The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Cirt, WP:WTA is about words to avoid 'improper usage of', not words to never use. This film presents allegations, so 'allegedly' is not a weasel word, it just means that their are actual allegations. I'm not trying to undercut the film, just to make sure that its clear Wikipedia takes no stance on the claims presented. Removing allegedly leaves a pretty clear implication in my reading that Wiki accepts that these people actually are closeted and actually are hypocrites. If you're a stickler for WTA, we could substitute a rounder phrase like, 'the film makes the argument' or 'the film explores the notion', etc. But I don't see how 'allegedly' fails merely for being part of a list of potentially bad words.
The policy language: "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. "
The sentence "film... about the hypocrisy of closeted homosexual politicians who promote anti-homosexual legislation". Which parts are allegations? Originally I put alleged before hypocrisy, but I suppose if you accept the premise then the hypocrisy follows. So the allegation is really only about their being closeted. So I'd put it back as 'allegedly closeted'. I don't see how we can do without that or something similar.
Because this is a BLP, I'm going to be bold and put 'allegedly closeted' in now. We can discuss whatever remains amiss after, but the public version should err on the side of caution. Ocaasi (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Made it more specific in the lede, diff link. -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a little on the wordy side for my taste ('presents a narrative' rather than 'about'; 'stated in the documentary to be' rather than 'allegedly'), but it definitely avoids any WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV or WP:WTA issues. Ocaasi (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I always thought allegedly went against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV so I prefer any wording which states specifically what the film claims. Binksternet (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at, since the article wasn't about allegations, but about the claims themselves. What if we wrote 'Outrage is a film that claims certain individuals are closeted homosexuals and are hypocritical by promoting anti-homosexual legislation?' The current version is fine, but would that also work? Ocaasi (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In your version I would replace "certain individuals", which sounds like law enforcement jargon, with "six politicians", to be very specific. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean (or 6 pols plus shep and cheney, etc.). As for AttributePOV, above, I responded on the merits, but my original ATTPOV issue was not with 'allegedly' but with the lack of any word or phrase which distinguished the statement as a claim rather than a plain fact. That's what I meant about CIRT's edit--he solved my ATTPOV concern about the plain fact situation, and his concern about the WTA use of allegedly. Ocaasi (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
A request has been made for closure on this section. I have reviewed the discussion and the article. I do not believe that a clear consensus has formed, however I will offer the following guidance:
The mere fact that a source is a film does not inherently affect its reliability.
This particular film does deal almost exclusively in contentious claims. Claims of homosexuality are not inherently contentious, however, for the subjects of this film, they are.
There are claims that the film itself cites reliable sources. If this is the case, then those independent sources could potentially be used to source contentious claims that the film has made. There are counter-claims that sources that have been cited thus far in turn refer to the film as a source. There was quite a bit of discussion on this point. I think the relevant concept here is similar to the concept we apply to news wire articles; we do not count each printing of the story as a source. For a source to add additional credibility to a claim, it needs to do independent fact checking or research. It is not that these sources summarizing the film suddenly become unreliable as sources, they are reliable sources for analysis of the film itself. But unless they have done independent analysis of the claims they are repeating, they do not serve to support such a contentious claim they merely repeat.
BLP concerns are rightly warranted here. A major question raised is whether we violate BLP policy by reporting on contentious and potentially unwarranted claims that others have made within a notable work. There does not seem to be local consensus on this matter. The wider consensus on this matter is that we need to proceed with extreme caution in such cases, and tend to err on the side of not reporting such claims when there is doubt.
A potential standard that could be used is whether such claims would be appropriate material for the article about the subject, with the sourcing that is available. If the answer to that is "no", then we likely should not include such material here either.
Because there is not clear consensus in this discussion, this closure should be considered as non-binding guidance. Gigs (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Is not "optional" on Wikipedia. Period. Collect (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if an allegation were about the President - that would not excuse contentious claims about sexuality etc. I suggest that saying a person is secretly gay is, in fact, a contentious claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Reviewing this situation, I endorse including the names because it is directly related to the topic (as opposed to a documentaries about more abstract topics) and because there is a wealth of secondary sources where these names from this primary source (the film) have been highlighted. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, the use of secondary sources ensures that primary sources are not misused, and per WP:WELLKNOWN, the allegations about the public figures are "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented". The context is that this is a notable documentary, covered by reliable sources, that discusses public figures for which these kinds of allegations have been published by other sources. WP:WELLKNOWN states that in this context, the content belongs "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". Erik (talk | contribs) 15:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC) NOTE: I've notified WT:FILM of this discussion to build a consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Is listing people who have been accused of being secretly gay a violation of WP:BLP where the source provided is specifically the article subject and no other source for such allegations is provided? 15:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This question is woefully misconstrued. As the merest glimpse at the article shows, there are numerous additional sources provided. WTF? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It actually reflects the situation at hand -- in some cases four or more refs alltrace back to the film, and not to reliable sources otherwise at all. A source saying "the film makes an allegation" is insufficient for WP to iterate the allegation giving it credence. Collect (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that stating a person is secretly gay falls into the "contentious claims" category which applies to all Wiki spaces. I suggest that where the source provided for such implicit allegations is a film and no WP:RS source is provided that this is a BLP violation. I note that many books make "allegations" about living persons, and that Wiki policies have been held to not allow the reprinting of pure allegations in Wiki space on the mere basis that someone wrote the allegations has not been held proper in the past. WP:WELLKNOWNrequiresWP:RS sourcing, and this film is not a reliable source for allegations, but is simply a purveyor of them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Re "allegations": it is not a crime to be gay (at least not in the USA), so allegations is the wrong word (and betrays an unsavoury POV, in my view). I suggest having this conversation in a more neutral way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That something is "not a crime" is not the same as "not contentious". If I said "George Gnarph routinely eats goldfish for lunch" -- no "crime" is stated, but the claim is damn well "contentious" especially where the person has openly and repeatedly denied the claim. In the case at hand, the claims have been openly and repeatedly denied by many of those named. I believe the statement is correct -- where reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:BLP are given for statements of fact -- those can remain. Where the issue is speculation, weak or no sources, and especially where the claim has been denied by the person involved, then such claims here are a violation of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I made a point about your use of the word allegations. You ignored it. I wonder why that might be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
@Collect: At WP:WELLKNOWN, one of the examples is, "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." If you search for each of the public figures and the word "gay", there are other sources that cover this allegation (not necessarily from this film) and the response to it. To fit the example better, maybe we can state for each public figure that they have denied it? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We should only present responses to the film and its specific allegations, not general responses to allegations of homosexuality. This article is only about the film. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I think for the sake of sensitivity to living persons, mentioning their general responses is pertinent. Here, the allegations are left open-ended, and I think that the WP:WELLKNOWN example indicates that denials are worth reporting. It is a stretch to expect readers to go to each individual's article and search for the response to the allegation. We can close that open-endedness here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
If you take the example of Charlie Crist, he has never responded to the film's allegations about him. In other instances, he has been asked several times whether he is gay, and he has answered that he is not gay. Putting his "not gay" response into this film article would violate WP:SYNTH, unless you can find a reference that ties the whole issue together with the film. 16:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that it is synthesis. I am suggesting providing context from outside the documentary. In most cases, we would link readers elsewhere to get context (historical, scientific, etc.) but with this being a BLP concern, it seems appropriate to state something here like the film is part of the general coverage about these allegations, and that each politicians have denied these allegations. That way, we can be parallel with the WP:WELLKNOWN example I highlighted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We are not reporting that someone is gay, merely saying that a flim has claimed they are. And we are no repeating what we saw in the film, but using the description in a high quality newspaper. TFD (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
said to be a closeted Fox News anchor' sure looks like an allegation from here. Are you saying that if we have an article on (say) "allegations of treason by politicians in xxx book" that you would find such allegations to be therefore usable in the Wikipedia article, and wikilinked to that person's BLP? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you are drawing an equivalence between treason and being gay is really quite disturbing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact is I made no such claim of equivalence and you damn well know it. When people start acting like they are in kindergarten, it is hard to give good faith to anything they say about other editors. Collect (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Au contraire. You were arguing by analogy: "if we wouldn't do it for treason, we shouldn't do it for homosexuality". An analogy makes sense (e.g. to the person who makes it) only to the extent that there is equivalence between the elements. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
An analogy is part equivalence and part distinction. In Collect's analogy the equivalence is the repetition of harmful allegations. The distinction is "closeted Fox News anchor" versus "treasonous politician". If Nomoskedasticity's claim about equivalence were right, then what would have been the distinction left in Collect's analogy? But "Collect is calling homosexuality treason!!!!" does make better drama fodder I guess. alanyst 18:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Your position is untenable in any manner whatsoever on this. I also used "eating goldfish" and I trust that was insufficiently colourful for your wondrous umbrage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:WELLKNOWN there mentions a 3-point threshold for inclusion, whether the material is "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented". Is speculation of a public figure's sexual orientation, when said figure has not divulged it him/herself in line with that 3-point criteria? Would the article on the movie be worse off if we didn't print the list of names? I'm not really seeing "but we're just reporting what the movie alleges" as a justifiable rationale here. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at that section with the list of names and you'll see how many sources back up each name, with reports from Variety, the Washington Post, Huffington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Rolling Stone magazine and more. The film's assertions got wide publicity. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
My favorite so far ... In this case, since such allegations are not a minor or secondary part of the film, but are the film, and are in turn sourced to dozens of secondary sources, such judgement requires us to repeat them. Otherwise we're omitting what the film is about, which is our very task.
I think it's very poor judgement to try to gut the article about the film, at its very core to omit what the film is about. It violates NPOV not to include the very subjects of what the film is about. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
There are too many inline references. Why not eliminating less-reputable sources from the list? George Ho (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Once the dust settles a bit, I think some could be removed, or combined to make reading things easier. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
When, even when deadline is absent? George Ho (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it as that big of problem that it needs to be fixed right away. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want to balance the article, there shouldn't be too many refs. George Ho (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe too many refs will cause any imbalance. Since this discussion revolves around removing the very core of what the movie, and therefore the article, is about, I think we should wait until more people have given their view. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Excessive material Material unrelated to the film has been added to a number of living persons, and that material must be subject to WP:BLP. This article is now a coatrack for adding material about people which is not allowed in their actual BLPs. Collect (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
@Collect - re "Material unrelated to the film" - Can you clarify what this means? Does the film cover the Craig issue or not? NickCT (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Material not in the film is stated as claims in the article. AFAICT of course. It is absurd for us to add material which was not in the film in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Gay sex scandal - Couple rationals, 1) less opaque option, 2) I think the counter argument is that we definitely don't want to use "gay" in a pejorative sense, which "gay sex scandal" may be perceived as being. Inserting "scandal" next to any adjective potentially gives that adjective a negative tone. I think the response to that argument is that one doesn't want sacrifice too much clarity for the sake of political correctness. NickCT (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Gay sex scandal, same reasons as NickCT. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: Content about Larry Craig is removed from the article temporarily, so I'm dropping RFC for now. George Ho (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
This scandal seems to be notable and has a well-sourced article, so it could be put back in. See Larry Craig scandal. Rather than characterizing it, or inventing new wording just use the title of that article and summarize the contents. JehochmanTalk 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the section of the article that listed living people who are the subject of gossip in the film. The film itself is NOT a reliable source. The entries had excessively long strings of references, many of which appeared to circle back to the film, or to film reviews citing the film. None of this is a reliable source to support inclusion of the film's allegations into Wikipedia. The long lists of references to bad sources served only to obfuscate, not to illuminate. No matter the result of following discussions, please do not attempt to create an appearance of reliable sourcing by piling on lots of substandard sources.
The film itself is borderline notable. This is not a film that has been widely viewed, relative to other films. As a high traffic website, Wikipedia can cause real anxiety or harm to a living person by spreading rumors about them. Wikipedia is much more widely viewed than this film. For that reason, we are going to be extra cautious not to repeat rumors from the film without proper sourcing.
Should you disagree with me, you may want to start a discussion at WP:BLPN to get the opinions of additional, uninvolved administrators and editors about how to enforce WP:BLP. A handful of editors who have an interest in this page are not the right group to decide how that policy works. Should you restore the content prior to generating a conclusive result about how BLP should be applied, any admin may remove the content as BLP enforcement and block you to prevent further violations. The ongoing RFC in the section above may be useful. Once it has run for a suitable amount of time, please find an uninvolved administrator to close it. My enforcement action is an interim measure intended to prevent harm while things are uncertain. Once a result is achieved, it can be implemented, whether that is to restore the content in whole, in part, or not at all. JehochmanTalk 14:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
So a single admin has the right to jump in and override consensus as formed by numerous previous discussions? Who knew? You also appear to have missed the fact that there is a current discussion at BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Great. Once it concludes, if there is a clear result, it can be implemented. "When in doubt, keep it out" is the rule to be applied until there is a clear result. And yes, I have every ability, authority and responsibility to do what I did. What's the rush! Do those allegations need to be in the article today? Why can't you wait for the discussions to conclude and produce a result? JehochmanTalk 14:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Please provide links to the ongoing discussions so that interested editors can find them quickly. JehochmanTalk 14:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing the core issue involved here. Collect (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
@Jehochman: Did you read the article content? You stated, "The entries had excessively long strings of references, many of which appeared to circle back to the film, or to film reviews citing the film. None of this is a reliable source to support inclusion of the film's allegations into Wikipedia." Actually, Sportfan5000 added references about these allegations and the subjects' responses that are independent of the film. As an uninvolved editor, I thought that the names warranted inclusion per WP:WELLKNOWN especially because Outrage is not a novel report of the allegations and responses. These were already circulating beforehand and still do afterward, separately from the film. Can you please outline how WP:WELLKNOWN does not apply here? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned that the long strings of references are leading to obfuscation rather than illumination. A few good references are sufficient; why include 7? Use the best ones. If there are reliable secondary sources that have reported an allegation, independently of the film, as the New York Times did with Ed Koch, that material can probably be included. I think what was in the article might have been a mixture of acceptable and unacceptable, and some of what was acceptable was referenced in a way that was less than ideal. It will take time to sort it out. Until that happens, WP:BLP requires us to remove the content from view. Once it is put together properly, it could potentially be restored. I'm not sure what the correct standards are going to be. We need to let the discussions settle, then implement the result that's been decided. Okay? My action is not determining what content goes in the article finally -- I'm just saying that we need to maintain high standards. Unlike other topics that don't involve living people, we can't publish a sloppy first draft. JehochmanTalk 15:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It is idiotic to complain about references that "circle back to the film", as such circling back is exactly what we require of the references. If a reference does not mention the film, it should not be used here due to synthesis issues. Every single reference that appears here should "circle back to the film", that is, it should talk about the film's content and/or report on the film's reception. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. We're talking about the content of a film. This is what is being misunderstood. The movie is not a source. The movie is the friggin'subject of this article. If a notable movie says that Australians are pineapple-shaped aliens, we don't go around saying "no other reliable source says such a thing about Australians, so let's remove it", in the movie article itself. We report what the movie is about, even if it's the silliest and weirdest and meanest thing. Of course the actual article about Australians shouldn't report the movie rumor, but that's a completely separate issue.--cyclopiaspeak! 16:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems awfully convenient to complain that something is not referenced enough, then double down and complain that it has too many references. All the statements I added were in published reliable sources, much of it came from Wikipedia's own articles but sources confirmed what was stated. In each case there were multiple sources confirming that the subject's of the film were named by reliable sources as being the subjects of the film then additional sources showing how published rumors predating the film led to their inclusion. It contradicts NPOV not to include this information especially when it's exactly the information other editors have sought. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Larry Craig is definitely going to be added back in since the scandal involving him has its own article and is so well-known that most people will likely only recognize him as that politician who tapped his shoe in the men's rest room. Crist has been reported by numerous reliable secondary sources to be in the closet and both of them are a main focus of discussion surrounding this film. I should note that Jehochman removed some instances of people who are openly gay and one instance of someone who has since deceased. That said, as I noted at BLPN, the best approach here is not to list the allegations, but to incorporate material as it is presented in the film or at it is covered in critical commentary. Outside those for whom BLP does not apply or who are openly gay, only names that are a major focus of the documentary and reception to it should be included in a summary of the film.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 18:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Material about openly gay and deceased are added back. I believe that Larry Craig scandal should be added, but the scope should be limited to scandal and the film's accusations, supported by non-primary sources. George Ho (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree with Cyclopia above. This so-called "BLP Enforcement" is unwarrented, and the attempt to trump all other considerations and impose a single admin's view is IMO an abuse of admin powers. DES(talk) 23:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Jehochman makes nonsensical restrictions against reliable sources which "circle back to the film, or to film reviews citing the film." If such sources are disallowed then all of our film articles will be eviscerated, and we will no longer have an encyclopedia worth the name. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Our film articles will not be eviscerated if we require that they not repeat gossip from the films without independent sourcing of the facts. JehochmanTalk 01:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
We had independent sourcing but you deleted it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, all I can see from your comment is that you are out of touch with film articles. Take it from me: you are wrong here. A vanishingly small number of reliable sources bother to independently test the assertions made in a film.
As an example, let's take the Featured Article about the documentary film Trembling Before G-d which covers very sensitive BLP issues about homosexual Orthodox Jews trying to find a place within their religion. If we examine the 34 references and get rid of any that repeat assertions made by the film but do not go out and check the facts of the film, we find that very few remain: The Jewish Week interviewed a rabbi who saw the film and offered his reaction, verifying some points made in the film. Then there's the critical Aish.com response to the film which includes the Aish reporter speaking independently to people who were interviewed by the filmmaker. All the other references which describe the contents of the film have to be tossed. Perfectly useful film reviews such as this one from the Los Angeles Times are thrown out. All that's left are the two listed above and mechanical facts about the film from Box Office Mojo telling how many minutes is its duration, and how much money it made. If the article is rewritten based on the two sources which actually went out and did their own research on the issues, then it most certainly will be eviscerated. It would lose its hard-won FA status and also its former GA status. It would probably be considered a Start or C-Class article. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say you need to toss all these references. What I said is don't try to make up for a lack of quality references with a quantity of weak ones, and if there are quality references, don't bury them in a long list of weak ones. You can use film reviews to write an article about a film, of course, but you cannot use them to establish that an allegation in a film is notable enough to be repeated in Wikipedia. If the film says "X", a dubious fact about a living person, the review stating "Film says X" does not make that fact any less dubious. The review has not gone out and investigated whether there is any evidence of "X". WP:BLP only applies to facts about living people. JehochmanTalk 14:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The whole section in question seems like excessive plot detail to me, regardless of the contentious nature of the material. It essentially breaks the film down into a overdone list full of claims that may or not actually be in the film, making it very hard to verify. Why not simply list all, or maybe just a few notable, subjects and be done? No one is denying that these people were mentioned in the documentary. Do we list the claims made in other documentaries with such excessive detail? As an encyclopedia article, this page only needs to be an overview of the film itself, not a complete breakdown of every point made in the film. -- John Reaves 18:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The standard for documentary film articles is to summarize the points made in the film, just like for fiction films which all have a plot section describing the plot. Take a look at Trembling Before G-d which is a Featured Article about a documentary film. The "Synopsis" section tells the reader what the film says. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If a film, book, TV show or other media piece is gossiping about living people, that is not a free pass to bring that gossip into Wikipedia. We have a policy, WP:BLP, that forbids gossip. Is any part of that unclear? JehochmanTalk 14:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
If a notable film, book, show, or other publication makes allegations about a public figure, and those allegations are a major focus of the publication, and those allegations are reported on (not confirmed, merely reported on) by multiple reliable secondary sources, then they aren't "gossip" and should be included in an article about the publication, nor does WP:BLP say otherwise. DES(talk) 17:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
By your threshold, Richard Gere should make mention of a long-running urban legend involving the subject and a member of the rodent family. Many sources talk about it, if one does a web search to look, but that doesn't make it repeatable by an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
One can still exercise judgement about whether something is encyclopaedic. But as DES says, gossip is the wrong word here, particularly in relation to Larry Craig. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's try a very simple query here. Nomoskedasticity, is Larry Craig homosexual or heterosexual? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
How should I know? As a general matter, though: someone who identifies as heterosexual can engage in gay sex. Doing so doesn't make that person gay -- because after all being gay is a matter of sexual identity, so that in that sense one is what one says one is. By the same token, having a heterosexual sexual identity isn't at all incompatible with engaging in gay sex acts (see Prison sex). Again, these are general statements. Your question could only be answered by Craig himself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
So, you're perfectly content to publish gossip and speculation about Mr. Craig's sexual preferences in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. as material in an article) but shy away from doing it directly in your own voice. How...fascinating. Tarc (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Not at all -- I have no interest in trying to label Craig as gay. But I do believe there is ample sourcing to support material regarding claims that he has engaged in gay sex acts -- and that it's reasonable to do so in connection with his political actions regarding gay rights. That's what the film is about, and there's plenty of related material about Craig that isn't directly connected to the film (so that it isn't a question of "just the film"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A scandal becomes inherently (not independently) notable only when evidence from primary sources, like police records, testimonies, and involved, confirms the scandal, invalidating its role as "gossip". Gossip is discouraged and has no exceptions. George Ho (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Whatever article says isn't gossip; the scandal was brought to light, so other cases were reported as "facts", not "gossip", but maybe others see them as "gossip". Some scandals may be independently notable, but sufficient details should be large enough as a subpage. Scandals are overrated, in my humble opinion. Scandals are often treated as proof of sexual orientation outside Wikipedia, but reporting facts and jumping to conclusions are totally different. Offtopic, Personal life of Jennifer Lopez was too large, and it was deleted per AFD. George Ho (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree entirely. This is what I was trying to say to Jehochman -- it's not gossip. He has agreed (though after no small amount of trouble). Tarc is still confused, it seems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Jehochman are you working with or under contract for the Crist campaign? Do you have any other association official or unofficial with the Crist campaign? Your edits and enforcement of WP:BLP have been selectively enforced to remove mention of Charlie Crist. As he is currently running for Governor and you are an internet marketing consultant, your interest in this page is very suspicious, especially considering you only became involved with this article after Mr. Crist declared his candidacy for Governor. Admin abuse can be remedied. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. Reliable sources indicate a connection between the film and the activities documented in the article, and consensus appears to favor it as relevant enough to include. WP:BLP applies to this article as much as to Larry Craig, and care should of course be taken to represent only those claims present in secondary sources. — Jess· Δ♥ 01:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article is about the film and not the persons named in it Thus material covered explicitly in the film and properly sourced could reasonably be found in an article about the film. Material not directly pertinent to the content of the film is thus not pertinent to an article about the film. This article is about the specific film, and is not reasonably construable as including biographies of everyone mentioned in the film. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This issue of why any of these people was included in the film was raised, as if their names were picked out of a hat. In reality each of them has their own legacy documented, but obstructioning has kept that information out of the article on the film, which at it's very core is about the hypocrisy. Logic dictates that we demonstrate the filmmakers had cause to include these people and we can also share the details revealed in reliable sources as well as in the film. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
And the material relevant to the film directly may be used -- but that is not carte blanche to elaborate on what should be in a BLP and not in an article on the film. Logic requires we follow Wikipedia policies about biographies, and not coatrack material into tons of unrelated articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The material is relevant to the film but you don't seem to understand or accept that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
BLP applies to everything. Claiming that you can ignore BLP because the article is about the film is wrong.
In this case the accusation has reliable sources outside the film that are considered important enough for Wikipedia to have an article, so we can include it, but this should not be taken to be a general principle that as long as something is "relevant to the film" we can use it. If the film accuses someone and that accusation is not the subject of notable coverage, we have no business mentioning it just because it's in the film. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep Larry Craig section, as long as the text is about the film's assertions, supported by references discussing the film. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep, - it's very relevant to the film and helpful to the reader in providing context and such. As an aside, an admin commenting on it before is not really more than "and another editor agrees." --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why not to keep it. This New York Timesarticle makes the same reference to Craig when he is described as a subject in the documentary. --Precision123 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Remove I cannot see something as outrageous as this being kept for any reason whatsoever. You cannot ignore WP:BLP for whatsoever reason and therefore this is completely out of line! The accusation may have some reliable sources, that are not even enough to warrant a seperate article. Just because something is relevant to a film, is not a carte blanche to start filling the article with irrelevant nonsense. If the film accuses an individual for whatsoever reason, that accusation is very much the subject of notable coverage, we have therefore a lot of reason to mention it. The whole issue is insulting to someone of Mr. Craig's stature, but I must keep that to one side and take a purely objective view of what seems to be a campaign propagated in the film in a manner that is completely in line with WP:BLP. It therefore is very clear that it is notable enough to warrant a clear and concise mention with all sources attached. It should therefore be removed and all mention to it erased from the main article itself. Sonarclawz (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep We are discouraged from using primary sources, because they may not be reliable. Secondary sources are trivially available. This is not defamatory; it is factual - and clearly relevant to the firm. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 21:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Charlie Crist's entry has been completely eviscerated from this page. It was done at 13:56, 8 January 2014 by Jehochman. Crist is running for election in Florida, and I suspect it is not coincidence that his name no longer appears in this article whereas before January 8 he was mentioned 13 times by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
The reason the content was removed is probably (if I remember correctly) that it violated BLP. Your accusations against me have no basis in fact. Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere Mr. IP. JehochmanTalk 18:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
whay has crist been left out of this article