Talk:Charlie Crist

Allegations of homosexuality

How much, if any, of the cited allegations of homosexual activity should be presented in this article?

• "Crist Denies Trysts" by reporter Bob Norman in October 2006 for the New Times Broward-Palm Beach.
• "Crist Denies Trysts II" update by Norman in November 2006, discussing sworn depositions by Dee Dee Hall and Jay Vass.
• "Re-outing Charlie Crist", written by Alex Koppelman in April 2009 for Salon's War Room.
• Megan Slack (April 28, 2009). ""Outrage" Documentary: Activists Outing Gay Conservatives". The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/outrage-documentary-activ_n_192476.html. 
• Tina Daunt (May 8, 2009). "Kirby Dick's 'Outrage' comes at pivotal moment in gay rights fight". Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause8-2009may08,0,6665296.story. 
• Terry Gross (May 6, 2009). "Kirby Dick: In The Political Closet, Dark Shadows". National Public Radio. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103832005. 
• A.O. Scott (May 8, 2009). "Secret Lives in the Age of Gay Rights"". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/movies/08outr.html. 

Note that a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive94#Charlie_Crist failed to produce a clear consensus about whether there was a BLP violation, about whether the material gave undue weight to unproven allegations, or whether to remove the allegations entirely. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I have removed the RFC template, ten days of no interest is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that hwen allegations are covered by the LA Times, New York Times, and NPR, they're worth a mention. How much mention is an open debate, but whitewashing this stuff out entirely is problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem Off2riorob, I and others have been wrestling with is how much, and at User_talk:Binksternet#Crist there was an offer by Off2riorob to cease his removals if a compromise paragraph was inserted. We were nearly there, but I did not like the wording of the compromise because it did not state clearly that Crist has been alleged to have had sex with men, or that he has been alleged to have had homosexual liaisons. In the compromise version, no allegation is mentioned, but Crist denies everything... kind of a weird construction. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues of sexuality require exceedingly strong sourcing - WP is not the place for rumours about sexuality, and where a person denies the claim, they are rumours only. Many discussions on BLP/N about such stuff. Collect (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. And there were discussions on BLPN about this very article. Problem is that a person doesn't have a monopoly on the facts. Nixon denied he was a crook, but he was all the same. We aren't interested in treating rumor as fact or repeating rumors from gossipy sources. All we want is a smal, qualified mention based squarely on claims made by reliable sources. If Salon, the NYT, NPR and the LA Times aren't good enough to include mention of a claim, then what is? Does Edward R. Murrow have to rise from the grave and report on the subject? Protonk (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is all rumors started and propagated by involved gay rights activists and better kept out of our BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It matters not at all who "started the rumors" or began outing Crist for real. That you don't like gay rights activists as a source does not figure in our discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(rep to Binksternet) The claim that was in the comment that he denies was the film claims he is a "closeted" homosexual who votes against gay rights. - I did try to come to a compromise with you but to no avail, you wouldn't move at all, the spirit of compromise is that you each move towards the others position. I also quite strongly agree with Collects statement as regards sexual rumors which is exactly what this is. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but your version only says that Crist is a subject of the documentary, not that he was one of the political figures alleged to be homosexual. There is a disconnect there, one which does not explicitly state the allegation. With your version, Crist could just as well be a subject of the kind of politician who is an exception to the film's basic premise. He is not that, of course, but your version does not make it clear. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just seems like hair splitting to me, you want to say someone claimed he had gay sex with him when there is nothing at all apart from gay activist claims to support that, sorry but I hate bigoted POV pushing claims, such as this from activists,. makes me sick. We don't even add peoples sexuality unless they self declare, wikipedia should not be used for absolutely unconfirmed gay outing with false claims from activists. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You communicate as if you think the "rumors" were nothing more than that. I think you are wrong. Neither one of us has firsthand personal proof. The article is not here to represent your viewpoint or mine, it is here to represent reliable sources. Reliable ones include NY Times etc. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing here is impeccable. Three of the top news sources in the country have reported on the allegations. Trying to marginalize this as rumors is ridiculous. It would literally be impossible for there to be better sources than this on an unconfirmed issue. So the issue is whether something has to be confirmed to be in a BLP. The answer is clearly not - WP:NPOV becomes a joke under that view. If there are numerous discussions of a rumor in reliable sources (and the Kirby Dick documentary on its own would be a reliable source - he's an extremely acclaimed filmmaker) then the existence of the rumor is verifiable by any standard, and the importance of the rumor is clear. The article obviously cannot say "Crist is gay." But it equally obviously cannot just decide to ignore the issue because it's controversial. NPOV is not the practice of removing anything that someone might get their panties in a bunch over. It's the practice of carefully sourcing it and making sure article claims accurately describe the content of the sources. This article used to do that. Now it doesn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Users that are gay article active, want to add it, its a kind of COI issue, as in, it is in my interest so I think it should be added, its opinionated rumours about someone sexuality , it is a violation of BLP. Such weak claims by activists are used to slur people like Crist all the time, please don't push wikipedia to be that sort of place. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if I help edit articles that touch upon gay issues, then I have a conflict of interest? No, not at all. The claims are as weak as the sources; in this case they are not weak claims at all. Wikipedia is the place where neutral accounts are related to (told to) the reader. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a COI issue? Users adding the content are gay activists? Are you being serious? Protonk (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not asserting any users here are activists. I mentioned COI only in an interested in the topic way, not in an involved way, please excuse me if I expressed myself badly. I do how ever think that this issue is simply an unproven slur against a living person, there is no evidence and he has denied it, end of story. Sexual titillation created because he has at times taken an anti gay position and I don't think it should be propagated here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your preference that "it" not be propagated here is not supported by Wikipedia policy. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's policy to simply ignore issues like that. Your arguments for its exclusion seem more and more contrary to Wikipedia policy. The problem is that gay rights activists are still a valid POV to report when their claims come from reliable sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Coming in an uninvolved editor: to me it seems clear that this should be included. The issue is notable and the sourcing is solid (and in the context of a medium-length article, 2-3 sentences is not giving it undue weight). It doesn't matter whether the slur is proven, it's the fact that the slur was made (and responded to) which is notable. BLP does not say to avoid controversial issues, it says to make sure they are neutral, verifiable and don't contain original research - all of which are true in this case. The "amount" of inclusion is a judgement call, but if it says he is denying allegations, the specific allegations he is denying must (obviously) be included. Trebor (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue of inappropriate sexual titillation is an important ones but it cuts both ways. Obviously Crist would not be in outrage had he not taken anti-gay positions. At the same time, there would not be as much sensitivity to the issue itself if the issue of homosexuality were not so deeply contentious because demagogues and hatemongers seek to criminalize and marginalize homosexuality. That said, "interest" in the topic does in no way color the judgment of editors here. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

All devolves from one film. The allegations were denied. No reliable source has reported this as "fact" other than as being in the film. Collect (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Correct, but not relevant. No one here wishes to put the claim "Charlie Crist is a homosexual" anywhere in the article. Period. The claims we are talking about relate to the coverage of the accusations by eminently reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Incorrect. It devolves from a notable reporter in 2006 before the notable documentary film. Very good sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As above, it's the allegation which is notable, regardless of whether it's true. Trebor (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for paragraph content

Here are three versions of the paragraph that have been in the article:

Off2riorob compromise offer

• In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. Crist denied the allegations.

Binksternet specific allegation version

• In April 2009, Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage stated that Crist was a "closeted" homosexual who voted against gay rights. In the film, Crist denied allegations of homosexuality, just as he denied them in 2006 when asked by Florida-based reporter Bob Norman.

Bob Norman detail version

• In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. The film featured interviews with multiple men who claimed to have had sexual relations with Crist. One of the men in the film was Jason Wetherington, a Republican party staffer, who, three years earlier, was described to Bob Norman, a reporter at the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, as a man who had boasted of having sex with Crist, and who had named Bruce Carlton Jordan as Crist's longtime sex partner. Norman independently contacted Wetherington and Crist, who both denied the allegations. Of Jordan, Crist said, "I don't know who you are speaking about." However, Jordan's father told Norman that the two men were friends, "but I don't think he's seen Charlie in a while."

The first version has two problems: it does not trace the outing from 2006 and it does not say what the allegation was. The second paragraph is brief and pointed; the third paragraph has more details, arguably too much for this article per WP:WEIGHT. Comments? Suggestions? Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think the first version is fine. The existence of allegations prior to 2006 doesn't offer much. I think some may feel it corroborates the 2009 film, but I'm not so sure. There are some stylistic differences between the first sentence in the first and second versions. The second reports on an allegation and the first mentions an inclusion in a film comprised of allegations. I don't know if there is anything meant by the difference, but we should pay close attention to that. Protonk (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the second version. It includes all the relevant details, but is very concise and does not give undue weight to them. The first version doesn't explicitly state the allegation he's denying, but it does heavily imply it, and that's not a good thing for an encylopaedia to be doing. Trebor (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not: Crist denied allegations of homosexuality made in the film "Outrage" in 2009. One sentence which conveys the allegation and denial compactly and succinctly. Collect (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• well for one, because that's a bizarre sentence to have by itself. It cries out for some context. Protonk (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Allegations of homosexuality do not belong, period. A good rule of thumb for a BLP is, if it's not true, it wasn't a humongous deal to the course of their lives, and it's the sort of thing you might be invited to step outside over, then it shouldn't be here. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid or a place for spreading vicious rumors about people. Ray^Talk 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Ray, WP:BLP doesn't support your position. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Binksternet, let's try quoting this one: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." What part of that policy says "Wikipedia shall be a vehicle for repeating scandalous rumors regarding people's sexual orientation, simply because the vulgar press has reported it, even though it's had little significance on somebody's life, and has been denied?" Ray^Talk 14:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• • "Allegations of homosexuality do not belong, period." Utterly pointless generalisation. For counterexamples currently on Wikipedia, try Tom Cruise and Cliff Richard (and I expect many many more). Allegations can be notable. The rumour is not being spread by Wikipedia. We include the fact that the allegations are denied. Trebor (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Good point. I'll amend to "scandalous allegations of homosexuality with no major impact on a living subject's life do not belong." Can you demonstrate major impact, a la Clarence Thomas or Larry Craig? I thought not. Ray^Talk 14:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Any backing for the criterion that it must have a "major impact", or are you just making stuff up at random? To quote WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". I'm struggling to see how it fails any of those, given the breadth of coverage and notability of the documentary. Trebor (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:BLP says we should not be the "primary vehicle" and we are not—we are quoting notable sources. It says "the possibility of harm to living subjects" should be foremost, but these allegations are already out in the world in a big way. We are not harming the subject's life, the previous publications already did their damage, whatever that may be in Crist's case. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For those just checking in, note that Crist's Wikipedia article is the only one among those politicians alleged to be a closeted homosexual by the film Outrage which does not have the allegation mentioned in it. The articles about Larry Craig, David Dreier, Ed Koch, Jim McCrery and Ed Schrock all include it, some more than others. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am not opposed to the discussion of Outrage in this article. However, I am opposed to using the Bob Norman articles as supporting references, because a) they don't discuss the film, and b) the sources are of dubious veracity. (One of the sources was the Reform Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor, running opposite the Crist/Kottcamp ticket; the others were two unnamed people who allegedly heard a congressional aide claim to have had a relationship with Crist, which the aide has flatly denied. Discuss Outrage, but leave out what is really nothing more than he-said-but-he-said gossip. We don't mention the widespread "gerbil" rumors in the article on Richard Gere, and we should leave out partisan axe-grinding as well. Horologium (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opposition to putting Bob Norman in the article, but you may change your stance once you discover that the Outrage filmmakers put Norman in the film itself, and Kirby Dick lists Norman as "the first journalist to report on questions of hypocrisy with regard to voting records and the private lives of two prominent Florida politicians", basically kick-starting the whole film concept. Kirby Dick examines Norman's "dubious veracity" sources and determines that they are "compelling" enough to include in the film. Not everybody asked about Crist would discuss him: in Outrage a former Crist girlfriend is quoted as saying "Call me in 10 years, and I'll tell you a story." I wonder what this article will look like in 2020?

Kirby Dick told The London Times he doesn't expect to be sued partly because of the solidity of the evidence he presents in the film: "Dick doesn't expect to be sued: 'In America it's not defamatory to say someone is gay, and if a lawsuit comes the men would have to argue their case in court which would generate a lot publicity. We worked extremely hard to verify stories.' Indeed, this is a determinedly sober, rather than scurrilous, piece of film, and Dick applauds the men who came forward to help to expose the politicians." Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• - After reading this discussion I don't see a consensus for this sculirious rumour and personal attack to be included and when I look at the content I seem unable to do anything but remove it, this citation is reflective of the whole unfounded claims http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/crist-denies-trysts - awful. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So can we keep the sentence without the bob norman bit? One sentence supported by three of the best news organizations in the country ought to be reasonable. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, the less is more, two citations is plenty to support a simple comment, its absolute scandalous gossip designed to demean a living person, I don't support such vicious unproven crap in any BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm glad we can have a calm discussion about this. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, reading that bob norman article was an awful BLP experience, reading it compounded my objections. Its all unproven gossip, its an awful POV documentary without any support or factual reporting, its a gay activist and gay right promotion. This is a living person with nothing at all to say he is gay so why should we add it? In fact we shouldn't add it, we should keep it out. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Looks to me as if both talk page consensus and Wikipedia policy uphold the mention of the allegations of same sex activity. Not only are the relevant sections of WP:BLP answered neatly and satisfactorily, the guideline at WP:WELLKNOWN absolutely clinches it. Editors who do not wish to have the paragraph are falling back on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a tactic that cannot prevail. At WP:WELLKNOWN it says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
            • • Its not well known its scurrilous gossip, and need to be thrown were it is worth, the rubbish BLP bin. Don't keep stuffing it in unless it is consensus supported. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
              • (E/C) Actually, it looks to me that two editors have objected specifically to the Bob Norman piece. I can support noting the documentary Outrage, with one of the reviews you have listed from mainstream sources, but Off2riorob and I have both raised objections (grounded in BLP concerns) over the Bob Norman piece, and WELLKNOWN does not trump the rest of BLP. It's not well-documented at all; All of the sources which discuss the topic are based on Bob Norman's claims (including Outrage), and since Norman has not seen fit to identify his sources (and the players involved--Crist and the Harris aide--both deny the allegations), it could be argued that it should be excised from the article entirely. Allowing the discussion of the claims in Outrage is a compromise, but the film did garner a fair amount of coverage. Horologium (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
              • (ec) Replacing that bob norman gossip piece when you know there are objections to it, just here on this section is no way to encourage consensus. There are also other users that object to any mention of the unsupported claims in the BLP. User:Collect, User:Arjuna909, User:Marknutley to name a few from the discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
                • Please can people tone down the rhetoric - we're advocating presenting the allegations neutrally and with sourcing, it doesn't mean we agree with them. Which part of WP:BLP do you think supports the idea that this shouldn't be in the article? Your personal view on whether the documentary is good or bad shouldn't come into this at all - the real question is is it notable? and I think the answer is 'yes'. (I'm leaving aside the Bob Norman article for the time being, but can we get consensus that some reference to outrage should be in the article?) Trebor (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • I have already said that I can support a reference to Outrage, but the Bob Norman piece which has been supplied as a reference doesn't have any mention of the film, since it precedes the film by about a year. Binksternet has provided a set of references from reliable sources which do discuss the film; they are more reliable and appropriate sources. It should be made clear, however, that Crist and Jason Wetherington (the Katharine Harris aide who supposedly claimed to have sex with Crist), both flatly deny the anonymous allegations. I've not seen the film, but I doubt that Crist's and Wetherington's denials are addressed in the film. Horologium (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • I saw the documentary a few weeks ago. In it Crist is said to have denied all charges of being gay. Wetherington was in the film, but I would prefer a film transcript rather than trying to remember all that was said about him. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't support any mention of the trash allegations, they are unsupported by any other location, the claims have not stuck and nothing additional has surfaced, we should not propagate a single activist documentaries unsupported allegations of this subjects sexual preferences all of which he has totally denied. These claims are slurs on a living person of no note and without independent or additional support from anywhere and should be simple editorial conservative BLP editing to keep them out of the article and not to allow such unsupported allegations to be propagated through the project. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This talk page entry of yours does not say anything new about your stance which is unsupported by Wikipedia policy. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, you're not engaging in discussion here - you're just dogmatically repeating your position. You say, "These claims are slurs on a living person of no note" - you have to justify why they're not notable when they're covered in several high-quality sources. You seem to be letting personal opinion get in the way here. Trebor (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) This is my first (and hopefully last) comment at this talk page. It seems beyond dispute that Dick's film Outrage is a highly biased and non-neutral attack targeting politicians who have not voted as Dick would like on certain gay right issues. Dick does not contend that the politicians are letting their sexual preference affect how they vote. Because Dick's film is so biased and non-neutral, I don't see any reason to mention it here in this article, or even footnote it, given that Crist's sexuality has been covered by many mainstream, neutral, reliable sources. Some of those reliable sources have published articles that are primarily about Dick's film, and only mention Crist as a target of Dick. If a reliable source mentions Crist's sexuality as somethng more than a target of Dick, then maybe that deserves brief mention in the present article, but otherwise it belongs in the Dick article or the Dick flick article, rather than in this one. In a nutshell, I think this article should at most say, "Crist has said he is not gay." Period. ANYTHINGYOUWANT HAS SPOKEN!  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And that becomes precisely an issue on the order of Crist denies that he still beats his wife I fear. Once WP inserts a rumour, then denial of the rumour becomes almost worthless. Off2 is correct on all this -- WP:BLP requires not that we include all rumours about notable people, but that the rumour itself both have sufficient credible RS sourcing and that it be relevant to the person. And per WP sourcing - sources which all trace back to a single source are not regarded as separate sources. Thus we have a rumour which has not been supported by independent credible RS sources, and which has further been denied by the person at issue. The combination is poisonous in any BLP. Collect (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, the rumors of Crist being gay are not only from the film Outrage—they are not from a single source. You'll recall that in January 2005 Crist was publicly asked by Lee Drury De Cesare, a prominent reporter and columnist, if he was gay as rumors said he was, and he replied "I'm not." In October 2006, his longtime friend Max Linn said Crist was bisexual, that the two men had discussed his sexuality on two occasions. Also in October 2006, reporter Bob Norman outed Crist with what he felt was conclusive evidence taken from sources he would not name, sources that named Jason Wetherington as boasting about having sex with Crist. Sworn affidavits were given on video, ones by Dee Dee Hall and Jay Vass who both said that Crist had a long term lover in Bruce Carlton Jordan. In 2008, gay bar owner Rick Calderoni said that Crist was gay, that he frequented his Tampa bar and hung out with gay men. All of this was summed up by The Daily Telegraph in July 2008 when they wrote that Crist had been "dogged for years by homosexuality rumours." What the film Outrage does is collect many of these sources (not all) and present them to the viewer. The film can be viewed as a "single source" but its own sources are quite varied, and named. The film puts it all together with Crist's voting record and frames Crist as being hypocritical in his politics. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You say "Dick does not contend that the politicians are letting their sexual preference affect how they vote", but Dick does exactly that in the film, and he reinforces this in panel discussions and audience questions at two of the early showings of the film, recordings of which are included as extras on the DVD of Outrage. Dick's contention is that the politicians targeted in his film are terribly hypocritical in that they throw up a defense against their true sexuality in the form of voting which goes much farther into extremes against gays than their heterosexual colleagues. Dick films acknowledged gay politicians who agree that this defense is a real problem in closeted politicians, and Dick uses statistics on voting to show that politicians in the closet vote more harshly against gay rights. He firmly connects the voting record with being closeted. He holds that outed politicians would vote more humanely than otherwise, and he finds interview subjects who affirm this belief. His film is not a personal attack on the politicians, it is a political attack on their voting record and hypocrisy. The film is a political documentary, intended from the start to take a political position and prove it, defend it.

The film is notable because of the reviews of it and its content found in major newspapers in New York, London, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc. The filmmaker is an Academy Award winner. The film itself is a perfectly suitable reference; there is no need to dump the film and instead present the newspaper reviews of the film. All of the above can be used as references. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely how is Crist's rumoured gayness relevant in this BLP? And isn't it exactly analogous to the "Have you stopped beating your wife" sort of charge being pushed here? He has denied being gay. No reliable source asserts that he is gay. Gay oriented publications and films may make any claims they wish (US laws make it difficult for public figures to win defamation cases) but that does not make them "reliable" for BLP purposes. Consider: John Doe was asked by Clare Crow whether he had stopped beating his wife. Doe denied the allegation. Doe was featured in a film as being rumoured to be a wife beater. WP article: Doe has been accused of being a wifebeater, which he denied. The damage is done. Collect (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Crist's rumored gayness is relevant to his being a politician who votes against gay rights.

We are not trying to prove Crist is gay, we are simply reporting on widely reported rumors and allegations. The allegations are notable in that they appeared in The New York Times etc., we need look no farther than that. Our reliable sources have spoken: Crist is dogged by rumors of being gay. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dick can make all the statistical arguments he wants, and we can describe them in the Wikipedia articles about him. But that's far removed from stuffing them into the Crist article. If someone is on trial for murder, shall we mention in that person's Wikipedia article that he's probably guilty? After all, most people who stand trial for murder are convicted.

As far as the notability of Crist's denial is concerned, if it's just a brief denial (e.g. "I'm not") then the notability is very doubtful. But if there's elaboration, then we have a Tom Selleck situation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If a person is on trial for murder, we say in his bio article that he is on trial for murder—a simple statement of fact. Here, some editors are against even that much; they are against saying that Crist has been dogged by rumors of being gay, which is a simple statement of fact.

There is no guideline on Wikipedia which attempts to determine how simple or elaborate a denial of allegations must be. These allegations need no denial at all to be notable; they have appeared in mainstream news and a documentary film. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The crux of Dick's allegation is not that Crist is gay, but rather that Crist has been voting on public policy based on his own private sexual orientation. Dick provides nothing more than statistics to support the latter charge. Without the latter charge, Dick wouldn't have said anything about Crist allegedly being gay. This charge by Dick is just as unencyclopedic as a statement that someone on trial for murder is presumably guilty given that most defendants are convicted.

You would bolster your argument if you stop talking about Dick. As for the distnction between a concise denial and an elaborate denial, there may not be a specific Wikipedia policy expressly addressing it, but a concise denial is certainly a lot closer to ignoring the rumor than an elaborate denial is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been pleasant to discuss Dick, Crist and the film with you but the issue on the table is inclusion of same-sex allegations in this BLP article. Do you have a proposal for how best to accomplish this? Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Have reliable newspapers directly addressed Crist's orientation without addressing Dick? Has Crist himself said anything more than "I'm not"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, people are failing to separate the ideas that an allegation can be notable without necessarily being true. And that judging an allegation as true or not true (or anything in between) is essentially original research. The real question is "is the allegation notable" (see WP:WELLKNOWN). And I think most people would say that an allegation from an academy award winning director, via an emmy-nominated documentary, probably is notable. Following the above reasoning to a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum, suppose Barack Obama (or some similarly famous personage) said that Crist was gay, but newspapers only recorded the fact that he said it (and did not "directly [address] Crist's orientation without addressing" this famous personage) - surely that would that be worthy of inclusion? If so, a line must be drawn somewhere between a non-notable allegation, and one which has notability? And surely one measure of such notability must be the mention of such an allegation in notable and independent sources? Can anyone make an argument against its inclusion based on sources, and not of their own (necessarily biased) judgement of the documentary? Trebor (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Try looking at the JournoList debacle where several noted journalists floated the idea of randomly accusing people of being racists. And did so. Ought we include those allegations in the BLPs of those falsely accused? Sorry - the bar is set high for contentious claims in any WP:BLP. And for Crist - the allegation fails to cross the bar. Collect (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

`JournoList has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Have you read WP:BLP? Point me to the relevant bit, please. Trebor (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) I would be willing to consider inclusion of the allegation regardless of whether it is true, but only if reliable newspapers have directly addressed Crist's orientation without addressing Dick, and/or if Crist himself has said anything more substantial than "I'm not". The Dick stuff is poisonous, and if newspapers have written about him and his outing campaign then those sources can be cited in our article about Dick and his movie. He is specifically not outing people who vote as he would like, so his whole approach is non-neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I respect your personal stance on the topic, but Wikipedia's policies allow Dick's political documentary to stand as a reference because it has been discussed in mainstream press and is notable. Nobody is arguing that the film tries to be neutral. It was conceived as political cinema on the order of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko, and has no pretensions to neutrality. Accuracy, yes; neutrality, not at all. Anything said in the film can be quoted, with special emphasis on parts of the film that have been commented upon in mainstream media. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not just a personal opinion. I'm trying to follow policy here. Personally, Crists' political behavior makes my skin crawl.

It may be useful here to use the word "theory" instead of "allegation". Dick's theory that Crist is gay, and his accompanying theory that only gay politicians should be outed if they vote contrary to LGBT dogma, are not mainstream theories, right? So we can describe Dick's theories in an article about Dick. His theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way, instead of merely in a report about Dick. As you may have noticed, I'm analogizing here to fringe theories and their treatment at Wikipedia. A fringe theory about the Apollo landing does not need to be discussed in the Neil Armstrong article, for example, even if books have been written about how some people thnk the moon landing never happened.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are ignoring the opportunity to cut the gordian knot. We don't need to discuss Dick's poltics or his film in Crist's article. In fact the first "option" above pretty much avoids this. We are just looking to include mentions from the LAT, NYT, and NPR on the subject. The notability of the original film or the poisonous nature of its accusations are nearly irrelevant. to make a poor analogy, the various accusations leveled at the Clintons during Bill's first and second term (accusing them of, variously: murder, treason, corruption, conspiracy, etc.) were absolutely unpleasant and politically motivated. They were put forth by conservative agitators and gobbled up by a press hungry for scandal (this is before the arrival of FOX news even). But those allegations should be in Clinton's biography because they had some impact on his public portrayal--this is notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of the accusations were total fabrications. I understand the limits of my analogy, but please try to follow the spirit and not get caught in the particulars (the biggest particular being that some of the allegations triggered an investigation which prompted an impeachment trial!). We are only looking to summarize the coverage of the subject in reliable sources. That's it. A one or two sentence mention of the film cited to the best news sources in the country should do that without needing to dwell on the politics of the film or its director. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is one loose end with the first paragraph: The final sentence "Crist denied the allegations." Crist denied being gay in 2005 and 2006 when asked by reporters, but we do not yet have a source saying he denies whatever is presented in the film Outrage. The wording we use in our paragraph should say that Crist has denied being gay, as an answer to direct questions, not as a response to the film. If anyone has his on-the-record response to the film I would be interested to see it. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How about the following paragraph as a solution to the problem of the final sentence?

• In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. Crist has repeatedly denied that he is gay.

This bit has Crist denying direct questions from Bob Norman in 2006 and Lee Drury De Cesare in 2005. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ At Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Charlie_Crist, discussion took place between a handful of editors who largely expressed disapproval of the insertion of the same sex allegations. However, in discussion of Wikipedia policy issues, none successfully countered the guideline at WP:WELLKNOWN. Because no one has been able to dismiss that guideline, I am putting the paragraph back in the article; the latest version with Crist denying something he actually denied. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

IOW, you dislike the consensus there and here and decided to violate both? Sorry -"Bold" does not include "Ignore Consensus." And WP:BLP is a strong policy. Collect (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if the editors who form the consensus have misinterpreted WP:BLP, that's no justification for Binksternet to demand his interpretation instead. See WP: Ignore all rules (which is perhaps the only rule that cannot be ignored). Additionally, here is how the NY Times connected Crist to Outrage: "Their reflections are interwoven with allegations about the sex lives of several well-known current political figures, including Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida...." This NYT sentence is bland to the point of being non-notable, and is quite different from what Binksternet put into this article. I agree with Collect (although I tried to rephrase what Binsternet put into this article, I support removal).Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I agree that BLP is a strong policy. Check out the section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Public figures which applies to Crist. This is the relevant section which must be addressed. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect, without wishing to rehash old arguments more than necessary, this is not a WP:BLP concern. The additions are well-sourced, so it's more of an editorial decision as to whether they "deserve" inclusion in the article. Trebor (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm suggesting a related policy edit, here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Which infobox photo?

Crist sitting on desk.

Cropped closeup version.

Quick poll: which infobox photo do you prefer?

The purpose is to settle a little tug-of-war with IP editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cropped closeup

• I don't think that polls on talk pages are necessarily the best way to settle things, but unless this is a dispute about anything other than aesthetics, I'll say the closeup looks better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not pretending polls are a good idea, but here it is. I place my !vote on the cropped shot. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What did he deny?

Today, Off2riorob reworded the gay allegations paragraph in a way I think diminishes the paragraph's clarity. Two sentences were changed from the first to the second example:

• "...which purports to out politicians who are closeted..." versus
• "...which attempted to out politicians it claimed were closeted..."

and

• "Crist has repeatedly denied that he is gay." versus
• "Crist denied the allegations."

The first rewording moves the film's claim from purports to claimed but the "attempted" bit makes the idea of outing look like somebody trying shoot a basket but missing. This is a POV wording which assumes Crist is not gay. We editors cannot know the true answer, so we must write for any possible answer.

The second rewording is something we've discussed here before. There must be allegations against Crist presented to the reader before we can say that he denied them. There must be a clear indication of what Crist has been accused of. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Crist has stated he is not gay" would cover this fine. Not a 'denial' but an assertion. We are making no judgement about his sexuality, but reporting what he said on the subject. As for the first sentence, how about "...which purports to out politicians it claims are closeted..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)