Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 2 September 2007

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

U.S. Congress B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Minnesota B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Idaho Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho.

LGBTQ+ studies Unassessed

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

$1000 fine

I removed the $1000 fine figure in lieu of the values stated in the news sources. Yahoo! News reported $575 in fines and fees and CNN reported $500 in fines. Presumably, it was $500 in fines and $75 in fees, but I thought that might be somewhere between WP:OR and WP:SYN, so I just went with the Yahoo! News version. Ben Hocking 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You removed it in error, will you or someone with access revert it to $1,000. the fine is $1,000. $500 of the fine, and the ten days of jail were "stayed" pending one year with no further offense. $75 was the administrative surcharge ("court costs"). ref: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig9.html 71.252.90.13 03:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The article states that "Craig's" children are actually his wifes from a previous marrige, and it cites an online AP story as its source. However i clicked on the link and it apears to be dead. I have no doubt it's true, but if i were a jornalist i'd want some confermation on that, As Left-wing and biased as i am about right wing freaks like this guy, I want to stick to the facts. Anyway with the recent scandal just breaking i'm sure more details about his family life will come out in the papers, and thus could be used as replacement sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.178.37 (talk) 15:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

If he adopted them, they're his children legally, they're not stepchildren.--69.219.4.5 07:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Gay-Bashing Gays?

An illustration of hypocrisy: Idaho Senator Larry Craig opposes gay civil liberties having voted against antidiscrimination bills that include sexual orientation, he voted for the so called Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage exclusively as a union of one man and one woman, and he opposes the enlistment of gays in the U.S. military. Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct after his arrest for lewd behavior in a Minneapolis men's room. Larry, you're the man!— Preceding unsigned comment added by GearedBull (talk • contribs)

Is there some Misplaced Pages list of gay bashing congressmen or other influential policy makers who actively promote homophobia and are later found out themselves to be gay eg Mark Foley and the article's subject? If so, this article might merit a link or two regarding that. And what is the psychology behind this kind of behavior? It seems so widespread in the USA currently. It deserves a syndrome name all its own, if it doesnt already have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 18:26, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that the subject is gay, and won't be able to designate him that way until he makes a statement to that effect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or until some video surfaces. Speciate 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good list of sex scandals, although it is "Republican sex scandals". One would have to pull out the appropriate details that you're looking for. Somewhere there is a list of people from both parties; the Republicans on the list out-number the Democrats on the list.

Arbol25 07:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Another related list that is of just as great interest: Arbol25 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another link, about a conservative Christian New Mexico pastor who sought sex in parks: Lead for this source: Bubba Brazile comment on -under "Republican Sex Offenders" by Mike Pappantonio. Arbol25 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan_Popkey , Idaho_Statesman ,

seem to be relevant.

Thank You,

] ] ] ~~ -]] 22:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No reason to think Craig is "gay"

The Senator has himself said he is not gay, and there is no reason to assume that he is. He may be homosexual, but that is not the same as being gay. "Gay" homosexuals are just one type of a range of homosexualities, one that generally entails an urban, liberal culture concentrated in certain cities. Many non-"gay" homosexualities have and do existed, from the pederasitc-based form of classical Greece to the "Down Low" of contemporary African Americans. Senator Craig may be a homosexual with conservative values and a low-key existence (this was portrayed in the film "Brokeback Mountain). To call him "gay" simply because he has sex with other men is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.215.143 (talk) 16:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

You know something, it's possible to be gay and deny the fact. Everything that a man says is not necessarily the truth, especially if that man is a politician who is saying something to save his job. I remember how everyone on the right-wing screamed "Bullshit!" when Bill Clinton claimed he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Now the same right-wingers would have us believe that a man who goes looking for gay sex is not gay if he just says "I'm not gay" immediately afterward. Bullshit. Wandering Star 03:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Gay" is generally construed to mean homosexual, or at least male homosexual. It does not imply openness, self-acceptance, good grooming or an affection for Judy Garland. For purposes of this article and discussion, gay is synonymous with homosexual. Check the dictionary or the Misplaced Pages entry for "gay". Now, if you mean "gay" as in "happy", I'm pretty sure he's not that at this moment in time. And please sign your posts. Ninquerinquar 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, gay is not restricted to urban liberals. Having said that, since he has kids I think it is safe to assume that he is bi, and not gay. Sad mouse 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't safe to assume whatsoever. He married a woman that already had three kids; None of them (or his grandchildren) are biologically his. This point is already made in the article and pretty hard to miss.Kazra 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would claim that they have evidence that Craig is not sexually attracted to women. That would be quite difficult to prove. Obviously he is attracted to men, so he is either gay or bi. This doesn't matter in the slightest anyway, the scandal is his hypocrisy and documented lying (either he lied under oath when he plead guilty or he is repeatedly lying now, probably the latter). Sad mouse 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: Men who have sex with men. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sense of Proportion

Just a comment. This guy is the second longest serving member of the Congress from Idaho. As much as it may warm the cockles of the hearts of those seeking to uncover hypocrisy, should this bathroom incident really get this much space in the article? In 10 years, will this be 50% of the important and notable things he's done. He didn't plead guilty to anything sexual. He pleaded guilty to a non-sexual trivial charge and got a $500 fine.

I really don't understand why this is the top national news story right now. Did we secretly leave Iraq last night and fix the mortgage crisis? Hermitian 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

- Senator Barney Frank (70.128.143.99 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Seriously? Barney Frank sez Republicans think homosexuality should be illegal (yeah, right--and I'm sure even he doesn't really believe that), so that's your argument?! I'm sure most people (even Republicans!) happen to agree this sordid incident warrants inclusion, but it isn't because "Republicans think homosexuality should be a crime." LOL! Please don't troll Misplaced Pages, mmkay? --Beth C. 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. On another note, this event merits its heavy inclusion in the article-- it will most likely end his political career and is why most people outside of Idaho have heard of him.--69.219.4.5 07:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be allowed to dwarf the rest of the article and agree with Hermitian that the media's priorities are out of whack, but also that it should be included in this article and fully addressed. I don't know the context of Frank's comment, but see e.g. Lawrence_v._Texas#Dissents. Шизомби 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of comments by citizens on the police tactics back in June when the arrests happened. Arresting 20 people seems a pretty hefty number, and people unrelated to the Senator are alleging that the cops would sit in a stall, tap their feet, bang on the partition, put their feet on yours, and then arrest you when you looked underneath to see WTF was going on. If this turns out to be a case of overzealous policing, and the Senator manages to salvage his career, toning down the amount of space in the article devoted to this incident may very well be warranted. Hermitian 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd think the Senator himself would be pointing that out instead of just saying there was a misunderstanding. Also, if you have a link to that story (about the comments by citizens), it might help the talk pages, at least. Ben Hocking 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This charge is very likely a career ending event for the Senator, I think the attention it gets in the article is appropriate. 134.53.176.203 04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

CNN just posted the police interview. The Senator certainly doesn't come across as a person seeking gay sex in the bathroom, and the cop is clearly trying to intimidate him. Hermitian 01:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And when that analysis appears from a Reliable source it can be considered for inclusion. Until then, it's just your opinion. Pairadox 01:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm commenting on the talk page, as opposed to putting it in the article. Still, given that they apparently arrested 40 people in this sting, most of whom probably pled to a lesser non-sexual charge rather than fight it, it does come across as the gay version of a small town speed trap. Hermitian 01:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And I really hope that comes out (no pun intended). Pairadox 02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If he wasn't soliciting gay sex then why did he allegedly do the toe tap, why did he allegedly brush his foot against the police officer's foot, and why did he allegedly reach under the stall divider? Gimme a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhipperSnapper (talk • contribs) 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike Rogers

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

I've started a stub Mike Rogers (activist)... those who know the subject better, please fill out--Natcase 06:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Referenced Wall Street Journal Editorial

The inclusion of the Wall Street Journal article makes this entry biased. It is unneccessary and does nothing to further our understanding of the facts and details surrounding his arrest. I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.131.171 (talk) 00:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Can this be removed posthaste?--67.164.145.60 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fireplace 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored this commentary, clearly labeled as such, for balance. --Justmeherenow 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Please abide by NPOV in screening appropriate commentary...such as condemnations AND claimed "understanding"? I mean, really!: if McCain's condemnation of Craig's behavior is "noteworthy" because he's running for president (duh) and Log Cabin Republicans' condemnation of Craig's alleged hypocracy is "noteworthy" due their being conservative, homosexual advocates (double duh)--well, the Wall Street Journal editorial page commentatary (urging "understanding" and arguing that Craig's alleged weakness in actions would not necessarily entail inconsistency in his personal beliefs) is noteworthy because they're the Wall Street Journal editorial page (um, duh!: by exponential factor, the largest circulation Conservative rag in the U.S.) --Justmeherenow 04:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the WSJ's news coverage remains widely read, imho its editorials went loopy and fell off the deep end years ago. IF the WP article should venture beyond factual reporting and into commentary (a big "IF"), then Matt Foreman's comment on MSNBC is much more illuminating: "It’s the tragedy of homophobia. People create these walls that separate themselves from who they really are." One might also mention the movie Brokeback Mountain. The one way in which the WSJ editorial does contribute though (credit where it's due), it finally answers the question of who could possibly believe that same-sex marriage somehow threatens opposite-sex marriage: in order to believe that, you'd have to believe that what married men and women really want is to leave their spouses and marry someone of their own sex - and if the WSJ is correct then Sen. Craig is a believer.TVC 15 04:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting commentary, TVC 15. (I've only worked on one other Misplaced Pages article--but, as a tie breaker (and to get a feel for commentary about hypocracrites), I peeked at Jimmy Swaggart's article to see what commentary might be included. Which--since Jimmy's swaggin' of hookers was before Misplaced Pages took off--is bare bones so I'll lay off!) <smiles> Justmeherenow 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC) On second thought, the Log Cabiners are no more needed to be cited than leftist gay advocates, opening up Misplaced Pages editors to the impression of cherry picking. Really, it's Misplaced Pages policy under NPOV to encourage inclusion of more notable voices from all sides to be at least minimally referenced. Justmeherenow 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be just fine with the removal of the Romney and Coleman reactions. The others are notable because they chart the progress of the fallout, and Log Cabin occupies a unique place in GOP politics, but those two politicians statements are just filler IMHO. Pairadox 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Romney's response is relevant insofar as Craig was a prominent support of Romney and held a leadership role in his presidential campaign. Fireplace 05:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point; I'm going to move the Romney quote to where it talks about the Romney campaign. Or the campaign stuff down, since that could really be considered "fallout." Pairadox 05:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to restate the point, as Justmeherenow has started reinserting the lengthy WSJ editorial quote again despite the above discussion, there's nothing notable about that particular editorial to warrant including it over, say, something from the dailyKos or Andrew Sullivan or the National Review or (etc.). The other commentary has been included because the commentary is itself notable. If you want to include information on the state of the public debate, there are probably newspaper articles that give a survey of the public reaction. Fireplace 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If sourced material is good then better-sourced material is gooder! So, yeah, go and do the keyboard tapping to find better stuff and replace or supplement my inferior attempt at balance (while of course being wary of edit-warring thru removal of good faith edits?) Thx :^) Justmeherenow 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a news report that quotes individuals and an opinion piece, Justmeherenow, especially when that opinion has been selectively snipped for this article. I appreciate your goal of presenting a NPOV account, but not the sources you use to do it. Pairadox 16:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Protectected?

It appears this article was protected from editing on 2007 August 27, but without a template added, and has been edited while protected, dozens of times. Am I correct in that, or am I reading the logs and history wrong? And can we get some discussion here of how much longer it should stay protected? I'm sure it's on many watchlists, especially now. Jonathunder 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, not fully protected, which means that only anon IPs and new accounts (more recent than 4 days) are prohibited from editing. Jeffpw 08:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation section

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

Why is there an entire SECTION labeled sexual orientation? Is this what the wikipedia is for? If the person was a homosexual and had a heterosexual experience would the wikipedia be obliged to report this? Why not leave the salacious filth to tmx.com or perez hilton rather than make the wikipedia a garbage can. I am not saying it shouldn't be mentioned but an entire section with heading just for sexual orientation? Wikimike 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Police report

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

References

Nolo plea?

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

• Nolo is basically a guilty plea. You're letting the prosecutor have his way. The only thing it does for a defendant is protect them from a civil lawsuit. (Plead guilty, you admit you did something that you might be sued for, plead nolo, you are still found guilty, but you aren't admitting anything.) I guess for a politician, such a plea could have some other benefit. - Crockspot 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cherry picking commentary

Fellow ed.s: Caution! It is hard to cherry pick commentary especially on the talk page (by summarily deleting the most tangential of posts in general becoming more-and-more tangential) w/o violating neutral spirit of Misplaced Pages Justmeherenow 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I speak as the one who added the Log Cabin Republican statement to the article. When I did so, I thought it particularly poignant considering the perspective of that group. Larry insists "I'm not gay", and then the LCR folks announce that they think he has other problems, "gay" not being one of them. Can anyone find quotes from GLBT groups that support or endorse/encourage Larry Craig now that he's cruising? I'd love to see some contrast here. Luno 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well "sorta kinda" support (implying Craig shouldn't be singled out to resign while Vitters gets slaps on the back and is forgiven):

The effect of the Craig scandal "will be to intensify anti-gay rhetoric," said Becky Dansky, federal legislative director at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, pointing to the contrast between the treatment of Craig and that of Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who admitted to being involved with the infamous D.C. Madam. "Vitter received a standing ovation from his party caucus; Senator Craig is immediately forced out of his committee positions just because of the gender involved in the scandal," Dansky said. "I never thought I'd start to feel a little bit sorry for Senator Craig." Romney's reaction, meanwhile, shows "the danger of legislating morality, and hypocrisy is revealed," said Patrick Sammon, president of the Log Cabin Republicans.

--Justmeherenow 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The blocking of Larry Craig

Please unblock the Larry Craig page. I've came up with good ideas to edit it with more great information from a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwjs (talk • contribs) 19:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

You should put your ideas here. Misplaced Pages doesn't trust you yet ;) Sad mouse 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

BWJS, please read the page on wikipedia's semi-protection policy. Basically, this article has been protected against editing by anonymous users or those with brand new accounts (less than 3 days old I think). This is to protect certain articles which are targets of persistent vandalism, especially biographical articles. Until your account is able to edit directly, you can post your changes here on the talk page for consideration! MOXFYRE (contrib) 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PC

Ol wright, our gay activist friend (who I support) Rogers outed Craig. Fine.

Yet...sourced, modest criticism of "outings" are summarily deleted by a three-times-within-24-hours single editor: see here, here, and here--whereas Log Cabin criticism stays along with "cottaging" commentary in the LA Times, et cetera? C'mon people. Don't stifle sourced debate. Justmeherenow 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that particular quote, I am not sure if it belongs here. After all it is also an attack on Craig, just with a different word (weak rather than hypocrite). Since it is not a defence of Craig it doesn't really add much here, but I think it would significantly add something to the article on Rogers. It may not be fair to assume that Rogers is hoping for anti-gay sentiment by outing Craig (he could equally be hoping to reduce anti-gay sentiment by outing conservatives), but it seems to be a valid high-profile criticism that should be included in Roger's article. Oh, and using PC as an insult is petty. Sad mouse 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rancher?

Should his occupation in his info box say rancher? Surely it would be politician or senator? CaptinJohn 08:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Reading the article, it appears he was only on the ranch for about three years, in between college becoming a politician, which he's been for 33 years (even more, if you count his student government days). Changed. Pairadox 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this back. The Profession field is primarily for previous occupations prior to entering public service. This is how all other politician infoboxes treat the Profession field. None of them list "politician" as profession. He still owns a ranch I believe, and his official listings in congressional guides and the Official Congressional Directory list his profession as a rancher or farmer-rancher.

For further information, see the profession/occupation debate for Template:Infobox_Officeholder.Dcmacnut 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Uggg. No way am I getting involved in that debate. I think it's highly misleading to list a career politician as a "rancher," but I'll bow to the groupthink on this one. Pairadox 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an old tradition in politics and history. We still refer to Truman as a "haberdasher", and to Lincoln as a "railsplitter", even though they both had long careers in law and politics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See also section

I removed this. Thanks, --Tom 12:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If he steps down

What happens? The article says "if Craig were to resign before the end of his term, Republican Governor Butch Otter would appoint a replacement to serve the remainder of the term.", with this source. --Tom 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it now. Sorry!! --Tom 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gay categories

Since Craig has declared "I am not gay, I have never been gay", it is clear that the second criteria of WP:BLP#Categories has not been met, and gay categories cannot be applied to this article. Doing so is a violation of WP:BLP, and can result in a block for the user who repeatedly applies such categories. If and when he publicly self-identifies as gay, then the subject is open for discussion. - Crockspot 17:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if he were to self-identify as gay then we'd apply the category without need for further discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding the LGBT people category

I realize that Senator Craig has denied allegations of both past and present homosexual orientation, but I think it is safe to say, from the '83 congression page fiasco to June 11th's blunder that Craig is a closeted, self-loathing homosexual. Even if he denies this it doesn't mean it isn't true. The possibility that these varied reports--citing incidents from all over the country and dating years apart--are falsified is improbable, considering how consistent they are; that is, they all support Craig's homosexuality.

I propose we admit Senator Craig's homosexuality for him by placing the "LGBT people" category in the bottom of his article.

Even if it is against Misplaced Pages policy, we must do this. After all, the statement, "Larry Craig is gay" is a truth and cannot be changed. Misplaced Pages policy can be changed to allow for these circumstances. If Misplaced Pages is truly a bastion of truth we must right it so that the truth can be stated without breaking policy.

Are any in favor of placing the "LGBT people" category on Craig's article and/or willing to help me change Misplaced Pages policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CPRdave (talk • contribs) 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not I. There is a very good reason for this policy, and it is specifically geared towards living people. We do not want to encourage lawsuits against Misplaced Pages. Ben Hocking 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not "a bastion of truth." Misplaced Pages is a encyclopedia. We publish only that information which has already been published in reliable sources, and thus can be verified. This doesn't even rise to a living persons issue - it's quite simply a violation of our verifiability policy to assert that Mr. Craig is gay. FCYTravis 19:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As a member of WikiProject LGBT, I will state I do not believe we can include him in the LGBT People category. --David Shankbone 19:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I will wholeheartedly agree with David on this. The current policy is clear, and this subject does not qualify. The policy is in place for a very good reason: to protect the project from liability. We shouldn't attempt to change core policies because it prevents us from doing what we want in a single article. We have to look at the bigger picture. - Crockspot 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Qualified no. It is not necessary for Craig to say he is gay for him to be listed. However it is necessary to have verified evidence that he is gay. What I have seen so far is highly suggestive, but not proof. If verified evidence comes forward Craig should be listed as gay regardless of what he says. Misplaced Pages should have a standard of truth, his denial should be treated as hearsay, not fact. Sad mouse 21:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your view is in direct contradiction of WP:BLP#Categories, which specifically states two criteria that MUST be met before such a category is applied, one being that a subject must publicly self-identify with a sexual preference. So even in the presence of photographs of him engaged in gay sex, if he claims to not be gay, the category cannot be applied. - Crockspot 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If such photos existed, the category should be applied (actually MSM would be more accurate). The release of active photos should qualify as "public identification". Sad mouse 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. The key word is "self-identify." "SELF-identify." Meaning the person THEM SELF has identified as gay. Even with images of the person engaging in homosexual acts, if they have not outright stated in public, "Dear Baby, I am gay," (sorry - Simpsons reference), then the LGBT cat cannot be added. Jinxmchue 01:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. Think about it, that criteria is both unworkable and unencyclopedic. It is daft for a number of reasons, mostly because it places opinion above fact. What if he presented the photo himself at a press conference but didn't add any words? Would that be self-identification? Are there magical words he has to utter? What if he uses slang commonly understood to refer to sexuality? The policy is simply to stop people adding the label based on hearsay (which is what the evidence against Craig currently is), it is not meant to bar verified fact from the encyclopedia. Any other interpretation just doesn't make sense for a site attempting to reach reference status, if the wording of the policy confuses so many people it needs to be changed (although it is a very hypothetical case we are arguing, so this should not even be on this talk page). Sad mouse 04:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take this discussion to the Category talk page or the LGBT Project page? As Sad mouse says, Craig's article isn't the place for this debate. Pairadox 06:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing CPRdave's talk page, I'm really surprised that the suggestions of this long-time vandal with a history of incivility is being responded to seriously. DFTT. Pairadox 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I think most agree that this is a goofy idea, but what about a category for alleged gays/lesbians? Perhaps it would be possible to come up with reasonable criteria that would qualify certain folks like Craig for such a category. (Although it probably would require very precise definition and careful monitoring to avoid inappropriate application.) --Soultaco 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As the party that entered the Category:LGBT politicians, let me say that the last thing that we want to do is to start speaking of "lists of alleged . . . " persons. Making lists of alleged whatevers might put wikipedia in the line of lawsuits; also, we don't want to be putting ourselves on the level of gossip mag rumor-mongers. Arbol25 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

When the subject either announces that he is gay, or when incontrovertible evidence appears, then we can describe or categorize the subject as "gay". This arrest does not come close to providing solid evidence of the subject's sexual orientation. Note that we don't describe Clay Aiken, Richard Simmons, or Ricky Martin as "gay" either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent> I removed this category as slanderous(sp). I also removed the LGBT project tag from this talk page as well poisoning. Anyways, --Tom 18:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Header title: Sexual orientation

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

Conviction?

The article refers a few times to Craig's "conviction," but he entered a guilty or nolo contendre plea. He was never tried, so he wasn't convicted.69.239.30.5 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect. Entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere means that the judge renders a verdict of guilty, convicting the defendant of the crime. FCYTravis 07:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. Pleading guilty = conviction. When a guilty plea is proffered by a defendant, a conviction is then entered in the docket. As a matter of law, he is a convicted criminal now. 71.185.74.177 19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the story

So, if Larry Craig was arrested June 11, then why didn't the story break until August 27? —Remember the dot 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's when Roll Call published the story. You'd have to ask their reporters why it happened then. Pairadox 06:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Havana sex-trap

There is speculation among Cuban-Americans see "What's up with the dirty knees, Senator?" that the Cuban Governments proclivity to trap notable visitors in sexual situations (honey traps) may have involved Senator Craig who was given a prolonged visit with Fidel Castro some time ago . El Jigue208.65.188.149 15:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation = Original Research. See What Misplaced Pages is not. And tabloid, blog or opinion forum is not what what Misplaced Pages is. →Lwalt 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious Affliation

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

Overturning a guilty plea-Motion for New Trial

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

And what does this have to do with editing the article? Pairadox 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He said at his press conference he was was going to fight his conviction Pairdox. This is how he would do it. He would 1) hire an attorney and 2) file a motion. Stay tuned.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 20:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so nothing to do with editing the article, but speculation about his future actions. Got it. Pairadox 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical context for "tea room"/"cottaging"

There is a perfectly good article on Misplaced Pages entitled cottaging (or as it known in the US, the "tea room") which explains the activity the now-former Senator was engaging in.

I have twice linked to cottaging from Larry Craig, and it has twice been deleted without good cause. I used the Ehrenstein op-ed in the LA Times to support the link.

The average reader may believe that the Senator invented this unusual ritual, but a link to the cottaging article explains that it is as old as the hills.

"One important purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide the historical context that daily news articles lack. One would hope that any squeamishness of an otherwise well-intentioned editor would stand in the way of providing much-needed perspective as the public learns more about a little-known aspect of gay life.

Johndhackensacker3d 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

the link to cottaging should not have been deleted. It leads to a very informative slate discussion of the whole topic. There's a free speech issue in here somewhere. Craig taps his foot. the cops taps his foot back. The dance is on. That's encouragement. So it's not unsolicited, just the locale and the frowned on same sex "flirting."Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I added it. The cottaging article and the Slate link help the reader make sense of this. It really is a "dance" and the reader has to be clued in what the dance steps are.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"A little-known aspect of gay life"? First, Craig denies being gay. Second, I don't know any gay people who have solicited sex in public bathrooms. I certainly never have. Please don't assume or perpetuate the misconception that healthy, self-respecting LGBT people have anonymous sex in airport men's rooms. I have no problem with a link to "cottaging", but I strongly disagree with the characterization you've made. Popkultur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popkultur (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

" I have no problem with a link to "cottaging", but I strongly disagree with the characterization you've made. " What is the characterization I made and to what group or subgroup did I make it to? No offense was meant. The characterization applies to those that "cottage." And there are those that do, indubitably. That is why there are all those phone numbers and pix on bath room stalls in public places. Somebody is doing something or pretending to do it. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 01:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

for more insight "Laud Humphreys is best known for his published Ph.D. dissertation, Tearoom Trade (1970), an ethnographical study of anonymous male-male sexual encounters in public toilets (a practice known as "tea-rooming" in U.S. gay slang and "cottaging" in British English). Humphreys asserted that the men participating in such activity came from diverse social backgrounds, had differing personal motives for seeking homosexual contact in such venues, and variously self-perceived as "straight," "bisexual," or "gay." He received his Ph.D from Washington University in St. Louis.

"Because Humphreys was able to confirm that over 50% of his subjects were outwardly heterosexual men with unsuspecting wives at home, a primary thesis of Tearoom Trade is the incongruence between the private self and the social self for many of the men engaging in this form of homosexual activity. Specifically, they put on a "breastplate of righteousness" (social and political conservatism) in an effort to conceal their deviant behavior and prevent being exposed as deviant. Humphreys tapped into a theme of incongruence between one's words and deeds that has become a primary methodological and theoretical concern in sociology throughout the 20th and 21st" from the Laud Humphreys articleGodspeed John Glenn! Will 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens On Humphreys and Tearooms in Slate re CraigGodspeed John Glenn! Will 02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've found through googling sites that discuss this topic, "tea-rooming" is supposedly the American term that refers to this activity, while I found the term "cottaging" is claimed to be a British term that's equivalent to the one used in the American sense. But, as for the original sentence added back to the article, the word "roughly" implies that one is not sure of the use of this term. I found a guide that was prepared for the Dept. of Justice that can be found at the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing called "Illicit sexual activity in public places: Problem-oriented guides for police." The specific mention of the term "cottaging" can be found on page 5 of this guide under the section "Public Restrooms."

If you still want to include this sentence (with a bit more clarity in the revision), this guide would make a better reference. The one from Slate Magazine seems to involve a lot of banter in the discussion, with a circular reference back to Misplaced Pages for the term "cottaging. The reference for this guide is Johnson, K.D. (2005). Illicit sexual activity in public places: Problem-oriented guides for police. Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (prepared for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice). Retrieved on September 1, 2007 (Adobe Acrobat Reader required for viewing).

P.S. to the writer above: Is the "John Glenn" tag meant as a campaign message for something? I see that this message is not part of your Misplaced Pages signature. →Lwalt 02:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The expression "GS John Glenn" is so ingrained in the culture that even "Godspeed John" when googled yields a plethora ofsites. The tagline is meant to generate goodwill. "Godspeed, as a word, is a wish for a prosperous journey, success, and good fortune. For example, it was said by Scott Carpenter to John Glenn before Glenn's first trip to space in Friendship 7." Godspeed John Glenn! Will 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Any textual reference to "cottaging" or "tea rooms" needs to have a reliable source that uses the term in reference to Larry Craig; otherwise it's just Original Research. I have no problem with it being listed as a See Also link (which is where I moved it when I removed it from the body of the article). Pairadox 02:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm more for including this police guide as an external reference for the alleged activity that the officer cited in the senator's arrest warrant. As for the sentence that I saw in the article, I found it a bit awkward, introducing some skepticism about the use of the term "cottaging." And yes...although the arresting officer did not explicitly use this term, those who are familiar with this activity called it by what it is and by the slang that it's referred to by those who engage in that behavior, esp. since law enforcement is already familiar with this scene. That's also what this guide covers, along with some of the responses given by those who are allegedly accused of engaging in this activity -- including the response provided by Sen. Craig. That snapshot of that response is on page 4 of the guide. So, I don't have an opinion for including/excluding the sentence one way or another. →Lwalt 02:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All those interested need to read the article which I linked above."So Many Men's Rooms, So Little Time Why men like Larry Craig continue to to court danger in public places." By Christopher Hitchens Posted Saturday, Sept. 1, 2007 The seminal, no pun intended, work is Laud Humphreys'. More info in Laud article than in Cottaging article. The American slang is tea room, not cottaging. It is not particularly about being gay orientation. In fact he talks about the 'breastplate' defense. Cognitive dissonance internalized in an identity dimension.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Placement of current event tag

Why on earth do we not want the Current Event tag to be at the top of this article, rather than down by the bottom, only applying to one section? KConWiki 03:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Only the resignation announcement is the current event of the moment, from what I can infer by the placement of the tag. →Lwalt 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in reporting Craig's replacement

An inconsistency exists concerning the reports about Craig's replacement for his senate seat.

In the last paragraph of the introduction, the sentences state "Although the Associated Press reported on August 31, 2007 that Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter appointed Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch as Senator Craig's replacement in the United States Senate for the remainder of the term, the Idaho Statesman reported on September 1, 2007 that the Idaho Governor's office denied selecting Risch as Craig's replacement. According to the report in the Idaho Statesman, Governor Otter "has made no decision and he is not leaning toward anybody.""

However, the sentence in the Resignation section, states "Craig officially announced his resignation, "with sadness and deep regret," on September 1, 2007, at a 10:30 a.m. MDT (UTC-6) news conference, effective September 30, 2007. Republican Idaho Governor Butch Otter will appoint an interim Senator to serve until the 2008 election. Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch has been named by some sources as the person Otter will appoint.

So, which version is the current news?

After I read the article, I conformed both areas to refer to the same thing (i.e., the Idaho's governor's say about Craig's replacement) by citing the article in both places. However, an editor took the liberty of reverting the information in the Resignation section, and the content has since been edited by another person. Here is my previous edit to the last paragraph of the introduction and the previous edit to the content in the Resignation section.

This inconsistency requires attention so that this information does not become confusing to a reader of the article, leaving the reader to wonder whether the Idaho governor has or has not announced or appointed a replacement. →Lwalt 05:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are two conflicting news reports, then the article should cite both (wherever appropriate) and be clear that there are conflicting reports. Pairadox 05:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Craig scandal designed to move Gonzales resignation off the front page

The Larry Craig scandal was designed to move the forced resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales off the front page of the US media.

The Bush administration and it's supporters are known for pulling stunts like this.

Back in late September 2006, the Mark Foley scandal performed a similar function to combat the media exposure and pending release of Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial". The release of Woodward's book was timed to be released about a month before the midterm elections, and the Foley scandal immediately replaced coverage of Woodward's book.

Both the Foley and Craig scandals have similar characteristics. In both cases, the precipitating events occurred months before they became widely (if not "explosively") broadcast by the media, and in both cases their wide media exposure came soon after some event that injured the reputation of the Bush administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.8.170 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you obviously missed the blurb at the top of this page:

• 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 13:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the following:

The timing of this scandal as it gained traction by the media is an important aspect of the Craig bathroom-entrapment incident. If the entrapment incident wasn't orchestrated specifically to trap Craig, then the exposure of it by the major media outlets was orchestrated as a diversion - to divert attention away from the Gonzales resignation that happened 24 hours before hand.

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.8.170 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't he plead "no contest" instead of guilt?

(this item was recently deleted from this discussion page)

Just a thought, if Craig's statements were true about not fighting a conviction because he wanted to get the ordeal over with, and if it's true that he wasn't interested in that sort of stuff, shouldn't he just have pleaded No Contest? That would seem to make more sense. Since he didn't do that, it really makes it seem as if he's guilty. Anyone have any idea why he didn't do that?J.J. Bustamante 13:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is not a discussion forum, but a page designed to discuss improvements to the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A serious question deserves a serious answer. You can't edit w/ blinders. Within reason, you have to have vision & freedom to discuss where things are going. It's not the conviction per se but the publicity that kills. Cheney(2)-Bush(1) DUI convictions were not deadly although they hurt Dubya in 2000. Even a non-guilty arraignmet w/ trial w/ the attendant publicity on a morals charge would have been deadly. Especially after Craig had chastised Clinton vir for being a "naughty boy."Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk-page discipline

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

Need more information about congressional career

After re-reading the section about Sen. Craig's career, much more information needs to be included in this section. This version of the article gives the impression that Craig only spent time in the U.S. Senate, when in fact he was also in the U.S House of Representatives for 10 years before his time in the Senate. This part of his congressional career needs to be covered in a bit more depth, since what's already there is pretty skimpy at the moment. →Lwalt 16:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's surprisingly easy to spend 10 years in Congress without doing anything memorable. While I agree with your goal, there may not be much we can say about that period of his life. I'd assume that his official biographies would include any notable achievements, which for a congressman typically amounts to gaining earmarks for federal spending in his district, introducing bills that never got out of committee, and co-sponsoring popular legislation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

he indeed did some memorable legislative things, all in order to promote the interests of his state. In a 2-dim graph, he was a social conservative AND an economic conservative. I believe the article mentions the air force promotion hold, the immigration reform (cf Tancredo), and the balanced budget amendment (cf Cheney-Dubya).Godspeed John Glenn! Will 18:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles
• B-Class Minnesota articles
• Low-importance Minnesota articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Idaho articles
• Unknown-importance Idaho articles
• WikiProject Idaho articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles