Talk:Larry Craig/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't the arrest be it's own section. Seems like a pretty big event. Should probably be mentioned in the intro at least.--204.253.251.89 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conviction?  I wonder about calling it a conviction.  Is a guilty plea the same as a conviction?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 21:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
Of course it is.  Pleading guilty is the defendant's part of the procedure; the court then, in most cases, automatically convicts the defendant.Wideeyedraven 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrest

message: Craig appears under the category of US Army officers. If he only attained the rank of E-3, should this be amended?OPen2737 09:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YES.  --Beth C. 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Service

message: I requested that this page be protected from edits from anon users until the truth can be found out about this "outing".--WinOne4TheGipper 22:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the accusation has been made on a well-known national radio program, and the fact that Rogers has credibility in the matter (he has correctly "outed" other politicians in the past) means that the accusation cannot be dismissed, or deleted from this page, out of hand. Joegoodfriend 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a violation of WP:BLP to use blogs as sources for this issue, and to insert original research, which the "outing" section seems to contain a lot of. I don't have time to clean it up right now, but will later, unless someone else does. I have reported this article on WP:BLPN. Crockspot 12:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a blog says something it is not a reliable and verifiable source. But iff national mainstreem news media report on the controversy and the Senators denials of the trysts,  that is verifiable and encyclopedic.Edison 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem-- AFAIK, no national news outlet has reported this-- see Source section below. And now someone's added a blog source to it too.... --plange 04:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Craig appeared on ABC News and NBC News in 1982 (when serving in the House of Representatives) to deny involvement in an ongoing scandal involving cocaine and underage pages pressured to have sex. Craig may not have denied being gay, but he certainly denied involvement in the scandal as it was widely described. These are national TV appearances. Why are they deemed un-encyclopedic? Sandover 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether or not he is, in fact, homosexual is moot. The claim was made, it's been talked about on The Drudge Report, CBS News, Rush Limbaugh, the New York Daily News, and the Ed Schultz Show (the source itself.) It's gotten major play on national radio networks. I think it's at least worth nothing the accusation.Kthejoker 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link to the CBS report? That would be the only acceptable source considered reliable of the ones you mentioned. --plange 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to a CBS News blog. What about the Spokesman-Review, the daily paper of Spokane? Does that count? Sandover 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is Redorbit.com not a blog? It is  shown as a reference, but not for the outing.Edison 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Protection

message: Craig said:
:"As more and more American scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made by the administration in the Kyoto Protocol are an unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat the vice president himself is caught up in making." 
Republican Senator from Idaho opposes Kyoto? I'm not surprised. Unless there's some context explaining that he's particularly notable in fighting Kyoto, this should go. Meelar (talk) 21:02, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
:Not to mention that the source cited doesn't look very reliable. Crockspot 23:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Warming

message: This seems particularly odd.  Since probably at least 50 senators voted for this, do we have this paragraph on each of them?  Did he break the party line on this issue : unlikely considering the context?  I'm therefore removing this bit as bizarre.  Morwen - Talk 14:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Nothing particularly notable presented about this one vote, probably only inserted as a club to beat the subject with. Crockspot 14:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that it is PD, but assuming that it is, it probably still should be cited, as it was written by his office, and not by independent government biographers. There may even be a citation template for it at WP:CTT Crockspot 14:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I think we should avoid using any wording taken specifically from official biographies of any sort regardless of whether we are allowed to.  Morwen - Talk 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not an unwise suggestion. BTW, here is a message template from CTT  - Crockspot 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's pretty embarrassing when an official bio is wrong about FACTS (place of birth, number of children, education, dates elected to state legislature, etc.).  I don't think it's a big deal to copy "X and his wife Y have three children", for example.  On the other hand, copying "X is a strong proponent of apple pie, motherhood, and the American flag" may not be a copyright violation, but the information is still, essentially, unverifiable and therefore doesn't belong.   John Broughton  |  Talk 13:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Habeas corpus bit

message: None of the biographies say what he actually studied at the university, just that he got a "BA" and then did "graduate studies"?  Now maybe this is a weird cultural thing, but surely that is important?  Or is there some kind of generic nonspecific thing he as doing?  Morwen - Talk
:Fixed.  If you want more detail on graduate studies, follow the AP external link (bottom of page), and puzzle on it yourself.  "Foreign policy" isn't a normal graduate program (maybe GWU has one, but I'd guess it would be political science or similar).  John Broughton  |  Talk 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Degree

message: The gay allegations are obviously news, as they have been covered in dozens of reliable sources by now (and therefore meet WP:BLP. They have not, however, been confirmed by any reliable sources, so they must be labeled as allegations. Quit the revert war, but don't cut the info.Francisx 22:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This is a rumor (until confirmed by the mainstream media) and this project should not assist with that activity. That is why WP:BLP was created. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a rumor. The blogs claim to have proof. Now that proof may be substantiated or not, but it's won the attention of enough reliable sources to be worth a mention. WP doesn't need to state it as fact (in fact that _would_ be a vioalation of WP:BLP) but a failure to mention the story would be equally problematic.--Francisx 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are not reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No they aren't. But CBS News and widely read newspapers certainly are. And since those reliable sources have seen fit to mention the allegations, WP should too, as long as it's careful not to present them as fact.--Francisx 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add a sample section following WP:BLP. We can discuss it below.Francisx 23:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add it if you want. For the record, I believe this to be a big mistake. We should be responsible when editing BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusations like these sometimes creep from blog to lead story on the Evening News and sometimes they fade quietly away. This one seems on the bubble: could go either way. It is not crucial to include it today, in my view. 3 national news sources have mentioned it, but without any confirming or disconfirming view expressed. They never report such rumors until Drudge or in this case a blogger interviewed on Air America go public with it, then they mention it. Sometimes Leno, Letterman, and The Daily Sho ar the determinants of whether a story like this has legs. If the subject denies, or  the accuser brings out his witnesses, the story expands. If the accuser went public with this without affidavits, he is crazy. In a week we will have a better feel for how notable the allegation is.Edison 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. Upon looking closely at the sources, there really isn't enough _yet_ for us even to mention the allegations. But that could change if more reliable sources discuss them. WP:BLP doesn't require that everything on WP be factually proven -- especially not for a public figure like Craig -- but it does require more independent allegations than currently exist.Francisx 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I don't believe Ed Schultz is part of Air America, though there are stations in some markets which carry both his show and programming from the network. Sandover 17:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wouldnt include until the story is explored much more and facts and apposed to rumours appear. BLP requires great care and I dont see the necessity to push it into the article. Whats the rush. This is an encyclopedia article. Not the Smoking Gun. Caper13 06:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Why is the fact that he sings in a barbershop quartet encyclopedic? It seems to qualify as random information.Edison 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the fact of our having an article about the group (which group, btw, I think to be notable in view of its being often discussed in prominent media) would suggest that the group is notable (if one thinks it to be otherwise, an AfD per WP:BAND might well be in order), and an individual's membership in a notable group would, I imagine, itself be notable and likely meritorious of inclusion.  Of course, because Craig's principal notability does not follow from his being a musician, such fact does indeed seem as random, but I think that the prominence of the group, and the nature of its creation as inextricable to the occupations of the constituent participants (as against a group comprising three Hart Office Building janitors and Craig who might sing at XYZ bar every Friday night), tips the scale.  Joe 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I want to clarify what seems a rather murky issue, discussions of which have happened in several namespaces across sundry pages, in order that we might work toward a resolution consistent with encyclopedic principles.  No one, to my mind, means to suggest that we ought to include the "homosexual liaisons" allegations as themselves notable or as asserted as fact by a notable and reliable source; insofar as the allegations are made by a single non-notable blogger, the mere fact of their being made—irrespective of their accuracy—is, as everyone seems to acknowledge, non-notable and unencyclopedic.  Whether the controversy surrounding the making of the allegations is notable, though, is a wholly different question, and so I wonder if editors might address the latter question.  
For me, that controversy has ensued with respect to the original allegations and that such controversy has been reported by–and partaken of by members of–media that, qua sources, are not only reliable but are also prominent/notable suggests that the controversy is notable and that the inclusion of a section apropos of such controversy is not proscribed by any encyclopedic tenet and, indeed, that such inclusion is compelled by general principles.  I drew an imperfect yet guiding analogy at WP:BLPN: whilst we'd not include in John Seigenthaler, Sr. suggestions that he partook of conspiracies to assassinate JFK and RFK, insofar as such suggestions were offered by other-than-prominent and less-than-reliable sources, we'd surely include that controversy ensued from the making of such suggestions.  The allegations themselves, then, are not notable, but the ensuing controversy surely is, irrespective of the original prominence or verity of the underlying allegations.
In principal part, BLP acts only to restate WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR as regards biographies about living persons, in view, I suppose, of the idea that it is most important that we follow such prescriptions where our editing may engender any of several problems IRL; only tangentially does BLP suggest (e.g., in its suggestion that, where an individual is of dubious notability and only avolitionally public, we ought not to include such information as might untowardly invade his/her privacy) that we compromise that in which we otherwise belief in order that we should not commit moral wrongs or expose ourselves to civil liability, and so I don't understand BLP, to the extent that it serves other than to restate WP:SR, to proscribe inclusion here. Joe 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So should we use the Siegnethaler language "A blogger identified as Mike Rogers posted infomration that contained defamatory content.  It was covered by some press outlets but was never verified."?--Tbeatty 03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tbeatty, you are absolutely on the right track, except that some would probably consider sexual orientation to be a matter which is highly personal but not necessarily defamatory per se. The bare allegation by Rogers that Senator Craig had gay encounters in train stations has as little place in a Wikipedia article as the claim that the Clintons murdered numerous people, which is the claim in the subject film in the article which you started, which is now under consideration for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Chronicles. It is, in such cases the mainstream media coverage of the allegations and denials which possibly makes the unsubstantiated allegations encyclopedic. Edison 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is defamatory to accuse someone of adultery or extramarital affairs without verifiable facts.  It is one of the 4 main slander claims from common law.  This is still a rumour.  It has yet to be picked up by the AP or UPI or CNN or NYTimes or Washington Post after a whole week of journalists searching it out.  Regardless of whether calling someone "gay" is defamatory, it would be news if he had gay sexual encounters and then voted against pro-gay legislation.   But it can't be verified so it shouldn't be repeated.   When they make a DVD of Craig's gay encounters, it will be worth an article just as Fahrenheit 9/11 or Clinton Chronicles has an article though much of their content is dubious.  BTW, I noticed you voted delete on the Clinton Chronicles yet you want to include even less notable allegations against Craig.  --Tbeatty 05:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably will not surprise you that Fahrenheit 9/11 seemed to me pretty much self-documenting, unlike Clinton Chronicles. I agree the Rogers allegations about Senator Craig are still only marginally encyclopedic, since they have not increased in coverage by the mainstream news organizations beyond the original bare mentions. It would appear to be a "put up or shut up " situation for Rogers. If  BLP  violations re: anonymous conservative bloggers allegedly affecting the medical care requires deleting Andy Stephenson and possible speculation about an accidental death requires deleting Lori Klausutis then  "Largely discredited account of circumstantial evidence and coincidence" (per you) allegations of mass murders requires deleting big time re:Clinton Chronicles. Just following your example and seeking to be consistent and NPOV. Regards. Edison 05:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: A request for comment has been filed. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I've been thinking of a way to write this rumor in a way that doesn't violate WP:BLP and the best I've come up with (as a general outline-- of course the official version would need citations and fleshing out) is this:
The problem is the last sentence.  If there is no independent proof of this, why is it notable?  You need the last sentence to establish that this is a one source story that has not been corroborated elsewhere.  Without the last sentence, you run the risk of creating an ambiguity that this is a story with legs and hasn't been decided yet.  Francisx apparantly believes that the man is gay although he has a wife and two kids.  This is why if we present this gossip in the article we have to be very clear that at this point it is gossip alone.  Just to be on the safe side, and considering WP:BLP, let's just leave it out.  The accusation couldn't last more than three months, why put it in the article? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the problem, here's the million-dollar question: does pleading guilty to charges of soliciting gay sex count as independent corroboration? Yes, I realize he's denied his guilt after the fact, but are we supposed to believe that one of the people who make our laws understand them so feebly as to have plead guilty by accident? Or are we so naïve that we need to write the arrest and guilty plea off as bizarre coincidence? I mean, do people get arrested for "accidentally" soliciting gay sex from police officers on a regular basis? Is it at least common enough that it might have just happened to Senator Craig by some bizarre alignment of the stars? 70.128.143.99 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the comment this is in response to was posted nine months ago, long before the arrest.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Here's the Problem

message: This is a strong B article.  More information about his career in the State legislature would help bring this to GA standards. ludahai 魯大海 13:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It cannot be nominated for GA until it has "stabilized." Speciate 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: I removed the $1000 fine figure in lieu of the values stated in the news sources. Yahoo! News reported $575 in fines and fees and CNN reported $500 in fines. Presumably, it was $500 in fines and $75 in fees, but I thought that might be somewhere between WP:OR and WP:SYN, so I just went with the Yahoo! News version. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed it in error, will you or someone with access revert it to $1,000. the fine is $1,000. $500 of the fine, and the ten days of jail were "stayed" pending one year with no further offense. $75 was the administrative surcharge ("court costs"). ref: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig9.html 71.252.90.13 03:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  $1000 fine 

message: An illustration of hypocrisy: Idaho Senator Larry Craig opposes gay civil liberties having voted against antidiscrimination bills that include sexual orientation, he voted for the so called Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage exclusively as a union of one man and one woman, and he opposes the enlistment of gays in the U.S. military. Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct after his arrest for lewd behavior in a Minneapolis men's room. Larry, you're the man!—Preceding unsigned comment added by GearedBull (talk • contribs) 
Is there some Wikipedia list of gay bashing congressmen or other influential policy makers who actively promote homophobia and are later found out themselves to be gay eg Mark Foley and the article's subject?  If so, this article might merit a link or two regarding that.  And what is the psychology behind this kind of behavior?  It seems so widespread in the USA currently.  It deserves a syndrome name all its own, if it doesnt already have one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 18:26, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
:We don't know that the subject is gay, and won't be able to designate him that way until he makes a statement to that effect.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or until some video surfaces. Speciate 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very good list of sex scandals, although it is "Republican sex scandals".  One would have to pull out the appropriate details that you're looking for. Somewhere there is a list of people from both parties; the Republicans on the list out-number the Democrats on the list.
 Arbol25 07:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another related list that is of just as great interest:  Arbol25 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another link, about a conservative Christian New Mexico pastor who sought sex in parks:  Lead for this source: Bubba Brazile comment on  -under "Republican Sex Offenders" by Mike Pappantonio. Arbol25 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a question. If you are a man, and you go looking for sex with a woman, you're straight (or at most, bi). You don't have to identify as straight. There's no 'coming out' required of you to be straight. You simply are straight. Why then, if I am a man who enjoys sex with men, do I have to go through this ritual before people will describe me as being gay? If Ron Jeremy got on TV and said, "I am not straight. I have never been straight" would anyone be saying, "Well, he says he's not straight, so we can't call him a heterosexual, because you gotta come out as straight to be considered straight" C'mon. You are what you are, whether you admit it or not. Larry Craig went looking for sex with another man. He's as gay as anyone else that does this, including me. Let's call him what he is, a gay man Wandering Star 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Men who have sex with men.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Gay-Bashing Gays? 

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

message: The inclusion of the Wall Street Journal article makes this entry biased. It is unneccessary and does nothing to further our understanding of the facts and details surrounding his arrest. I think it should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.131.171 (talk) 00:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
:Strongly agreed. Can this be removed posthaste?--67.164.145.60 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Fireplace 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored this commentary, clearly labeled as such, for balance. --Justmeherenow 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Although the WSJ's news coverage remains widely read, imho its editorials went loopy and fell off the deep end years ago.  IF the WP article should venture beyond factual reporting and into commentary (a big "IF"), then Matt Foreman's comment on MSNBC is much more illuminating: "It’s the tragedy of homophobia. People create these walls that separate themselves from who they really are."   One might also mention the movie Brokeback Mountain.  The one way in which the WSJ editorial does contribute though (credit where it's due), it finally answers the question of who could possibly believe that same-sex marriage somehow threatens opposite-sex marriage: in order to believe that, you'd have to believe that what married men and women really want is to leave their spouses and marry someone of their own sex - and if the WSJ is correct then Sen. Craig is a believer.TVC 15 04:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting commentary, TVC 15. (I've only worked on one other Wikipedia article--but, as a tie breaker (and to get a feel for commentary about hypocracrites), I peeked at Jimmy Swaggart's article to see what commentary might be included. Which--since Jimmy's swaggin' of hookers was before Wikipedia took off--is bare bones so I'll lay off!) <smiles> Justmeherenow 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Romney's response is relevant insofar as Craig was a prominent support of Romney and held a leadership role in his presidential campaign.  Fireplace 05:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; I'm going to move the Romney quote to where it talks about the Romney campaign. Or the campaign stuff down, since that could really be considered "fallout." Pairadox 05:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If sourced material is good then better-sourced material is gooder! So, yeah, go and do the keyboard tapping to find better stuff and replace or supplement my inferior attempt at balance (while of course being wary of edit-warring thru removal of good faith edits?) Thx :^) Justmeherenow 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a huge difference between a news report that quotes individuals and an opinion piece,  Justmeherenow, especially when that opinion has been selectively snipped for this article. I appreciate your goal of presenting a NPOV account, but not the sources you use to do it. Pairadox 16:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referenced Wall Street Journal Editorial

message: It appears this article was protected from editing on 2007 August 27, but without a template added, and has been edited while protected, dozens of times. Am I correct in that, or am I reading the logs and history wrong? And can we get some discussion here of how much longer it should stay protected? I'm sure it's on many watchlists, especially now. Jonathunder 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is semi-protected, not fully protected, which means that only anon IPs and new accounts (more recent than 4 days) are prohibited from editing. Jeffpw 08:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protectected? 

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

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

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

message: Please unblock the Larry Craig page. I've came up with good ideas to edit it with more great information from a neutral point of view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwjs (talk • contribs) 19:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
:You should put your ideas here. Wikipedia doesn't trust you yet ;) Sad mouse 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BWJS, please read the page on wikipedia's semi-protection policy.  Basically, this article has been protected against editing by anonymous users or those with brand new accounts (less than 3 days old I think).  This is to protect certain articles which are targets of persistent vandalism, especially biographical articles.  Until your account is able to edit directly, you can post your changes here on the talk page for consideration!  MOXFYRE (contrib) 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The blocking of Larry Craig 

message: Ol wright, our gay activist friend (who I support) Rogers outed Craig. Fine. 
Yet...sourced, modest criticism of "outings" are summarily deleted by a three-times-within-24-hours single editor: see here, here, and here--whereas Log Cabin criticism stays along with "cottaging" commentary in the LA Times, et cetera? C'mon people. Don't stifle sourced debate. Justmeherenow 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at that particular quote, I am not sure if it belongs here. After all it is also an attack on Craig, just with a different word (weak rather than hypocrite). Since it is not a defence of Craig it doesn't really add much here, but I think it would significantly add something to the article on Rogers. It may not be fair to assume that Rogers is hoping for anti-gay sentiment by outing Craig (he could equally be hoping to reduce anti-gay sentiment by outing conservatives), but it seems to be a valid high-profile criticism that should be included in Roger's article. Oh, and using PC as an insult is petty. Sad mouse 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[political correctness|PC]]

message: Should his occupation in his info box say rancher?  Surely it would be politician or senator? CaptinJohn 08:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Reading the article, it appears he was only on the ranch for about three years, in between college becoming a politician, which he's been for 33 years (even more, if you count his student government days). Changed. Pairadox 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Uggg. No way am I getting involved in that debate. I think it's highly misleading to list a career politician as a "rancher," but I'll bow to the groupthink on this one. Pairadox 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an old tradition in politics and history. We still refer to Truman as a "haberdasher", and to Lincoln as a "railsplitter", even though they both had long careers in law and politics.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard Lincoln's occupation referred to as a railsplitter except when referring only to his early years; he is usually widely acknowledged as a self-taught and successful attorney and referred to as such. Same for Truman.  Who is "we"?--Gloriamarie 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rancher?

message: I removed this. Thanks, --Tom 12:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also section

message: What happens? The article says "if Craig were to resign before the end of his term, Republican Governor Butch Otter would appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of the term.", with this source. --Tom 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I see it now. Sorry!! --Tom 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If he steps down

message: Since Craig has declared "I am not gay, I have never been gay", it is clear that the second criteria of WP:BLP#Categories has not been met, and gay categories cannot be applied to this article. Doing so is a violation of WP:BLP, and can result in a block for the user who repeatedly applies such categories. If and when he publicly self-identifies as gay, then the subject is open for discussion. - Crockspot 17:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if he were to self-identify as gay then we'd apply the category without need for further discussion.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay categories 

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

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

message: The article refers a few times to Craig's "conviction," but he entered a guilty or nolo contendre plea. He was never tried, so he wasn't convicted.69.239.30.5 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's incorrect. Entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere means that the judge renders a verdict of guilty, convicting the defendant of the crime. FCYTravis 07:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct. Pleading guilty = conviction. When a guilty plea is proffered by a defendant, a conviction is then entered in the docket. As a matter of law, he is a convicted criminal now. 71.185.74.177 19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conviction? 

message: So, if Larry Craig was arrested June 11, then why didn't the story break until August 27? —Remember the dot (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's when Roll Call published the story. You'd have to ask their reporters why it happened then. Pairadox 06:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking the story 

message: There is speculation among Cuban-Americans see "What's up with the dirty knees, Senator?" that the Cuban Governments proclivity to trap notable visitors in sexual situations (honey traps)  may have involved Senator Craig who was given a prolonged visit with Fidel Castro some time ago . El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculation = Original Research. See What Wikipedia is not. And tabloid, blog or opinion forum is not what what Wikipedia is. →Lwalt ♦ talk 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Havana sex-trap 

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

message: i've done hundreds- motion for appropriate relief. VIK- defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by him foolishly entering a plea that was not voluntary, not intelligent, and not knowing. therefore his counsel respectuflly asks the court for a new trial. Usually done to replead to a lesser charge. Rarely granted for a REAL new trial to contest guilt. Judge's loath to grant them w/o consent of prosecutor b/c court dockets would overfill. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 20:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does this have to do with editing the article? Pairadox 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, so nothing to do with editing the article, but speculation about his future actions. Got it. Pairadox 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overturning a guilty plea-Motion for New Trial

message: Why on earth do we not want the Current Event tag to be at the top of this article, rather than down by the bottom, only applying to one section? KConWiki 03:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the resignation announcement is the current event of the moment, from what I can infer by the placement of the tag. →Lwalt ♦ talk 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of current event tag 

message: (this item was recently deleted from this discussion page)
Just a thought, if Craig's statements were true about not fighting a conviction because he wanted to get the ordeal over with, and if it's true that he wasn't interested in that sort of stuff, shouldn't he just have pleaded No Contest? That would seem to make more sense. Since he didn't do that, it really makes it seem as if he's guilty. Anyone have any idea why he didn't do that?J.J. Bustamante 13:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not a discussion forum, but a page designed to discuss improvements to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why didn't he plead "no contest" instead of guilt? 

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

message: After re-reading the section about Sen. Craig's career, much more information needs to be included in this section. This version of the article gives the impression that Craig only spent time in the U.S. Senate, when in fact he was also in the U.S House of Representatives for 10 years before his time in the Senate. This part of his congressional career needs to be covered in a bit more depth, since what's already there is pretty skimpy at the moment. →Lwalt ♦ talk 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's surprisingly easy to spend 10 years in Congress without doing anything memorable. While I agree with your goal, there may not be much we can say about that period of his life. I'd assume that his official biographies would include any notable achievements, which for a congressman typically amounts to gaining earmarks for federal spending in his district, introducing bills that never got out of committee, and co-sponsoring popular legislation.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I will not remove this again but defer to others. This falls under that tag because of the supposed cottaging by Craig or some other  reason? TIA, --Tom 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That tag is for the Wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies. If editors that work on that project think this article is of their interest, so be it. If it is not of their interest, there is not need to add the tag to this page.  The edit summary of an editor adding the tag was Adding the LGBT people category, meaning that the tag is maybe being used for a, ahem, different reason... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm the person who originally added the LGBT WikiProject tag days ago, and my stance against inclusion of Craig under the LGBT Category was also made days ago. They are two separate issues with two separate purposes. --David Shankbone 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Larry_Craig ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Larry_Craig_recently_tagged.  --David Shankbone 18:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Thanks for the response. --Tom 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT studies project tag

message: Please gives this section a more descriptive name. — Omegatron 19:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that given the circumstances, this title is quite appropriate and neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "controversy" section can make a reference to "Arrest of Senator Craig in undercover sex sting" (using a descriptive title of what happened at the MN airport lavatory) or something similar. It shouldn't be hard to come up with a name of the sub-article. But, as Craig's arrest and guilty pea continues to occupy time and space on the news, the article will become overwhelmed with this content. So, it's good idea to split the section about Craig's arrest and plea information from the main article about the senator and move the content into a sub-article that links to the main one - especially since the arrest and plea information, along with the response to this incident, currently occupies about half of the article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think renaming it "Sex scandal and resignation" is appropriate, as even Fox News is now calling it a sex scandal . A sub article isn't yet necessary, as it's 35 kb long now. Controlling current event bloat is necessary.--Chaser - T 22:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that there are prior related issues, as per the section;s content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: According to WP:BLP#Categories, there should be some sourcing verifying that Craig is a Methodist to support the Methodist categories that are applied. There doesn't appear to be. Technically, the cats should be removed, but I'll leave them, because I don't anticipate that this is disputed. - Crockspot 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I fixed this. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: .  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: es:Larry Craig. --83.38.241.33 07:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added.  Someguy1221 07:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish