can be found on his legislative career then I don't think there'd be any objection to adding it. But I'd object to removing sourced material concerning the 2007 events on the basis of undue weight. Will Beback talk 22:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with the above. Yes, there is definitely undue weight placed upon his arrest and subsequent allegations of sexual misconduct; however, this undue weight is not the consequence of Wikipedia editors but rather the press. As a relatively inconspicuous Senator he didn't make headlines very often, and as soon as he was arrested the press were on it like .. well, pick your favorite metaphor. For better or worse, that is what he is most well known for. Shereth 22:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the question is can the information in this section be better summerized, so that its weight is decreased in comparison to the total volume of the article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Things can almost always be summarized better. The better question is: how much weight does this matter desrve? In other words, how important a part of the subject's life is this matter?

As I wrote above, I think it is very important. Among other things, it brought him to far greater national prominence than he ever had before and it led to the end of his political career.

What other parts of his life are comparable? Will Beback talk 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

His bathroom pitstop deserves its own article. We have a very anti-gay Senator with a relatively undistinguished record over a 10 year career; a 10 year career put to an end by the "2007 incident"; an incident that also has fundamental implications for the future life of this man. I agree having so much on the main biography page looks out-of-whack. That the information needs to be whittled down for UNDUE reasons is more effectively responded to by creating another article about it and summarizing it on the main bio. -->David Shankbone 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's also a legitimate approach. Will Beback talk 00:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  - What should it be called? I'll create it, but I don't want to misname it. Larry Craig 2007 arrest? Larry Craig 2007 bathroom controversy? -->David Shankbone 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If a new article is to be created may I suggest 2007 Larry Craig Controversy as the title? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "controversy" is the right word, since there was little ocntroversy, except over whether he'd resign. Here are other topical articles in Category:Congressional scandals:

1983 congressional page sex scandal
Jack Abramoff scandals
Abscam
March 29, 2006 Capitol Hill police incident
Congressional Post Office Scandal
Crédit Mobilier of America scandal
Cunningham Scandal
Tom DeLay campaign finance investigation
Mark Foley scandal
House banking scandal
Koreagate
Jerry Lewis - Lowery lobbying firm controversy
Oregon land fraud scandal

Under the broader Category:Political scandals in the United States there are:

2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal
2002 Mitt Romney residency issue
Air Mail Scandal
Alaska political corruption probe
Atlanta graft ring
Rod Blagojevich corruption charges
Rod Blagojevich controversies
Bush administration payment of columnists
Chappaquiddick incident
CIA leak scandal timeline
John Edwards extramarital affair
Kilpatrick and Beatty text-messaging scandal
Lewinsky scandal
and so on.

The year isn't necessary since there's only been one event. I suggest Larry Craig scandal. Will Beback talk 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternatetly we can consider Larry Craig Airport Incident. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The Mark Foley scandal seems the closest precedent, so Larry Craig scandal I think is the way to go. -->David Shankbone 19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is mis-titled. It is half about the sex scandal. People want to read about the arrest but if it is in so much detail, a separate article should be made. Then this article should have a clear reference and section about it but refer the reader to the sex article for delicious details. The way it is now would be like having a Bill Clinton article then have half of the article give all the detail about the deposition, oral sex, blue dress. Or having that Republican governor's article be half about the sex with the Argentine lady. Gasp2009 (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has gone ahead and performed this split yet. I've gone ahead and done so. Shereth 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Which picture to use

I, and obviously two other editors, think that the main photo of Larry Craig should be Larry_Craig_official_portrait.jpg.

thumb|right|100px|alt=Image:Larry_Craig_mugshot.jpg|Larry_Craig_mugshot.jpg

I see that there is at least one who think that Larry_Craig_mugshot.jpg should be used instead. The reasons stated in the history:

Changed to a better picture, as he is no longer a US senator
The previous image includes both the frontal and profile aspects and therefore better.
But he is not best known for being a politician.

Reason for selecting Larry_Craig_official_portrait.jpg stated in the history is

Other Senators have their official photo since ending their service (my opinion)
Portrait of this politician obviously suits better for the infobox.

I think it would be nice if we could reach a consensus on this. Algotr (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The official photo belongs in the main infobox, the mugshot photograph should be put under the apporpriate subchapter of this article. -- fdewaele, 9 March 2010, 18:55 CET.

Absolutely and unquestionably should be using his official photo as the main photo, if for no reason other than the photographic quality is far superior. Arguing that having a frontal and profile aspect is somehow superior is nonsensical. Shereth 18:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In an earlier discussion (on another living person) the general opinion tended to only use mugshots for people only known for their criminal activity (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive51#Mug_shots). Since this person is primarily known for his political carreer we should not use his mugshot for all the reasons mentioned in the linked discussion. Hope this helps Arnoutf (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the mugshot should not be the main picture in this context. However, an "official photo" can never be truly NPOV, so a more natural image would be preferable if one is available (e.g. making a speech, or fulfilling his senatorial duties in some way). - Pointillist (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to what "point of view" is being espoused by using an official photograph rather than a candid photograph? Shereth 22:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shereth and thanks for asking. Encyclopedic images should be entirely independent of their subjects, where possible. When a photograph is staged to make the subject look good it is inherently non-neutral. In this case, Larry Craig was photographed with the US flag in the background to appeal to voters' patriotism. I've replaced the image with a cropped version that shows Craig more clearly and avoid the suggestion that his actions are endorsed or excused because he's a patriot. Are you OK with that or would you like to discuss it further? I'm trying to avoid being TL;DR (I know you are a longstanding editor and admin). Best - Pointillist (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The cropped version is an improvement, though I'd have to say as much from a technical standpoint; less background clutter makes for a better photo. I understand your point regarding the use of the flag to appeal to voters' patriotic senses but I think this is pretty standard as far as official portraits of politicians are concerned. I guess I don't really see the same POV issues, but I do like the cropped version better so it's all good :) Shereth 13:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the mug shot should be used because Mr. Craig is better known for his lewd act than his political career. Putting political correctness aside, how many people actually have heard of Mr. Craig before the incident at the airport bathroom? So the mug shot is better here. Soupysoap (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The mug shot is already the lead image in Larry Craig scandal, so it is not very likely that you will get a consensus for making it the main image here as well. - Pointillist (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To say that Craig is better known for his scandal than for his political career places undue importance on a lesser aspect of his life. Wikipedia has had an article on Larry Craig since November 2003, and his arrest did not occur until June 2007. The scandal is important and needs to be covered in his article, but it should not dominate the article so much that we place his mugshot as the lead photo in the article. Keep in mind that people are arrested on lewd conduct charges all the time, and most of them never get mentioned in Wikipedia. The reason Craig's arrest became the subject of national media attention was that he was already a prominent person from being a U.S. Senator. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"[because] he was already a prominent person" is an excellent argument, Metropolitan90. I wish I'd thought of it! - Pointillist (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That argument convinces me, fwiw. Nuujinn (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)