Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1

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

message: :Crist said he was dubbed "Chain Gang Charlie" during his days in the Florida Senate when he sponsored a successful bill that required prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. The legislation included an amendment to revive chain gangs, which Crist said he noticed as a child and later thought would serve as a visual deterrent to others. The idea passed. (St. Petersburg Times)
So was he really 'best known' for the chain gang thing, or just for generally being tough on convicted criminals? That is, is "chain gang Charlie" well-deserved, in that he vigorously advocates chain gangs as a punishment or deterrent? Or is it an epithet opponents tried to hang on him because of their advocacy about chain gangs, i.e., an opposition to anything that might make convicts feel uncomfortable, inconvenienced, or embarassed (i.e., "punished")? --Uncle Ed 13:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: Cut from article:
:Crist's qualifications to be attorney general were challenged during the 2002 election, when it was revealed that he had failed the state bar exam three times before passing.  Ulferts, Alisa (Sept. 7, 2002). "Passing the Bar a Bear for Some." St. Petersburg Times, pp. 1B. The attorney general, often described as the state's "top lawyer," is required by the state constitution to have passed the bar. 
Shouldn't we say WHO challenged his qualifications? And what's this about "it was revealed"? Had he been hiding his 3 failures or lying about it? The text I cut makes it sound like he had been masquerading as a competent lawyer when (surprise!) we all found out that he really was a failure. A hasty read might even mislead you into thinking that, required to have passed the bar (but revealed to have failed it), he cheated and defrauded the voters! 
If that's a POV someone wants described in the article fine, but please source it. I bet this point of view comes from one of his opponents. Anyone got time to google it? --Uncle Ed 13:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive criticism 

message: Cut from article:
:Crist's qualifications to be attorney general were challenged during the 2002 election, when it was revealed that he had failed the state bar exam three times before passing.  Ulferts, Alisa (Sept. 7, 2002). "Passing the Bar a Bear for Some." St. Petersburg Times, pp. 1B. The attorney general, often described as the state's "top lawyer," is required by the state constitution to have passed the bar. 
Shouldn't we say WHO challenged his qualifications? And what's this about "it was revealed"? Had he been hiding his 3 failures or lying about it? The text I cut makes it sound like he had been masquerading as a competent lawyer when (surprise!) we all found out that he really was a failure. A hasty read might even mislead you into thinking that, required to have passed the bar (but revealed to have failed it), he cheated and defrauded the voters! 
If that's a POV someone wants described in the article fine, but please source it. I bet this point of view comes from one of his opponents. Anyone got time to google it? --Uncle Ed 13:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other candidates in the race (one Republican candidate in particular, I recall), challenged his qualifications on this basis. The user wrote that "it was revealed" because bar exam scores are not public knowledge, and when this was reported, it was new information that would not normally be public. The last sentence, about the constitutional requirement to pass the bar, made it relevant to the race and makes it relevant here. I agree, though, that source information would be useful. Someone should find the SPTimes article (or other Florida paper) and reinsert the sentence as it was before, with the sourcing added. Would that satisfy Uncle Ed's objections? 202.156.6.54 11:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bar Exam Information 

message: Might want to add in that there are currently several outstanding accusations that Crist is/was a long time lover of Bruce Carlton Jordan, a man serving parole until 2011 for fraud/theft. ----
:If there are reliable sources for it from a reliable source, which means not a blog, then maybe we can insert it. Captainktainer * Talk 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Race 

message: While I was not the one who removed it, and am a bit troubled by the fact that it was by someone who has never edited here before, I support the deletion. As I pointed out above, there were some sourcing issues with it, and the section about his new girlfriend appeared to be nothing more than a weak attempt at a rebuttal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Horologium (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the insertion of the "new girlfriend" and thought it seemed a bit excessive, but I let it go.  I didn't read the previous paragraph...which now seems irrelevant considering his governorship.  I think your decision to remove the whole paragraph was a good one. Cary Bass demandez 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was all over the news the other day, and if we get to talk about him and his male love interests, why can't we talk about him and his female love interests? I'm okay either keeping everything or deleting everything but let's be consistent. Philwelch 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I undid the removal because it was removed by someone who never had done any prior editing and without any discussion... that just doesn't sit right with me.  While I don't agree or think the section should be in there, i'm not going let it be deleted without a discussion.  --Napnet 06:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP necessitates that unsourced or unreliably-sourced information of this nature must be "immediately" deleted. JGHowes talk -  14:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Personal Life section 

message: An editor removed the new section below saying in his/her opinion that it was not really a controversy. See June 26, 2007 for how the new section and references appeared in the article (the source code here also contains the references). Please vote below to Restore or Keep off this new section. 5Q5 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep Off I don't think this really has any value for an encyclopedic article which was why i removed it.  i tried to move it to the talk section but my mobile phone wasn't cooperating.  To me it is similar to the gay issue... also, what law is passed that isn't controversial?  are they all going to be added into this section?  i just don't think this has garnered enough 'press' to be considered controversial (this was the first and only place i have heard about it and i am in tallahassee).  anyways just my opinion. --Napnet 05:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course controversies should be included.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a balanced NPOV source of information, not a censored, sanitized version of a politician's life. The article should be neutral, but include warts and all. We can get the sanitized press release version on the politician's website. Wikipedia should be a more complete view. I plan to reintroduce this section, but I welcome any comments before I do so.--MiamiManny (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason that criticisms can't be included as long as they cite reliable sources and are not written from a biased perspective. I have removed some content in the past but only because it was uncited.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote requested: Restore/Keep off - "Controversies while Governor" section 

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

message: Al Zimmerman is the recently charged Florida DCF press secretary who offered teenage boys alcohol and money to pose nude for porn videos. In addition to working in the Crist administration, Zimmerman actually listed Crist on his resume as a personal reference.  According to the Tallahassee Democrat, "Zimmerman listed Gov. Charlie Crist as a reference when he applied at DCF in 2005. Crist, attorney general at the time, said he knew Zimmerman slightly as a TV reporter in the Tampa Bay area and probably recommended him —as he'd do for almost anyone." Crist's connection to this nationally publicized scandal is deserving of mention. I am rather surprised that the personal life section has been deleted here since the last time I visited. I plan to restore the personal life section as well as Crist's connection to the Zimmerman scandal, but I welcome the comments of others before I do so.--MiamiManny (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely support a Personal Life section on Crist, as long as it is neutral, and merely mentions only specific facts in an encyclopedic context.  If any allegations about his personal life are capable of being cited, as was asserted above, and those allegations can be summarized in NPOV and without utilizing copyrighted info, then they absolutely should be in here as well, just as for any major public figure, regardless of the specifics.  Even positive facts should be eligible for a Personal Life section, provided they meet notability, NPOV, and other guidelines. P.F. Bruns (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crist's Connection to Zimmerman Scandal 

message: I have removed that statement from the opening paragraph, as, according to the following page, it is not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Florida Mmortal03 (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it /is/ true that he is the first Republican /elected/ to succeed a Republican (the other cases are Lieutenant governors who succeeded a governor who died in office.)  It's noteworthy enough to include a corrected version in the article. --Heath 128.173.146.4 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  He is the first Republican Florida governor to succeed a Republican Florida governor? 

message: I deleted references that Crist "has been linked to" a number of women, the names of some of the women, etc. "Has been linked to a number of women" -- pure trashy gossip. This does not belong in Wikipedia. Also note that the zeal to insert such material is arbitrary: it's because Crist has been single for a long time. We do not see attempts to list the last four or more lovers of every living person who gets an article in Wikipedia. This information is available about Charlie Crist because the mass media have set themselves to reporting it. That mere availability is one reason people insert it into Wikipedia. For those who need to be hit with a 2x4 to understand what the issues are: (1) the fact that Charlie Crist has dated rich, famous, powerful women has nothing to do with his notability; (2) sometimes in the last 35 years or so Crist has also dated women who weren't rich, famous, or powerful, but nobody wants to put them in the public glare. About the gay rumors, somebody wrote here that Wikipedia has to acknowledge them because they're there. This is a misunderstanding about Wikipedia in general, and it is a direct violation of the BLP rules. If you want to know the gossip about somebody, search elsewhere on the Web. Read gossip magazines. The fact that a person becomes the subject of a permanent rumor campaign that they are homosexual is NOT, in itself, notable for Wikipedia purposes. Wikipedia is not about "everything". On top of that, probably any honest who has looked into the subject of gay rumors can cite cases of false "gay rumors". Hurmata (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His sex-life is actually very important. If he was a star baseball player I might agree that his sex-life is pure gossip that is unfit for an encyclopedia. However, politicians are different. Voters place a huge emphasis on a candidates personal life. Being plain single versus being single while being involved with multiple relationships will make a major difference in votes. Therefore, the lack of information on his multiple relationships is at best a major void in the article and at worst misleading. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In prologue, I cite from WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." One of the consequences of this policy is to REJECT as a criterion for publishing something in a BLP that "voters place huge importance" on it. I also object to your resorting to the notion of "mulitiple relationships". One of my major earlier points is that most people have had mulitiple relationships. Wikipedia has decisively rejected the notion that by you being a politician, you give the news media and every Internet entity carte blanche to gossip about your multiple relationships. All that aside, understand that one of the things Wikipedia is *not* is a voter information project. Hurmata (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP is the correct policy to apply to this situation, however, the focus is placed in the wrong subsection. The applicable subsection of WP:BLP is WP:WELLKNOWN, which refers to  well-known public figures, and states:  If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Charlie Crist's gayness is undocumented. There is a persistent rumor he is gay. His being gay will NEVER be well documented unless (1) Crist declares it, or (2) the media stalk him 24/365 and catch him in a series of trysts, or (3) documentation is developed of indicators of a long term intimate relationship (purchase property together, spend major holidays together, designate each other as heirs, etc.). Likewise, under the status quo, those who insist on believing the rumor will have room to do so. Reporting persistent rumors is JUST the kind of thing BLP is designed to squelch. Hurmata (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: I do not accept this reasoning. You can get 100 reputable newspapers to repeat gossip -- that doesn't legitimize the insertion the gossip into Wikipedia. This new "riposte" is just a ruse to keep the rumor alive. And it incorporates circular reasoning: "He's gay. Oh, well, if he gets married, it's insincere, because he's gay". I suggest that your reasoning turns on several misunderstandings: a misunderstanding of the "valid source" rule, a misunderstanding of the policy stated at WP:BLP, and a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. As to the last, we don't need to substantiate he's *not* gay, we need rather to substantiate that he *is* gay. When discussion departs from specific *acts* a living person may or may not have carried out to address their traits, then it is sometimes *not* sufficient to find a "valid" source that says that *people are saying* claim X is true. No, what Wikipedia needs is a valid source that says that *the claim X is true*. To take a similar example: an endless stream of reports that *there are* some people who *want* to believe Tom Cruise is gay *does not substantiate* the claim that "Tom Cruise is gay". Claims of this kind, namely titillating, *objectively* unsubstantiated, and liable to "have legs" for 50 years -- are EXACTLY the kind of claim that WP:BLP is meant to exclude. Bottom line: Wikipedia is NOT about everything that the masses want to talk about. Besides, your statement, "it reflects on his political beliefs" [what is "it"?] has the type of carelessly reasoned statement that needs to be scrubbed from Wikipedia articles. It's a superb, fabulous example of that phenomenon, a statement that's totally false, but it's succinct to the point of elegance while any refutation of it takes lots of sentences. Here goes. You seem to be engaging in circular reasoning: "Crist bucks his party's stance on same sex marriage. *If* Crist were gay, then it would be even more interesting that he's doing so. I want Crist to be a greater source of interest. Therefore I embrace the rumor that he is gay."  Next, we can't tell precisely what you meant because your wording is so ambiguous. It *could* be construed as "whether you are homosexual or heterosexual will likely determine your stance on legalizing "same sex" marriage". But what you (almost certainly) meant is that "whether it is alleged that some prominent Republican is homosexual" "reflects on his political beliefs". EITHER WAY, since there are Republicans of either sexual orientation bucking their party on this, then by logic, one's own sexuality is irrelevant. Hurmata (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Please see WP:WELLKNOWN. Rumors, when they have significant coverage in reliable sources, do belong in a politicians bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link from The Telegraph is acceptable to me. Bob Norman, the author of the piece in the New Times Broward/Palm Beach, has stated that he wants to out gay Republicans, simply because they are gay and Republican, and I'm not sure that he is a reliable source in this case. (The link is to a piece he published in 2006, in which he was pushing the exact same story, the week before Crist was elected. One of his sources in that piece was running against Crist in the governor's race as a minor-party candidate. Another of the "sources" (and I use the term loosely) is known to have a casual relationship with the truth, and another doesn't know Crist personally.) One reporter pushing a fable does not a story make, but the Telegraph piece (which eliminates some of the more overheated rhetoric) is probably enough to adequately cite the rumors. It's not libelous to state that someone is gay, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to report falsehoods as fact. Horologium (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crist's sex life; Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine 

message: There's more to it actually. The Telegraph thought it worth mentioning that his recent marriage has been suggested as a riposte to those who say that he may be gay. Whether he is or not, this is an issue worth mentioning (since it reflects on his political beliefs - the Republicans are against gay marriage, but Crist is not)). The issue is valid. Malick78 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and this information was included in the article until recently. See subsection above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I do not accept this reasoning. You can get 100 reputable newspapers to repeat gossip -- that doesn't legitimize the insertion the gossip into Wikipedia. This new "riposte" is just a ruse to keep the rumor alive. And it incorporates circular reasoning: "He's gay. Oh, well, if he gets married, it's insincere, because he's gay". I suggest that your reasoning turns on several misunderstandings: a misunderstanding of the "valid source" rule, a misunderstanding of the policy stated at WP:BLP, and a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. As to the last, we don't need to substantiate he's *not* gay, we need rather to substantiate that he *is* gay. When discussion departs from specific *acts* a living person may or may not have carried out to address their traits, then it is sometimes *not* sufficient to find a "valid" source that says that *people are saying* claim X is true. No, what Wikipedia needs is a valid source that says that *the claim X is true*. To take a similar example: an endless stream of reports that *there are* some people who *want* to believe Tom Cruise is gay *does not substantiate* the claim that "Tom Cruise is gay". Claims of this kind, namely titillating, *objectively* unsubstantiated, and liable to "have legs" for 50 years -- are EXACTLY the kind of claim that WP:BLP is meant to exclude. Bottom line: Wikipedia is NOT about everything that the masses want to talk about. Besides, your statement, "it reflects on his political beliefs" [what is "it"?] has the type of carelessly reasoned statement that needs to be scrubbed from Wikipedia articles. It's a superb, fabulous example of that phenomenon, a statement that's totally false, but it's succinct to the point of elegance while any refutation of it takes lots of sentences. Here goes. You seem to be engaging in circular reasoning: "Crist bucks his party's stance on same sex marriage. *If* Crist were gay, then it would be even more interesting that he's doing so. I want Crist to be a greater source of interest. Therefore I embrace the rumor that he is gay."  Next, we can't tell precisely what you meant because your wording is so ambiguous. It *could* be construed as "whether you are homosexual or heterosexual will likely determine your stance on legalizing "same sex" marriage". But what you (almost certainly) meant is that "whether it is alleged that some prominent Republican is homosexual" "reflects on his political beliefs". EITHER WAY, since there are Republicans of either sexual orientation bucking their party on this, then by logic, one's own sexuality is irrelevant. Hurmata (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Please see WP:WELLKNOWN. Rumors, when they have significant coverage in reliable sources, do belong in a politicians bio. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link from The Telegraph is acceptable to me. Bob Norman, the author of the piece in the New Times Broward/Palm Beach, has stated that he wants to out gay Republicans, simply because they are gay and Republican, and I'm not sure that he is a reliable source in this case. (The link is to a piece he published in 2006, in which he was pushing the exact same story, the week before Crist was elected. One of his sources in that piece was running against Crist in the governor's race as a minor-party candidate. Another of the "sources" (and I use the term loosely) is known to have a casual relationship with the truth, and another doesn't know Crist personally.) One reporter pushing a fable does not a story make, but the Telegraph piece (which eliminates some of the more overheated rhetoric) is probably enough to adequately cite the rumors. It's not libelous to state that someone is gay, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to report falsehoods as fact. Horologium (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay rumours?

message: I have rolled back a whole series of edits because of the carnage done to the citations. Removing the URL, title of the article, author, and access date is not wikifying, it's rendering useless. Please use the  or  templates if you wish to rework the citations and standardize them. ( can be used for references out of a book.) Standardizing references is a good thing, but stripping them of content is very bad. Horologium (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added in a  template for reference #3, the Adam Nagourney article from The New York Times. Feel free to use it as an example for fixing the other references. Horologium (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling back edits 

message: http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2008-02-28/news/the-talk-of-the-green-iguana/
Cheers, Conor (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the source which was previously listed in the article, and it is problematic. See the discussion (above) regarding this source and its provenance, and (even further up) in this discussion, in which I address some of the issues with the sources used by Bob Norman. An ideological axe-grinder like Norman should not be used as a source for a contentious issue such as asserting a sexual orientation of another person that conflicts with that person's own stated orientation, without evidence to the contrary. Innuendo and insinuations are not justification to make such statements, and Crist has made it clear that he is offended by them. Horologium (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another sources RE: gay rumours? 

message: The format I prefer uses two sections for citations, "Notes" and "References". Citation is kept short in the footnote (newspaper name and article date only, or book author name and book year and quotation page number only), and the full citation is given under References. A description is given at WP:CITE. Some of you have manifested your disagreement with this format. Please discuss your objections to it. Hurmata (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't like it, takes up too much space. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost missed this. Since I was the editor in question who objected to that style, I have to agree with Brewcrewer that it takes up too much space. If we were dealing with a technical subject with many references to different pages in the same publication, it would make more sense; for a biography where most of the references are only cited once, it's needlessly confusing. A quick glance at the "References" section reveals that only one link is used more than once—the first one, which is used twice. I fully support converting all of the citations to the  or  formats as applicable, but I don't like divorcing the citation from the link. Horologium (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: "Takes up too much space" is perhaps the one argument I can't understand without help. It's certainly one I never imagined. We have endless space available. Two reasons for separating notes from reference list: it looks cleaner when your note is a comment and not just a bibliographic citation; text in markup form is easier to read the shorter the inline notes are, because inline notes interrupt the text. You make a ridiculous situation when an inline citation is written margin to margin and it takes up three lines. Granted, this can be remedied to a large degree by putting a carriage return at the end of every field in the citation template, and since we have endless space available, that'll work. The opinion that doesn't like it my way is reasonable for this article, but I still dislike the "cite" template -- that's a separate issue from whether to separate notes and references. The cite template is excessively detailed for most citations for most articles. I particularly dislike that people include reporter's name. I'd like to see someone justify this -- not just say they want it, justify it. The reporter's name is irrelevant 99% of the time. What people take note of is that "CNN says that" or "The New York Times says that", not the reporter's name. It would be different if we're using an opinion piece, a book, or a magazine feature article. Hurmata (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it doesn't relate to you doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to understand it without help. Believe it or not, there are those in this universe that don't have some super-duper-faster-than-light internet connection. Those that live in rural areas or those that cannot afford high-speed connection should not have to wait a few more minutes for the page to download because you think its cooler to have references listed twice. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IRT the author's name fields for newspaper citations, the reporter's name is included because most referencing formats include the author's name when citing a newspaper article. It might not appear to be terribly relevant, but (especially for well-known reporters) knowing the author of a newspaper article can be a useful tool. It also allows for tracking by author, which might be important if that author's work is called into question (Jayson Blair, anyone?), or for dealing with inconsistencies from different authors from the same source (The New York Times employs many writers, and sometimes they have conflicting accounts of the same news item. Tracking citations by author allows for a compare-and-contrast, which can be useful when attempting to maintain NPOV balance). Horologium (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To Brewcrewer and Horologium. Geez, brewcrewer, if I am used to super-duper Internet connection, then why *would* it cross my mind that there are people whose downloads take minutes? Especially when you chose your words poorly: you said takes up too much "space", not too much "time downloading". I humbly announced I had no idea what you were talking about. To Horologium. Your points are reasonable, but I think they are unlikely to apply to these specific citations, which are seem not to be lengthy, deep investigations whose prose is at the literary level. *That* is when the reporter's identity matters. These stories are not about "on the night of May 17, did X meet privately with Y, or take a certain action Z, which might be part of a chain of events with a sinister purpose?" They're typically along the lines of "on May 17, Crist issued some routine announcement", "on May 17, Crist sat down with a reporter and declared X". This is not Jayson Blair writing 10,000 word features, not Judith Miller writing 20 articles over 12 months (or whatever) building a case for war, not Tom Friedman writing a Pulitzer worthy exposé of massacres at refugee camps while the Israeli army looks the other way. To summarize my advocacy: footnotes with full citations are clumsy to read, and they make for text that is tedious to edit. I concede that for this particular Wikipedia article, the case is not a slam dunk. One last point: I just would like people to notice that in the majority of times, maybe the vast majority, citations of news reports omit the reporter's name. Hurmata (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

message: How is his name pronounced? (And obviously it should be added to the lede) Is it like "Christ" or "Crisp"? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a native Floridian, so I hear his name pronounced often, it's not pronounced like Jesus Christ, the 
"I" in his name is short so it's pronounced like "Krist".  Hope that helps
KoshVorlon > rm -r  WP:F.U.R    16:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  name pronounciation 

message: I am the editor who has issued the RfC. There has been a copious and constructive debate on this matter for close to two days, with no agreement reached. The debate is to be found in the immediately preceding section, Crist's sex life; Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. In particular, does the policy statement given in WP:WELLKNOWN allow the reporting of this type of rumor? Hurmata (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked over a lot of the sources, both the ones presented here and the ones on Google News right now. To me, and granted I could be wrong, but to me it seems like the rumors exist mostly because he fits a few stereotypes that make him convenient fodder for late night talk shows. Most of the sources are either satire or mostly humorous in tone. There's no evidence, it's just basically a "Hey, he's old and not married, he must be gay" sort of thing. I'm not really sure Wikipedia should repeat that sort of stuff just because a respectable source or two picked it up. Granted, if hundreds of sources ran with it that would strongly suggest notability... but as it is, it's a bunch of blogs, satire/joke newspapers and a UK-based newspaper. So it's really just a rumor, with very marginal sourcing... from what I can tell so far it doesn't belong. Making jokes about how Christ fits a certain stereotype is fine for some sites, but I think for an encyclopedia, we just shouldn't include a non-notable rumor. If the rumor can be shown to be notable, I'd reconsider. Hope this was helpful and not too rambling. --Rividian (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a sticky matter that we deal with at WP:LGBT. I've placed a link to the RfC at the project talk page. If we take a look at two similar issues: Jodie Foster and Larry Craig, our actions in the past have been to tag the articles and cite excellent reliable and verifiable sources that state the person him/herself has stated s/he's gay or lesbian, or that someone else has irrefutable evidence of a same-sex romantic or sexual relationship. Jodie Foster has not said in public to a reliable source that she is a lesbian, although she made some "comments of interest" about "her beautiful Cydney" with whom she has raised two children and lived for 20 years. All we can report, despite the huge amount of speculation in the gay press, is that she said those comments, and the facts known about her relationship. Larry Craig had not admitted he had same sex relationships, but being arrested for it let that cat out of the bag. Rumors to smear a political candidate can come from dubious sources. I would use mainstream news press in Florida, no talk shows, and nothing politically motivated (i.e. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or other radio/TV pundit shows). If Crist had the same depth of relationships as Jim McGreevy, I betcha we would have heard a lot more by now, particularly in Florida—a very conservative state. --Moni3 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and please bear in mind that unlike WP:WELLKNOWN, which is the Wikipeida policy that supports the inclusion of rumours (whether substantiated or not) that were reported in reliable sources, conclusions reached at the WP:LGBT Wikiproject aren't Wikipedia policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moni3 did not say that they did, but the LGBT project has a good deal of experience with this topic, as flashing the gay card seems to be a fast-track to an edit war. WP:WELLKNOWN also notes that material that merits inclusion in an article will have a "multitude of reliable sources", which is not the case with this issue. We have one reliable source (The Daily Telegraph) and a not-so-reliable source (a columnist with an axe to grind), and a swarm of blogs out to smear Crist because he has an "R" after his name. I've already noted above that I am not opposed to including the allegations (using the Telegraph article as a citation), but this probably falls short of the threshold for inclusion under WP:WELLKNOWN. Horologium (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

text: (yada, yada) can't stop misapplying WP:WELLKNOWN, whose relevant passage is "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources". Some Wikipedians are not distinguishing between an *alleged event* and *media coverage of an allegation*. I think the context imposes the interpretation of the word "allegation" not in the strict sense, but rather as the *incident alleged*. (So let's try to fix the bad choice of wording of "allegation".) Brewcrewer also fails to distinguish between a trait or creed -- which is a general thing -- and specific *acts* or *incidents*. The rumors about Crist do not involve "well documented allegations" of specific acts or events. Only most recently do we have ANY allegations of specific acts or events, namely the reports that *name* two men who claim -- or have it claimed about them that they bragged -- to have had sex with Crist. But these "allegations" are not yet well documented. If they ever become well documented, then those who resort to citing WP:WELLKNOWN will still have to convincingly argue their "notability" and "relevance". Hurmata (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, a swirling rumor is an "incident". Secondly, and more importantly, the understanding of Wikipedia policy does not require statutory interpretation, where words like "incident" have to be thoroughly analyzed. We have to follow the general idea and rationale of the guideline presented. The basis for WP:WELLKNOWN is quite elementary - politicians live in the public limelight and are therefore  prone to rumors, whether valid and invalid, in the media. If the media reports on rumors Wikpedia cannot bury its head in the sand. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sure more is available but we should step cautious here. Banjeboi 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am absolutely dead-set against the New Times piece. I have detailed why it is not a suitable source several times on this page. Norman ran the same story twice, in 2006 and again in 2008, after his first run didn't gain any traction. This time, precisely one reliable source nibbled. If there was any real substance to the rumors, I daresay that they would have received wider play by now, since Crist has met with McCain at his home in Arizona, and consistently appears on short lists of likely VP candidates for McCain. Horologium (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some of those detailed explanations have been archived as I only see one detailed above. Regardless, I also don't agree on eliminating this source as being useful. I'm not using it to show Crist as being gay but that he has been accused, and denied those accusations. The piece seems to delve into that these two gay guys claimed to have sex, the claims are unprovable and Crist denies the charges. Is that really that problematic? Banjeboi 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Some more reliable sources: ,  .--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I am not willing to pay for the articles, I cannot assess them (although I agree that the sources are acceptable), and I am 300 miles from home, unable to visit the archive at my library. Only one of the articles mentions the gay allegations in the portion I can read, but I have to point out that your third source (from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune) and the fifth source (from the Star-Banner) are the same article. All of these sources, however, appear to be more reliable than the Bob Norman piece I have been railing against. Horologium (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Opponent outs GOP candidate for Fla. governor: Crist has denied rumors, opposes gay marriage Here's another article which details Crist being outed and then a few instances of being asked by different media if it's true (he denies). It also explains the potential tension being gay would hold in light of his record against some LGBT rights. Banjeboi 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that Washington Blade article was the other one I addressed in last year's discussion. As I mentioned, the source in that article was running against the Crist/Kottcamp ticket (as the Reform Party's Lieutenant Governor candidate), and is not an appropriate source. Horologium (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I have to disagree with you, if it's an issue that his opponent was outing him then we simply state that - such as "Crist's opponent in the race outed him but Crist has steadfastly denied the claim in several subsequent media interviews." Your concern would seems to be with the original claim not the sourcing or reliability of the reporting. Banjeboi 00:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Banjboi should not speak so loosely. We don't yet have "opponent outing Crist", rather "opponent *claiming* to out Crist". In any case, Wikipedia is not a forum for outing people. I myself accept the principle of outing people who would prefer to keep their sexual orientation private, under certain conditions; but I also believe with equal intensity that Wikipedia is not the place to carry out outings. BTW I have no knowledge about Crist: I've never lived anywhere near Florida, I don't know anybody who knows the man. I personally have no real evidence he's gay -- and I haven't seen any reports that persuade me that anybody else has any real evidence. Hurmata (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually i was using the exact terminology of the media report - "Opponent outs GOP candidate for Fla. governor: Crist has denied rumors, opposes gay marriage". I understand there are myriad reasons for people remaining closeted about facets of their lives but also see that once someone is more honest then the issue generally goes away by itself. If Crist is gay it's generally his business but if he denies it meanwhile blocking legislation that benefit LGBT people as a way to preserve that closet then I definitely have little patience. I believe in the Netherlands they dismissed a high-ranking official not because he was gay but because he was closeted and concerns were that it would be used against him to influence voting. I share similar concerns. Banjeboi 21:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "If Crist is gay ... while". IF, IF, IF. "I believe such and such happened in some other country -- I don't have enough specifics, but I believe it happened anyway". Laughter's good for the soul, the saying goes, so thanks for the laughs. Besides, what you wrote is total foolishness: you can't "dismiss a high ranking official" for refusing to acknowledge being gay; you can't "dismiss a high ranking official" on the grounds that people might disapprove of them. No; you hold the election, and see whether the people vote against the person. For your claim to make any sense, "they" would have to be the person's party, not the government. Now, I don't know parliamentary systems, but most likely even in a parliamentary system, a party can't dismiss an *elected* official just because he/she is one of them -- the official was elected by the voters at large, not by party members only. Nonsensical, loose talk like yours is *exactly* why Wikipedia should keep itself an oasis of sophisticated evidence checking. PS. The media report should have said "Opponents claims to out ... " You can't "out" somebody for being something who is not that something. Hurmata (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you are amused. I find homophobia to be rather deadly too often so apologize if my explanations to your response didn't seem to be un-"foolish" enough. You can now also stop correcting me on what "outing" is, I know what it is. I was using it in the same way the media report was so let's move on from here and agree that we need reliable sourcing whatever we report on Crist. Banjeboi 02:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Benjobi: Please excuse my semi-harsh tone, but you seem way busy too busy advancing your agenda about closeted gay politicians. Chris Christ is not about closet politicians and this talk page for sure doesn't need the LGBT Wikiproject plastered on the top of the page. At the most, there should be a brief mention in the article about being dogged by gay rumours, and that is the end of the story. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brewcrewer, I was the one who suggested "being dogged by gay rumours" and agreed that for now that was probably all that needed being done here. As for "plastering" the LGBT Wikiproject tag it's no more plastered than any other wikiproject tag and simply means the person is of interest to the LBGT project; obviously this BLP is of interest. As for my "agenda"? It was to respond to what I found to be a bit offensive but I simply tried to respond. That I can't remember the name of the closeted politician in my example doesn't mitigate that these scenarios do happen and that closeted politicians certainly have existed before. If you wish to invent some agenda behind that I guess I can't stop you. My agenda remains to improve articles and I intend to stay focussed on that. Banjeboi 03:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: "Glad you are amused. I find homophobia to be rather deadly too often so apologize if"[. . .] why not say instead, "I apologize if I feel I don't need to use valid reasoning or get the facts straight. Just say any damn thing I please so long as it's in the name of opposing homophobia"? More reaction to your incoherent "dismissed Dutch high ranking official" story, which is supposed to be an excuse to spread rumors. The Netherlands is legally the most gay friendly country in the world, so we're supposed to believe that either being gay or being closeted would even be a campaign issue there? Your fairy tale is unfeasible to Google because there are so many possible ways it could be a distortion (if indeed it derives from an actual event). In what country? Was an official dismissed from a governmental post, or was the member of a private organization or a business ousted from some job? Was it proved that the person was closeted, or were there mere allegations he/she was gay? Hurmata (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Outdent. Hurmata that is a leap of bad faith and I hope you consider striking much of your comment. Assuming I'm just saying "any damn thing"? Please. I don't need to do that here even if that was my interest. And you can stop berating me for bringing up the case of the closeted politician. If I figure out who he was I'll post it. The example was to demonstrate the changing tide in how LGBT people are seen. He wasn't being admonished for being gay but because he was closeted about it and concerns were that he would be blackmailed in some way because of his closetedness. There are many cases of closeted politicians so let's just move on and agree that as far as this article is concerned there is only, as of yet, reliable sources presented to put "dogged about rumors", etc. Banjeboi 12:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply to remark commencing with "Outdent". The best offense is a good offense, so Banjeboi is "hoping" that *somebody else* will "consider striking" *their* comment. Banjeboi is the one who should be retracting the false sanctimony of "huh, excuse me for being so concerned about the deadliness of homophobia that I feel free to use Wikipedia content to gossip about unmarried Republicans". Yeah yeah, stonewall forever Banjeboi, like Republican VP Cheney on Iraq. *Why* "can [we] stop berating you" for putting forth a self contradictory, conveniently vague story? You situate the alleged event in a country that is as gay friendly as any on earth, whose culture is world renowned for its general tolerance and respect for privacy. The *Netherlands* is hardly a country where a politician can be "blackmailed for being a closeted gay". Besides which, if he *was* dismissed for being closeted, that *outed* him/her -- hah! *Unless* you wish to claim that this incident occurred without publicly naming the "official" -- in which case, it's an *unfalsifiable rumor*! B seems more concerned with the graphic design of his user ID than with the substance of his arguments. The bottom line about B's arguments is they are lame excuses to spread gossip, which flouts the WP:BLP and the mission of Wikipedia. Hurmata (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurmata, please don't reformat my comments and I'll try to respect yours as well. I did the "outdent" to improve readability. Per WP:Talk I'm going to ignore the rest of your comments here as my only interest was to respond to the RfC. I encourage you to focus on improving the article rather than finding issues with my comments. if my example didn't work for you, so be it. Banjeboi 18:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Benjiboi alias Banjeboi: It is not your place -- or anybody's place -- to exempt your own (their own) comments from scrutiny and discussion. (An aside: Improving readability is all very nice, but I encourage you to help readers follow the sequence of the thread by not deformatting your comments -- or as you have pseudoaffably put it, "outdenting" them.) You can come to terms with the fact that your talk page comments are part of your impact on the quality of articles and will accordingly evoke responses. As will your actual edits, of course. By misapplying the LGBT project tag on July 20-21, you are behaving imperiously, trying to make an end run around this whole discussion you have participated in. On another front, you consistently take flamboyant steps to create confusion. There is the matter of your UserID: it is Benjiboi, but your graphic uses the spelling Banjeboi. Then there is your disruption of the thread outline. Hurmata (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From latest experience, we know not to take you at your word. Just yesterday, Benjiboi issued a similarly humble announcement, but it was cover for the low blow of putting on the Project LGBT tag! *That's* what he did in just the last 24 hours to "improve the article". Putting this tag on any BLP article where the subject does not acknowledge being gay would usually be dirty pool, but of all BLP's, this one has an RfQ discussion going on -- here where you're reading -- about whether to report gay rumors and Benjiboi is a participant in it. So, what does Benjiboi have up his sleeve *this* time? Hurmata (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment (RfC) regarding whether to report rumors about sexual orientation