Talk:Larry Craig

message: Why can't we add that category? He's gay and a politician right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.46.190 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the individual whom the article is about stated that he is of a non-heterosexual sexual preference?  If so, I see no reason why said category shouldn't be added; but until a reliable citible reference can be found to support such a statement, than I would say no. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, LGBT is label politics. Since he doesn't identify as gay, and certainly doesn't support the community, I don't think the category applies to him. That's just my two cents. 2600:1700:EEC9:F400:748B:1048:6413:53CA (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  LBGT Politician 

message: This article was protected because it is "linked to from high-traffic sites," even though there was no vandalism by IPs before its protection. It says it was set to expire on September 1, 2007. If that is so, then why can't I edit it? (Also, see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred.")--71.108.54.16 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is protected indefinitely for new and anonymous editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with anon here and raised this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BL#Semi-protection due to linkage from high traffic sites? Nil Einne 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Removed the sentence referring to the op-ed by Jack Cafferty. The editorial is not a news story by CNN as a news organization. An editor added the sentence "The restroom incident was referred to as "Pottygate" on a CNN commentary" when the editorial shows the disclaimer "the opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer." Instead, the editorial is opinion by Cafferty as an observer, not as a news reporter.  
According to what I could find, the term "pottygate" appears to be used in various contexts when it is mentioned in the content. such as references to Bush/Rice, some incident in the UK, etc. I found the term mentioned mostly in forums, message boards and blogs and a few editorials written by others, but not in a news story about Craig. As to references about Craig himself, the word "pottygate" was used mostly as a keyword to find stories about him without a mention of the word in the story. The sentence that includes this term can be restored in the article once it is used in general news reporting as it relates to Larry Craig. →Lwalt ♦ talk 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not a big fan of it, either. If the term gains traction, then it might be appropriate, but right now it seems low on the WP:WEIGHT scale. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ummm.. look, I know Watergate was a really big deal to all you baby boomers out there, but coming from a slightly younger perspective, do we have to have every scandal that ever comes up called [insert one item in scandal]gate? C'mon, have you people lost all sense of originality? Can't we call it something like "The Shithouse Shuffle" or something else which doesn't try to relate every event to Richard Nixon? Pottygate sounds freaking juvenile anyway. Who, over the age of 5, refers to the toilet as a 'potty'? Grow up, please Wandering Star 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Craig article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Pairadox 02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I read it it's a discussion on whether to allow the use of the newly coined word pottygate or not in the article, so it IS about how to improve the article! Algotr (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of reference to op-ed 

message: An editor removed this information:
*In October 2006, gay activist blogger Mike Rogers, who has earned a controversial reputation for outing political conservatives, alleged on his blog that Craig was gay.<ref"SOAPBOX ABUSE; Our View: Blogger's claim about Craig is dubious, irrelevant;" Spokesman Review. Spokane, Wash.: Oct 20, 2006. pg. B.4 ref Craig called the claim "completely ridiculous."ref "Senator Pleads to Disorderly Conduct" STEVE KARNOWSKI, The Associated Press, August 27, 2007ref  
With the edit summary, " Not substantiated enough to be repeated. BLP" 
I'm not sure what the BLP issue is. The allegation received widespread coverage in major media at the time.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did? The reference says its "dubious, irrelevant" so why include it? The 1980's section should also be removed or rewritten since the sources are poor/non exsistent. --Tom 04:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it did, I'll look it up again in the newspaper archive and post some clippings.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that it's been mentioned in much of the current media coverage too.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: the reference that called it "dubious, irrelevant" was an editorial. See also the Michael Reagan opinion piece below.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess like everything here, its how the section is written/reported. Whats reliable, relevant and in what context is it being reported? Is there a balance to "claims" as opposed to known facts? Why is the material being added and how does it improve the article? Is it biased? Anyways, I am not really arguing with the material, but with how and whether it should be presented. Thanks,--Tom 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, we can decide how best to cover the issue. I think its chief relevance here is that the 2007 incident is not the first time that the issue of Craig's orientation was mentioned in the press.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's incorrect. The Idaho Statesman corroborated two of the allegations.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is correct. They didn't corroborate anything. They repeated it. WaPo and NY Times would have went with it if it were corroborated. Both news outlets put reporters on the story and were unable to meet their standards. In fact, IIRC, the Idaho Statesman was roundly criticised by journalism organizations for repeating it.  This was all discussed last October.  -- ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Mike Rodgers seems notable enough, and well-sourced enough, to include.  Mike Rodgers is a blogger who has generated debate on the ethics of "outing" closeted politicians; his allegations at the time generated some coverage in the mainstream media; and most importantly, his allegations caused the Idaho Statesman to start a long investigation into Craig's sexuality and sexual history (the investigation and its results are discussed elsewhere in the article) (ref'd here).  In other words, whether or not the allegations were reliable, the allegations themselves are notable.  Fireplace 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2006 allegations 

message: User Pairadox jumped all over me a while ago for explaining that the legal basis of the plea withdrawal would be that the guilty plea  was not VIK, that is not voluntary, intelligent, and not knowing and therefore in violation of his sixth amendment right to counsel. He said I was speculating, and not editing and therefore wasting time. I probably didn't bother to reply. You don't edit in a vacuum, you have to know where a story is going, so you can be alert to developments. In fact, when the motion was filed, the CNN story mentioned intelligent and knowing constitutional basis. In another story, Sen Specter mentions his plea was not intelligent. The gulty plea Craig signed by mail did not include a waiver to counsel form and may also be deficient. I know blogs are not wp:rs but Jeralyn Merrit who is a counselor, and writes I believe for the WashPost has a discussion on it. JeralynGodspeed John Glenn! Will 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you placed it in the article before such motions were filed, then it was speculation; informed speculation perhaps, but still speculation. If you placed it on the talk page, then it was merely discussing the topic of the article and not related to editing the article as it was at the time. Kinda like this section isn't related to editing the article. Pairadox 03:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Basis of Motion

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

message: It seems a bit premature to me to nominate this for GA. Point 3 of the GA criteria is stability. With the number of edits to this article, and the fact that it is still an ongoing event, this article will not meet that criterion for a while yet. I suggest holding this nomination until the dust has fully settled. Jeffpw 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. At the least, the GA nomination should be held off until after resolution of the hearing on overturning the plea agreement or his final resignation from the U.S. Senate, which ever occurs last. →Lwalt ♦ talk 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nomination?

message: Feel free to delete this for BLP reasons but are there any reliable sources which mention what he'd likely been planning to do? Was he likely planning to use a Glory hole (sexual) or simply waiting for the police officer to let him into his stall (or perhaps for the police officer to enter his stall)? Nil Einne 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't image how a reliable source could tell us what kind of sex he was planning to have since he's denied planning to have any. The Idaho Statesmen does have a description of one alleged sexual incident involving the subject from which readers can draw their own conclusions. The subject pleaded guilty only to a vague crime so we have to be careful about presuming too much. We can report on important commemtary, but we can't speculate on our own.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the plea petition, Craig only pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct as a misdemeanor as alleged in the complaint filed against him in the Minnesota court. He was charged under Minnesota statute 609.72, subdivision 1 under part (3), and that was the charge to which he pleaded guilty in his petition that he signed and mailed to the court. The wording of the statute explains the nature of the misdemeanor charge and guilty plea to this charge, which does not include disorderly conduct as it pertains to sexual conduct nor mentions a specific sexual act. Readers can interpret and decide for themselves what this information about the charge means to them. Any interpretion of this information for inclusion in the article would be original research, since no media source has reported what sexual act he actually did or intended to do in that incident. →Lwalt ♦ talk 05:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Glory hole (sexual)]] 

message: I removed this material. If the airport starts to charge an admission fee, then maybe its worth a mention. thanks,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threeafterthree (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sites of many famous crimes, major and minor, become points of interest, if only briefly. The condominium entrance where Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered was a major tourist site until the owners redesigned it. I suspect that people will lose interest in this location over time. The fact of its notoriety isn't really relevant to this article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: "On October 18, 2007, Craig announced his intention to appeal the decision of the court."
Considering that it's now October 15th, and the reference for this article brings up an error, can someone fix this?  I haven't yet heard this, so I don't know what the proper date is (but assume it's probably today, the 15th).  --CWSensationt 05:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed. Anastrophe 06:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Incorrect Dating." Yep, that's what he was charged with! Joegoodfriend 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Dating 

message: I have discussed this with Jimbo, I do not believe it is acceptable to include a mugshot in this way.  The Hugh Grant mugshot was a meme of its own, I don't believe this is.  It serves no purpose as identification (the existing free image is fine for that).  Please do not restore it, this is a WP:BLP article.  Guy (Help!) 23:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please provide a pointer to your discussion with Jimbo, so that we may read it as well. WP runs on consensus, not "what jimbo said" claims. yes, this is a WP:BLP. and within that definition is that of a public figure, which mr. craig assuredly is. Anastrophe 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see the Jimbo discussion that Guy is referring to, also. But, the way that this editor is handling this situation has me wondering whether circumvention of the process is being tried once again to thwart collaboration and consensus, which were also the issues at hand in the Deletion Review a while back. →Lwalt ♦ talk 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think we need to invoke Wales in this matter. The question is whether the photo's prurient value is outweighed by its importance to the article. In the case of some criminals and celebrities, the mugshot is one of the best-known images. In the case of Craig, the mugshot has not become especially well-known. On the other hand, making the mugshot a main image on Wikipedia will tend to make it one of the most accessed photos of the subject. Since it was a misdemeanor, and since the subject isn't a criminal per se, using a mug shot seeme to be unnecessarily derogatory.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's a reasonable rationale, certainly more so than invoking "jimbo says so", which i find contemptuous of the process we're ostensibly supposed to work within. Anastrophe 06:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will is right, and that's what I said too.  Lwalt has now twice reverted my removal of the mugshot, and I'm rather hoping he won't do so again.  As to invoking Jimbo, I don't particularly care if the anti-establishment crowd find anything he says to be an excuse to do the opposite, my experience of him is that he is very clear-sighted when it comes to WP:BLP issues, which is the problem here.  Guy (Help!) 07:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: interesting, but completely unresponsive, while attempting to imply motive via apparently a crystal ball. so, WP:CIVIL apparently goes out the window too. is this any way to run a consensus-driven encyclopedia? Anastrophe 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect that JzG's initial posting may have failed to include a fuller description of the issues about the photo because it has been discussed before here and elsewhere. Another point he may not have made fully is that we try to minimize the user of "fair use" images for a variety of reasons. With one free use image already available there is even less reason to use a a "fair use" image. Some points, like copyright rules, are beyond article-by-article consensus and have been decided on a project-wide basis.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Anastrophe, consensus is represented by WP:BLP, which has very many edits and solid support.  What that policy says is, we must be extra careful where an article subject is a living individual.  Now you may think it pretty trivial what goes on in a Wikipedia article, but I have seen many emails from people who are hurt and distressed by what we say.  Being careful means we carefully weigh whether any content genuinely improves our understanding of the subject.  In this case, including the mugshot does not do that.  It does not illustrate the text, because a booking photograph is taken for all persons charged so is not especially bound to the event, the case or the aftermath.  It is not a meme of its own, as the Hugh Grant mugshot is.  And of course it is listed as unfree, which as Will notes is a problem in itself.  But the major issue is that of WP:BLP.  However hypocritical the subject is, and however much we may laugh at his calamity, Wikipedia is supposed to rise above that and state the facts in terms of studied neutrality.  Guy (Help!) 15:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if this has already been asked and answered, but aren't mugshots free use, given that they are government pictures? Jeffpw 15:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that works of the federal govt. are public domain, but works of the various states are copywritten by the states. Most mug shots are done by state entities, not federal. - Crockspot 15:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: i already concurred with user Will Beback's initial rationale. you are continuing to avoid and deflect what i consider an egregious abuse of the wikipedia process: saying "jimbo says so". i'm interested in how i might procure such a backchannel to mr. wales, is there a process for gaining access? are conversations in that regard 'off the record', but citable within wikipedia as enforceable policy? for that matter, what is to prevent me or any other editor claiming - without any need for a WP:RS reference - to have "spoken with jimbo"? WP:AGF only goes so far. please provide a valid citation for this conversation with jimbo, so that other editors and readers may verify for themselves that it took place. thank you. Anastrophe 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that's not what I said.  I said, I have done this, here is why, please don't undo it, I'm talking to Jimbo about it.  I'm perfectly well aware that no article can be too critical for some, this is after all an article about a politician who appears to have engaged in gross hypocrisy, but the fact that he's a hypocrite is not an excuse to gratuitously include content designed to make him look bad. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i formally give up trying to get an honest answer on my inquiries. every response has been evasive, and has been uncivil in suggesting ulterior motive without any evidence to support it ('no article can be too critical for some'). reading your userpage, there are indications that you're a WP admin. if so, i'm appalled. Anastrophe 15:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I just undid the deletion of the See also section, which links to Sex scandal and Richard Curtis (politician).  The reason that I reinstated the links is that they are both related to the article.  Larry Craig's story does have a sex scandal as a major component (whether the allegations are true or not isn't the point- scandals don't have to be fact based), and the Richard Curtis scandal is parallel to this one too.  
To the previous edition who asked why not Barney Frank or Bill Clinton?  Well, Barney Frank wasn't caught up in the same sort of scandal (it was a different type, especially regarding the allegations of hypocrisy), nor was Bill Clinton.  I wouldnt include [Ted Haggart] in there, because he wasn't a politician.--Prk6 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to re-read WP:BLP. FCYTravis 04:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's complete rubbish Travis. Calling what Craig was involved in a sex scandal is not slanderous, and neither is drawing clear connections between politicians who also were uncovered to be secretly engaging in homosexual acts. However, the see also section certainly isn't worth the effort to edit war over. I think we can reach a compromise. Linking sex scandal, even as a piped hidden link, is preferable within the text. And we can include examples of homosexual political scandals across party and perhaps even national lines to ensure a neutral point of view. But the point of See also is to point readers to similar articles. No one can deny that Richard Curtis is a very similar topic to this one. Even if we don't include that link in particular, not having a See also section is extremely unusual for an article of this size. Part of our job is to provide links to build the web between topics and ideas. VanTucky Talk 06:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sex scandal as a link probably belongs somewhere in the body of the article, with a reference so that we have a reliable source calling it thus. The "Richard Curtis" link is not going back in, period, because there is absolutely no connection between the two people that couldn't also be drawn between dozens and dozens of other people. Of course it can be said that Curtis is a similar topic - so are Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich and Barney Frank and Bill Clinton and the eleventy squillion other political figures ever caught with their pants down at the wrong time. They're both in :Category:Sex scandals already, and that's what categories are for. We don't turn biographies into lists of scandals. It's guilt by association. Each person will stand on their own merits. FCYTravis 08:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not act so high-handed. You are not the sole arbiter of this article's content. VanTucky Talk 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: where has FYCTravis suggested he/she is? WP:AGF please, as well as WP:CIVIL. i removed the 'see also section' because because it falls to WP:WEIGHT when it's the only item within the section. furthermore, the article is connected via the category "sex scandals", so the section serves no purpose. merely incorporating a WL of "sex scandal" within the body of the article is perfectly adequate. Anastrophe 18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized how lame having this conversation is.  Forget it.--Prk6 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also edits

message: Oughtn't there be a line in the infobox that lists the most recent time Craig (or any Senator, for that matter) was elected? Seems to me just as important as who preceeded him. Maybe it could go after one of the "incumbents". Thanks. Mdiamante 02:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Is there anyone who believes Craig's version of the incident? If it's someone in public life, it should be noted for balance.Dynzmoar (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you seem to be making a point, but i'm not clear what it is. it isn't relevant to the article whether anyone believes Craig's version of the incident. Anastrophe (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility 

message: CBS News,  Associated Press and others are now reporting eight men have come forward claiming to have had sex with Larry Craig. 
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hnzMHYGd-aXQbgughBA40pWNvlxQD8T9UU2O0
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/04/publiceye/entry3572031.shtml
24.6.22.220 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now Eight Men Claim Gay Sex

message: On the Law & Order episode that was broadcast on 30 January, Larry Craig's "Bathroomgate" incident was fictionalized. Should we include a quip about that? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: as an encyclopedia, 'quips' about living persons are generally not tolerated. fictionalized representations of a living person are probably not going to be welcomed either. did the L&O episode mention craig by name? no? then it has no place in this article. Anastrophe (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I am simply asking if it was appropriate. You did not need to get hostile with me. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry you took it as hostile. i consider it merely blunt. Anastrophe (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I consider you, sir, to be extremely rude, to say the least. Mind your manners in the future! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: likewise - your comment on my talk page to "not act like an a-hole when you speak" puts me in mind of the pot calling the kettle black. my comments above addressed your arguments, i didn't call you an "a-hole" for bringing it up. as i said, it was blunt, but hardly hostile or rude. now, can we get back to discussing the article, rather than your feelings? Anastrophe (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Anastrophe is off base... that Law & Order bases an entire episode on someone is usually often notable enough to mention in their article. Law & Order would never mention the person the episode is actually based on in the episode, for obvious legal reasons (they include a standard fiction disclaimer). The problem is referencing that the episode was based on Craig and that it was at all notable... so far I see a blog, Raw Story, and a "Today on TV" column from The Deseret News. I'm not sure what "Raw Story" is exactly but this doesn't seem like fantastic sourcing right off the bat. But if this gets wider coverage, as something of actual sociopolitical importance, I'd say it's fair game for inclusion in this article. --W.marsh 02:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it strikes me as barely notable. at random, i just checked the Natalie Holloway and Valerie Plame articles - the former mentions that L&O did a show ostensibly based on her story, but the latter makes no mention. i think it falls into the 'if a wikipedia editor saw the episode they probably added it' syndrome. meh. knock yourselves out. i see it as just adding garbage to a BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're probably right, given the lack of concern for this episode beyond 2 blogs and a "tonight on television" page. I honestly thought a few more sources would have cared enough to mention it... but I guess it really is not notable, based on the evidence thus far. But when deciding whether to include something in an article or not, we should look to the sources first, rather than try to make categorical decisions based on our own values. In this case, the sources do seem to bare out that the connection wasn't very important. Had I gone with my own gut instinct, I would have said "include it", by the way. --W.marsh 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: since i haven't seen the episode (and likely never will), i don't know in what manner they fictionalized the incident, or what degree of objectivity or accuracy the episode had. i do think though that since this is a BLP, it falls into a very grey area. what if, at the end of the episode, they had the ostensible mr. craig publicly 'coming out'? since it's a fictionalization, there's nothing that would've prevented them from having that as the outcome of the episode. and that would likely fall into the 'leave it out' realm based on BLP standards. i dunno. 'grey area' seems to sum it up for me. Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law & Order Reference 

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

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

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

message: 74.166.89.205 (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hatnote: "Former senator"

message: Should there be any mention of Larry Craig's significance in popular culture, specifically relating to his arrest? I know that after his arrest, there were at least two song parodies recorded: "Tap Three Times" (Knock Three Times) and "(My Men's Room Date's A) Senator" (Centerfold (song)). Also, there was a "Bobblefoot" doll distributed by the St. Paul Saints and a Craig action figure with bendable legs, a rainbow triangle T-shirt, and a voicechip that repeats his infamous "I am not gay, I have never been gay" line. Finally, Jack FM parodied him quite often in their station identifications right after he was arrested.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: I laugh all day when I fixate on the Larry Craig scandal.  His anti-gay legislation though really makes his scandal of gay bathroom sex more interesting. --Lewd conduct (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  My fixation on Larry Craig 

message: I propose to merger Larry Craig scandal with Larry Craig. I think the content can be easily accommodated on the main article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal