Talk:Larry Craig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Larry Craig was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 13, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Larry Craig is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
13 April 2008 Liberal Web John J. Miller – National Review

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Craig article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Protection

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

It is protected indefinitely for new and anonymous editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with anon here and raised this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Semi-protection due to linkage from high traffic sites? Nil Einne 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I have unprotected. We can always re-protect if anon vandalism ensues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

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

I think the idea is that since he didn't flush the toilet it shows/proves that he wasn't in there to actually go to the bathroom. Anyways, --Tom 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he just has bad toilet manners? Nil Einne 18:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What editors think the reason may be is irrelevant. Pairadox 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Is that factoid relevant to the article? Should it be included? Why is it included? Anyways, --Tom 19:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Pairadox, given that you yourself are an editor, if what editors think is irrelevant, then what you think is also irrelevant. Thus, there is little reason for any of us to pay any attention to you. If the editors think this factoid is worth mentioning, that's fine, although I wouldn't comment on what it means in the article. After all, none of us has any real idea if he actually intended to use the toilet or not, it's speculative at best to say that the reason why the toilet wasn't flushed is because he had no intention of using it. But, it's perfectly acceptable to say that the toilet was not flushed, and leave it at that. Wandering Star 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What editors think the reason may be is irrelevant. Pairadox 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We're not criminologists and can't decide what evidence points towards the existence of a crime. We should avoid using the police report as a source just because it may include unimportant material, or misrepresent the importance of details. Instead we should use the press and legal experts when we need to decide what to include. This detail is perhaps as relevant as many of the other details that we include. The problem, IMO, is that there are too many details. I've never seen a misdemeanor arrest described so intricately. I hope that over time we can trim details about the incident, arrest, and interrogation (which together represent perhaps an hour's worth of activity). (Personally, if I were on a public toilet "for its intended purpose" and some hand popped under the divider, holding a police badge and motioning me to get out, I might be so flustered that I'd forget to flush or zip up, etc. While I can see how it might be relevant, I can also how how it might be irrelevant. The cop should have done his duty by checking for doody.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Will, if your argument is A) We're not criminologists B) Only criminologists are qualified to analyze why the toilet was unflushed therefore, C) we cannot comment as to why the toilet was unflushed, why did you just comment on why the toilet was unflushed? The only difference between what you just did, and what ThreeafterThree said, is he interpreted it in a way that suggests guilt, while you interpreted it in a way that suggests innocence. If TAT is unqualified to make that comment, so are you.
Exactly my point - it can be interpreted in different ways, but it isn't up to us. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think detail is fine, and poses no harm, so long as we don't try to interpret any of that detail. I'm also okay with using original source material, like a police report, as opposed to the press, since the police report is much more accurate than any press account could ever possibly be.Wandering Star 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A police report is a primary source that should be treated with caution for that reason. Better would be to use one of the numerous secondary sources. Also, I would agree with Will, that in due course we will need to trim down that section to the necessary details for an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No...not funny, and here's why.
The statement, "Craig left the stall without flushing the toilet" is relevant to the probable cause that the arresting officer may have relied on to arrest Craig on the lewd conduct charge. The reference to Craig not flushing the toilet is mentioned in the formal criminal complaint filed in the District Court (see Complaint in Minnesota v. Craig, Case No. 07043231 (D.C. Minn., Jul. 2007)). Nothing in the complaint mentions whether Craig used the toilet; the complaint only mentions that he did not flush it. So, in this case, I'm relying on the formal complaint that was filed in a District Court in Minnesota as the primary source of information regarding the allegations against Craig, rather than secondary news reports that rely on this same source.
Here's what was mentioned in the complaint that was filed with the court in Sen. Craig's case:
"At approximately 12:19 p.m. Sergeant Karsnia showed the Defendant his police identification under the stall and pointed towards the exit, at which time the Defendant exclaimed "No!" Sergeant Karsnia again pointed to the exit. Sergeant observed the Defendant exit the stall with his bag and without flushing the toilet."
The officer's action occurred about four minutes after that same officer observed the foot signals used by Craig during the solicitation attempt for the lewd conduct (see page 1, paragraph 3 of the Complaint) and about six minutes after the officer first observed Craig peeking through the crack of the door on the stall occupied by the officer.
This action (i.e., not flushing the toilet during Craig's "foot dance and toe tapping") shows intent as part of the basis for what lewd conduct charge -- that is, the officer alleged that Craig was not using the restroom for its expected function. Also, the lack of using the toilet, from the officer's view and taken together with the other actions, shows that Craig's intent was only to use the restroom for soliciting an invitation to engage in a lewd activity (a key indicator, from the officer's view, based on behavior observed during other incidents of this activity).
Since this information was included in the complaint, it's definitely relevant as to forming the probable cause to support the the allegation against arrest Craig (the link to the report that mentions this lack of action on Craig's part can be found among the citations and also in the External links section). So, the description of the incident should be left as that, regardless of whether the mention of it offends some, relying on the principle "Wikipedia is not censored." The statement should not be viewed as a gratuitous one added to the article to hype the story. Representing the incident as anything less would take on an appearance of sanitizing the incident to conform with pronouncements by Craig -- that is, the incident is what it is regardless what we think it should be.
I purposely left out of the article the context of this statement (that would be WP:OR), so the statement was provided as is to remain neutral; the reader of the article can figure out what the mention of that statement means to them. On the one side, the officer may have included this fact to support the probable cause for the Craig's arrest, while on the other side,Craig may have been simply surprised and startled by the police badge that was flashed at him during his state of disbelief -- but, I had to consider the information important because it was mentioned in the formal complaint for the charges against Craig.
Hope that this explanation clears up the reason that this information was important to include in the summary of the incident. →Lwalt ♦ talk 01:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources are ALWAYS better than secondary sources. Why? Because secondary sources have already been re-interpreted by somebody else, and carry the bias of that interpreter. A primary source will, by it's nature, carry some bias, but not nearly as much as a secondary source would. When you were children, did you ever play a game called "telephone"? It's where someone would whisper something in your ear, and you'd have to whisper the same thing in someone else's. With a big enough a group, after it goes around a few times, by the time the last person is asked about what was whispered in their ear, it's always radically different that the original whisperer's statement. Always. That's human nature. And a secondary source means the data has been altered since the primary source started the whispering game. Wandering Star 02:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, and as such it relies mainly in published third-party sources. See WP:V#Sources and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We're aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. However, as for analyzing legal issues, one can't get a source no more verifiable than a court of law when the testimony from dueling sides is tested against established laws and statutes because the public is bound by those same laws and statutes. Craig decided to settle for a plea instead of letting the case play out at trial to really test that truth. So, the truth -- or what is represented as the truth -- by both sides is the best that can be stated in the article sans the analysis -- that's the reader's role to determine the meaning of the information. If a secondary source in its summary of information from a primary source left out key details so that the story takes on a different meaning and a shift in context, then the secondary source is elevated in a way that suggests that its version is one of reliability and truthfulness, even when something points to a different truth. Seems to me that what we really have here is softening the story to appeal to the senses of many. The context is different when one states that "he left the place with the police after he was arrested for signaling his intentions for unlawful behavior" versus "he left the place with the police -- without flushing the toilet, after he was arrested for signaling his intentions for unlawful behavior." Same incident...different story. I'll leave it as that for right now. →Lwalt ♦ talk 04:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Did any source report whether crime scene investigators secured samples from the toilet bowl to determine whether it was actually in need of flushing? Could be a CLUE.Edison 03:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yeah, the first thing I wanted to and needed to know is if he flushed the toilet. Are you kidding? If he flushed he is innocent but if he didn't flush he is guilty?? Anyways, --Tom 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
So much for "neutrality", Tom. Why are you so eager to suppress relevant information? You seem to be on some sort of crusade (ironically the way you have labeled another above.) I did not say it would determine guilt or innocence. It is however relevant circumstantial evidence. This is afterall a circumstantial case where one story must be weighed against another and the individual's credibility comes into question. When one side's actions don't match with their story, the reader deserves to be informed of the discrepancy. One doesn't have to couch the explanation in prejudicial language, but suppressing it equally violates neutrality. It has direct bearing on Craig and the officer's widely divergent claims of what was occurring. Red Harvest (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Listen, if you want to add it, go for it..flush away :) As long as it is in some kind of context and isn't just inserted for its own sake, whatever. It just seemed like people were intent on including it and not other details. Anyways, --Tom 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of reference to op-ed

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

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

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of it, either. If the term gains traction, then it might be appropriate, but right now it seems low on the WP:WEIGHT scale. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ummm.. look, I know Watergate was a really big deal to all you baby boomers out there, but coming from a slightly younger perspective, do we have to have every scandal that ever comes up called [insert one item in scandal]gate? C'mon, have you people lost all sense of originality? Can't we call it something like "The Shithouse Shuffle" or something else which doesn't try to relate every event to Richard Nixon? Pottygate sounds freaking juvenile anyway. Who, over the age of 5, refers to the toilet as a 'potty'? Grow up, please Wandering Star 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Craig article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Pairadox 02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2006 allegations

An editor removed this information:

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

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

It did? The reference says its "dubious, irrelevant" so why include it? The 1980's section should also be removed or rewritten since the sources are poor/non exsistent. --Tom 04:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes it did, I'll look it up again in the newspaper archive and post some clippings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that it's been mentioned in much of the current media coverage too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: the reference that called it "dubious, irrelevant" was an editorial. See also the Michael Reagan opinion piece below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are some I can find from 2006:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Early 1980's section

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

This is the section:In 1982 the mainstream media reported claims that Craig had had sex with men.[1][citation needed] In 1982, Craig appeared on NBC News to deny rumors about cocaine use and sex with male teenage congressional pages.[citation needed] Craig stated "Persons who are unmarried as I am, by choice or by circumstance, have always been the subject of innuendos, gossip and false accusations. I think this is despicable."[2] --Tom 05:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There's a source on the first sentence. Why did you add a citation request? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I should have used I am skeptical of it tag :) I don't know. Do I need to go look at the article in the library? --Tom 05:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What you might have been wanting is the [Quotation needed from source] tag. I'll find a quote for you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Removing NBC news looks better and now matches cite, thanks for that. I still would like to see the NY Times article myself. Is that soucable anywhere else? The other articles make it sound like Craig was not accused of anything back then so this contradicts that?--Tom 05:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The NYT has an extensive online archive and most libraries in the U.S. have an archive of it too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's the most relevant passage:
  • Rumors circulating today on Capitol Hill linked at least seven members of Congress, including two members of the House leadership, to homosexual activities, and the names of six other members were being mentioned in the reports of cocaine trafficking. Members generally avoided making public statements about the accusations, lest they seem to give substance to the charges. But Representative Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, issued a statement saying that the reports of homosexual activity reflected a "concerted effort at character assassination." "When all else fails," he said, "persons who are unmarried by choice or circumstance have always been the subject of innuendoes, gossip and false accusations. This is despicable." "AUTHORITIES MEET ON CAPITOL SEX AND DRUG INQUIRY" ROBERT PEAR, New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Jul 8, 1982. pg. B.9
Other stories have mentioned how odd it was that Criag made this statement without any known prompting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the first sentence entirely because the source didn't confirm it. The other sentences suffice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that the NBC appearance is documented at YouTube here. I'm not sure whether we can link to that clip under copyright laws, but I believe a reference to an unlinked dated news report is an acceptable source. Fireplace 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That link should not even be on the talk page, yet alone the article page, IMHO. --Tom 23:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Basis of Motion

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

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

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

[edit] "Constitutionality of arrest"

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Craig article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Pairadox 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that NTK's analysis constitutes original research, but as the editor who originally added the section on Article 1, Section 6, I agree it should be removed (or at least reduced to a one sentence summary). The argument has *not* been taken up by the mainstream press (see here) and none of the major law blogs have raised it either (see here). The likely reason is discussed here: "The phrase treason, felony or breach of the peace is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege." (citing Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 446 (1908)). Given all this data, I think that the brief furor over Article 1, Section 6 was the result of non-legal scholars misinterpreting the constitution -- a misinterpretation which never made it past non-law blogs and a couple minor news stories. I don't think it's notable enough to include. Fireplace 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is interesting, and it does go to explain why NTK deleted the apparently incorrect material sourced from WorldNetDaily. In general we should not be making our own evaluations of consitutional or legal issues, and should rely instead on reliable secondary sources. It looks like we'll need to be more careful about picking our sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously what I wrote is "my take" although it is backed up by the sources cited in the Speech or Debate Clause article and not exactly rocket science when it comes to Constitutional law. I did not insert my "research" into the article, I was showing that the material inserted from the WorldNetDaily article was in fact original and fatally defective research, and that is why I removed it. If I did not justify the removal, someone would probably just revert it and claim that it was censorship or bias.
Also, it appears that Fireplace is correct and I was wrong insofar as the "freedom from arrest" clause seems to be virtually obsolete and applying only to civil cases, with the exception encompassing all criminal matters—a good example of the pitfalls of constitutional law. All in all, Section 6 is clearly of no help to Craig. NTK 03:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Free speech

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

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

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

[edit] GA Nomination?

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

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

[edit] Glory hole (sexual)

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

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

[edit] Tourist attraction

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

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

The sites of many famous crimes, major and minor, become points of interest, if only briefly. The condominium entrance where Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered was a major tourist site until the owners redesigned it. I suspect that people will lose interest in this location over time. The fact of its notoriety isn't really relevant to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
PS: It might be worth noting in Minneapolis Airport, where I see it's already been added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'left without flushing the toilet'

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

Readers can and will interpret whatever is in the article. We already include a number of details of the crime and arrest. I'm not sure why the hand and foot motions are more important than the non-flushing. For so long as we include some details I don't see a bsis for deciding on some while omitting others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is it so important to include this part of the police report in the article? Folks can go read it if they want. The rehashing of the report in the body of this bio is already too long/weighed for the article, imho. It appears that a single purpose account is pushing for inclusion of this material? Thanks, --Tom 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Are we flushing or not flushing the toilet again? Funny that we're revisiting this issue. I agree that leaving out information that was included in the criminal complaint changes the context of the incident. The context of the incident as stated in this article does not represent the same one that formed the intent for the arrest -- talked about that too and the significance of the omission. →Lwalt ♦ talk 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
unless the criminal complaint is included in the article verbatim, editors are making their own judgements about what is or is not relevant. that's POV. either the entire criminal complaint should be included, or it should simply be linked to. Anastrophe 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That actually sounds pretty reasonable. You sure you're at the right place :) I would vote/argue for just linking the complaint and being done with it. Cheers! --Tom 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It'd be better to remove all details of the arrest rather than picking and choosing which we think are relevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no requirement that we type in every word of an indictment or arrest report, or refrain from mentioning anything in it. I do not know what policy would restrict us to those two alternatives. The criterion is what from the report or indictment has been discussed in reliable independent third party sources, such as newspapers and magazines. If reporters and editors there find that hand movements under the stall divider, foot tapping and foor contact are important but leaving without flushing when the officer tells him he is under arrest isn't important enough to discuss or analyze, then we do not have to include the non-flush in the encyclopedia article. Non-flushing is a regrettable common action, unlike the other actions. If you examine any other legal case, you will find many statements in the arrest report or the indictment that are not included in the related encyclopedia article, for good reason. It is original research for Wikipedia contributors to decide what has probative value, and to construct defense or prosecutorial arguments which might have been presented if there had actually been a trial. Edison 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The only way, as proposed some time ago, to lift the weight is the split the article. However, that proposal was not agreed upon either, with an administrator leading the way (reason given was that the article was not long enough for a split). Efforts to cherry pick publicly known details present the appearance of sanitizing the article. But, we know that Wikipedia is not censored, nevertheless.
Now, for the news: links to "higher quality" sources from the mainstream media that repeat the bathroom scene from the police report.
Craig: I did nothing inappropriate in airport bathroom. (2007, August 28). CNN. Retrieved on September 26, 2007.
Senator Craig Pleads Guilty to Disorderly Conduct. (2007, August 27). KPVI-TV (Pocatello, ID). Retrieved on September 26, 2007.
Bolstad, E., Hahn, G. & Sewell, C. (2007, August 27). Larry Craig quits Romney campaign as news of men's room arrest spreads. The Idaho Statesman. Retrieved on September 26, 2007. →Lwalt ♦ talk 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if we're going to include some details then media reports are the best guide. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] GA Quickfail

[edit] The People

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

[edit] Incorrect Dating

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

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

fixed. Anastrophe 06:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"Incorrect Dating." Yep, that's what he was charged with! Joegoodfriend 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New rumors about gay sex

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

None of those are acceptable reliable sources for a biography of a living person. FCYTravis 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the village voice is an extremely valuable source. Having had seen fox news and the heritage institue cited on w-pedia, a newspaper which has a history of accurate and groundbreaking reporting shouldn't be ignored.
If the Village Voice link led to any original reporting and research on the issue, you'd be right. Instead, it's just a link to the Wonkette blog's piece. A reliable source merely posting a link to a non-reliable source does not magically make that non-reliable source acceptable in a BLP. FCYTravis 04:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Another source that I just found: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/10/will-craig-sex-accusers-make-the-cut.php

67.169.43.75 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We need more than gossip sites and blogs. Just wait until it hits the MSM. If there's substance to it, it will soon enough. FCYTravis 21:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
interesting. the section title and first sentence have been modified from "New allegations" to "New information". it's amazing how the credibility of the sources is growing by the minute. as FCYTravis suggested, this is just gossip, and the sources aren't WP:RS. Anastrophe 22:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I changed that because I felt the word "allegation" has a negative connotation. Speciate 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, allegation implies criminal behavior, which this certainly wouldn't be. Gross hypocrisy is not actionable in any court except that of public opinion. FCYTravis 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
while some people may infer that 'allegation' implies criminal behavior, that's more the fault of the inferrer, rather than the word, which is not limited thusly. Anastrophe 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Words have power. Speciate 23:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
so do cordless drills. your point? never mind. it's not worth another argument about the rise of the lowest common denominator to pre-eminence. Anastrophe 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The only one that looked like it might be reliable at first glance was the Voice, but that's just another bloggy rehash of the Wonkette info. If this bear ends up on Larry King, then maybe there's something publishable. - Crockspot 23:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mugshot

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

please provide a pointer to your discussion with Jimbo, so that we may read it as well. WP runs on consensus, not "what jimbo said" claims. yes, this is a WP:BLP. and within that definition is that of a public figure, which mr. craig assuredly is. Anastrophe 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see the Jimbo discussion that Guy is referring to, also. But, the way that this editor is handling this situation has me wondering whether circumvention of the process is being tried once again to thwart collaboration and consensus, which were also the issues at hand in the Deletion Review a while back. →Lwalt ♦ talk 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need to invoke Wales in this matter. The question is whether the photo's prurient value is outweighed by its importance to the article. In the case of some criminals and celebrities, the mugshot is one of the best-known images. In the case of Craig, the mugshot has not become especially well-known. On the other hand, making the mugshot a main image on Wikipedia will tend to make it one of the most accessed photos of the subject. Since it was a misdemeanor, and since the subject isn't a criminal per se, using a mug shot seeme to be unnecessarily derogatory. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
that's a reasonable rationale, certainly more so than invoking "jimbo says so", which i find contemptuous of the process we're ostensibly supposed to work within. Anastrophe 06:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Will is right, and that's what I said too. Lwalt has now twice reverted my removal of the mugshot, and I'm rather hoping he won't do so again. As to invoking Jimbo, I don't particularly care if the anti-establishment crowd find anything he says to be an excuse to do the opposite, my experience of him is that he is very clear-sighted when it comes to WP:BLP issues, which is the problem here. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
interesting, but completely unresponsive, while attempting to imply motive via apparently a crystal ball. so, WP:CIVIL apparently goes out the window too. is this any way to run a consensus-driven encyclopedia? Anastrophe 07:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I expect that JzG's initial posting may have failed to include a fuller description of the issues about the photo because it has been discussed before here and elsewhere. Another point he may not have made fully is that we try to minimize the user of "fair use" images for a variety of reasons. With one free use image already available there is even less reason to use a a "fair use" image. Some points, like copyright rules, are beyond article-by-article consensus and have been decided on a project-wide basis. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Anastrophe, consensus is represented by WP:BLP, which has very many edits and solid support. What that policy says is, we must be extra careful where an article subject is a living individual. Now you may think it pretty trivial what goes on in a Wikipedia article, but I have seen many emails from people who are hurt and distressed by what we say. Being careful means we carefully weigh whether any content genuinely improves our understanding of the subject. In this case, including the mugshot does not do that. It does not illustrate the text, because a booking photograph is taken for all persons charged so is not especially bound to the event, the case or the aftermath. It is not a meme of its own, as the Hugh Grant mugshot is. And of course it is listed as unfree, which as Will notes is a problem in itself. But the major issue is that of WP:BLP. However hypocritical the subject is, and however much we may laugh at his calamity, Wikipedia is supposed to rise above that and state the facts in terms of studied neutrality. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies if this has already been asked and answered, but aren't mugshots free use, given that they are government pictures? Jeffpw 15:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It is my understanding that works of the federal govt. are public domain, but works of the various states are copywritten by the states. Most mug shots are done by state entities, not federal. - Crockspot 15:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
i already concurred with user Will Beback's initial rationale. you are continuing to avoid and deflect what i consider an egregious abuse of the wikipedia process: saying "jimbo says so". i'm interested in how i might procure such a backchannel to mr. wales, is there a process for gaining access? are conversations in that regard 'off the record', but citable within wikipedia as enforceable policy? for that matter, what is to prevent me or any other editor claiming - without any need for a WP:RS reference - to have "spoken with jimbo"? WP:AGF only goes so far. please provide a valid citation for this conversation with jimbo, so that other editors and readers may verify for themselves that it took place. thank you. Anastrophe 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Except that's not what I said. I said, I have done this, here is why, please don't undo it, I'm talking to Jimbo about it. I'm perfectly well aware that no article can be too critical for some, this is after all an article about a politician who appears to have engaged in gross hypocrisy, but the fact that he's a hypocrite is not an excuse to gratuitously include content designed to make him look bad. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
i formally give up trying to get an honest answer on my inquiries. every response has been evasive, and has been uncivil in suggesting ulterior motive without any evidence to support it ('no article can be too critical for some'). reading your userpage, there are indications that you're a WP admin. if so, i'm appalled. Anastrophe 15:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I agree that the mugshots should not be included at this time. However, I am finding the tone of your comments to be unnecessarily confrontational and not fun to be around. Comments like "an excuse to gratuitously include content designed to make him look bad" are not constructive in the least. Take care, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also edits

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)

I think you need to re-read WP:BLP. FCYTravis 04:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I just realized how lame having this conversation is. Forget it.--Prk6 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

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

[edit] Credibility

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

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

[edit] Five Men Claim Gay Sex with Larry Craig

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

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

24.6.22.80 16:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

of course it is. please explain how someone can allege xyz without describing xyz. Anastrophe 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The descriptions given are not alleged, they are actual primary source recordings and news reports. To say alleged sounds like one is disputing that the five men described what they described. The sex acts with Craig may, nor may not be alleged, but the descriptions are most certainly are not. They happened. As far as how one can allege without describing... easy just leave out all the details. Then it's no longer a description, just an allegation, and nothing else. Description is not implicit in allegation, they are two different concepts. Granted allegations may also contain descriptions, but it's not necessary. At this point two established editors agree that "describing" belongs in the article. — Becksguy 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i'm sorry, but i have to say that's nonsense. "as far as how one can allege without describing...easy just leave out all the details.". please provide an example, this should be an interesting exercise in communication.Anastrophe 19:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
it should also be noted that these allegation, while referenced, may violate WP:BLP. it is impossible to determine whether the claims made by these persons are truthful; they may or may not constitute slander, and since the claims can't be corroborated, they shouldn't be included in a WP bio. Anastrophe 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure they should and you should stop trying to censor and whitewash the controversial information. -- ALLSTARecho 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
excuse me, but please be civil. i'm not trying to "whitewash" or "censor" anything, i'm trying to have the article remain encyclopedic and within policy. please don't imply motive when you have no basis for it. Anastrophe 20:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If it quacks like a duck... The basis speaks for itself. It's obvious "alleged" and "describing" are two entirely seperate things in this instance. But don't worry your self over it any longer, I'll edit the section in a bit so that they are seperated and then you'll get your way and the rest of WP will get accuracy. -- ALLSTARecho 20:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
you are being exceedingly rude. you are attacking me based upon what you are assuming are my motives. your assumptions are incorrect. but don't let that stop you from being verbally abusive to a fellow editor. Anastrophe 21:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
If someone says "A criminal act was committed", that is just an allegation without any information that describes what, where, who, when, etc. It's not a description and contains absolutely nothing of use in establishing credibility.
WP:BLP is separate issue, but with a reliable mainstream news source, The Idaho Statesman, backed up with recorded interviews with five separate men and background investigations into them and Craig, the cited sources satisfy the verifiability requirements. Associated Press has added it's imprimatur, and several other reliable and reputable mainstream newspapers, by reporting the story, also believe it's credible. There is only one sentence in the article, which is obviously not giving undue weight to the this issue. So I believe it does not violate WP:BLP, although it's a good question to being up and merits serious consideration. Thank you. — Becksguy 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
we're pushing into semantics pretty badly here, but "a criminal act was committed" describes an allegation. i see your point, however. if anything, if this remains in the article, it should be expanded (do you hear that, allstarecho?), so that these specifics can be clarified - a single sentence in the article is not adequate to explain the above. however, even though mainstream news has noted it, it still falls into a somewhat grey area wrt a WP bio. however, his standing as a public figure almost certainly trumps that. Anastrophe 21:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't ask me if I hear something, apparently you missed my expanded related comment when I said I'll edit the section in a bit so that they, "alleged" and "describing" are seperated. BLP doesn't come into play when it's sourced by legitimate outlets. -- ALLSTARecho 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
again, more pointless rudeness. you seem to have missed the finer subtleties of my parenthetical, which was intended to demonstrate that your accusations of censorship are baseless. but, this isn't productive. you may have the last - i expect uncivil - word. Anastrophe 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
With these five new men coming on the record, including four publishing their names, and considering what they independently have described, it's now just far beyond belief to continue resisting the categorisation of this subject in Category:Gay politicians, or at least Category:LGBT people from the United States.81.177.16.151 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Policy does not allow that until the allegations are proven. See WP:BLP. -- ALLSTARecho 04:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. The article is already tagged with WikiProject LGBT studies. Are there any persons in Category:Gay politicians or Category:LGBT who absolutely deny that they are gay? Or only persons out of the closet? Joegoodfriend 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No. It is established policy that only persons who self-describe as gay or lesbian will be categorized as gay or lesbian. FCYTravis 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now Eight Men Claim Gay Sex

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

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

[edit] Law & Order Reference

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

as an encyclopedia, 'quips' about living persons are generally not tolerated. fictionalized representations of a living person are probably not going to be welcomed either. did the L&O episode mention craig by name? no? then it has no place in this article. Anastrophe (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, I am simply asking if it was appropriate. You did not need to get hostile with me. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
sorry you took it as hostile. i consider it merely blunt. Anastrophe (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
And I consider you, sir, to be extremely rude, to say the least. Mind your manners in the future! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
likewise - your comment on my talk page to "not act like an a-hole when you speak" puts me in mind of the pot calling the kettle black. my comments above addressed your arguments, i didn't call you an "a-hole" for bringing it up. as i said, it was blunt, but hardly hostile or rude. now, can we get back to discussing the article, rather than your feelings? Anastrophe (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Anastrophe is off base... that Law & Order bases an entire episode on someone is usually often notable enough to mention in their article. Law & Order would never mention the person the episode is actually based on in the episode, for obvious legal reasons (they include a standard fiction disclaimer). The problem is referencing that the episode was based on Craig and that it was at all notable... so far I see a blog, Raw Story, and a "Today on TV" column from The Deseret News. I'm not sure what "Raw Story" is exactly but this doesn't seem like fantastic sourcing right off the bat. But if this gets wider coverage, as something of actual sociopolitical importance, I'd say it's fair game for inclusion in this article. --W.marsh 02:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
it strikes me as barely notable. at random, i just checked the Natalie Holloway and Valerie Plame articles - the former mentions that L&O did a show ostensibly based on her story, but the latter makes no mention. i think it falls into the 'if a wikipedia editor saw the episode they probably added it' syndrome. meh. knock yourselves out. i see it as just adding garbage to a BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
And you're probably right, given the lack of concern for this episode beyond 2 blogs and a "tonight on television" page. I honestly thought a few more sources would have cared enough to mention it... but I guess it really is not notable, based on the evidence thus far. But when deciding whether to include something in an article or not, we should look to the sources first, rather than try to make categorical decisions based on our own values. In this case, the sources do seem to bare out that the connection wasn't very important. Had I gone with my own gut instinct, I would have said "include it", by the way. --W.marsh 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
since i haven't seen the episode (and likely never will), i don't know in what manner they fictionalized the incident, or what degree of objectivity or accuracy the episode had. i do think though that since this is a BLP, it falls into a very grey area. what if, at the end of the episode, they had the ostensible mr. craig publicly 'coming out'? since it's a fictionalization, there's nothing that would've prevented them from having that as the outcome of the episode. and that would likely fall into the 'leave it out' realm based on BLP standards. i dunno. 'grey area' seems to sum it up for me. Anastrophe (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of campaign funds for private purposes

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




[edit] Born Lawrence?

I know for a fact that Larry is a nickname for Lawrence. Is it possible that Larry Edwin Craig was born Lawrence Edwin Craig?


205.210.159.33 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American criminals, or not?

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