Talk:Charlie Crist

General issue: justifying project tags

This creation of a new topic is inspired by the comment I posted just a few minutes ago. Gosh, I now discover that project tags don't necessarily include an explanation for why the article has been deemed to fall within the project. Gosh, regarding the tag insertion I objected to, I guess I have to give the placer credit for offering an explanation. Well, some tags don't need an explanation: a governor of Florida obviously falls within the scope of the Florida Project. But Wine Project or LGBT Project? Less often self evident, to put it mildly. Hurmata (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the reason for any project tag is, indeed, self evident--Editors within the project have an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards for that article. That is the only reason for any article to be tagged by any project--be it LGBT, WP:WINE, Florida project etc. Now what is the reasoning behind that interest is a different question--such as the Florida project being interested in a Florida governor. Though, admittedly, in many ways that question is as irrelevant as "Why does Hurmata have an interest in editing Wikipedia?" I'm sure fellow editors are free to ask you that question (and they should always assume it is because of the best of intentions) but you are under no obligation to answer and your editing privileges certainly shouldn't be removed or limited until you answer or give an answer that satisfy the subjective criteria of the questioner. (What if you are merely here to write on topics you're familiar with but the questioner is looking for an answer about actively combating systematic bias and writing on topics that they feel are often overlooked)

The same with a project tag. While the reasoning for tagging an article is self-evident, the reason why the article is of interest to any particular editor is a personal one and we should always assume it is because of the best of intentions. We are always free to ask and sometimes the projects will respond (the LGBT project itself has been working on a general inclusion statement to add to the LGBT tag). But ultimately the answer to the question of "why" they have an interest is irrelevant and it certainly shouldn't be used as a reason to remove their project tag. In Wikipedia, we look at the actions and assume good faith. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I should clarify my last statement. It has been brought up that a project tagging an article can somehow constitute a BLP violation. That statement essentially conveys that the interest of a project in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article can somehow negatively affect a biography of a living person. That comes dangerously close to assuming bad faith. It's assuming a negative connotation to the interest of an editor. That is something that is actively discouraged on Wikipedia, because we look at the actions of an editor rather than assume their intentions. It's like assuming one answer to the question of "Why are you interested in editing Wikipedia?" is to vandalize when the editor hasn't made one vandalizing edit. Now, I ask, is there anything that a LGBT project member has done in editing the article that caused a BLP violation? Is there any "actions" taken to cause a BLP violation? Is there anything in the project tag that says (an action) something beyond that members of the LGBT project are interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in this article? Is there something that says this person is tagged because they're gay? I think the obvious answer to all these questions is "No". We have no actions being taken to cause a BLP violation. All we have is the expressed interest by project editors (whether it be one editor or several, doesn't matter) in maintaining accuracy and standards in this article. The only way to stretch that into a BLP violation is to assume bad faith and to assume a negative reason for the interest of the editors in this article. Just like with our non-vandalizing "vandal", this is just simply not something we do on Wikipedia. We look at the actions and assume good faith. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You raise two points here I want to address. If you commit a BLP violation unintentionally, it makes no difference as far as the need to undo the violation. So you can stop waving the red flag -- or pointing out the red herring -- of "assume good faith". Next, you have asked, "Now, I ask, is there anything that a LGBT project member has done in editing the article that caused a BLP violation? Is there any "actions" taken to cause a BLP violation?". Earth to Agne27: that's what this whole talk page up to now has been about, or at least the first two of the current three main headings. Some have said yes, others have said no. But your question presupposes you haven't paid any attention. The answer to the question is: read this page. Hurmata (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well my response below tries to steer this conversation back to the main points--especially where I ask you to explain how the interest of editors in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article constitutes a BLP violation. In reading this talk page, several times, I don't see here (or anywhere in WP:BLP for that matter) where it is explained how the interest of editors in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article somehow constitutes a BLP violation. Oh I do see how some phantom tags (i.e. This tags says he's gay!) and imaginary, mythical categories could be a BLP violation but since the sources of those phantom, mythical intents have nothing to do with the LGBT project and are not derived from the project tag itself, we're still back at square one with this really important but still unanswered question. I'd like you to ponder that one awhile and get back to us on this since it is at the heart of the issue. Take all the time you need. I sense some growing frustration and encroaching incivility ("Earth to Agne", etc). It does become more difficult to articulate your points (and not just throw straw on the fire) when frustrations enter the equation. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(Agne27 made two posts under this heading on 22 Aug, the later one being an elaboration on their earlier one. This post replies only the earlier one.) You have tied yourself in knots trying to refute me with an argument that is in turn confused, silly, and arrogant.

• CONFUSED. You let loose two confusions in order to build your argument. First, the confusion as to the senses of the word "interest". To say a group "has or takes an active interest" in the accuracy and quality of a certain article is not similar to asking, "why is so-and-so "interested" in editing Wikipedia?" Agne27 can declare, as above, "I have a huge interest in wine", and Agne27 can also declare "I have an active interest in the security measures adopted by my child's school" -- and for normal people, the word "interest" doesn't quite mean the same thing in the two declarations (versus "stamp collecting is so interesting and so is ensuring my child's welfare"). Second, while trying to defend what actions a project might take, you switch focus at the end from projects to individuals, confusing the "interest" an individual editor has in editing some article with the "interest" a WikiProject has in editing it. In sum, your argument is senseless in part because the meaning of "interest" and the identity of who is asserting an interest change from one sentence to the next.
• SILLY. You draw a specious distinction between the "interest" of some project in ensuring the accuracy and fairness of some article and its "interest" in tagging the article. In fact, the project tag announces that the project "has an interest" in ensuring the article's accuracy and fairness.
• ARROGANT. The insistence that a project has no obligation to explain why it has a concern about or interest in the accuracy and fairness of article X. Hurmata (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So....rather than actually counter my contentions, you would prefer to build a strawman? Very well. Just try to keep that straw away from an open flame. However, I do have an active interest in this discussion so I will re-iterate the main points.

• Clintonian semantics aside (what the definition of "is" is), the self evident purpose of any project tag is to indicate that an editor (or group of editors) within a project has an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards for an article. Admittedly, I could not tell underneath all that straw if you were trying to dispute this or not.
• While anyone is free to ask any project why they are interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article--just as anyone is free to ask any editor why they are interested in Wikipedia, a project should not have to constantly defend their good faith intentions and reasons for their interest. Similarly Hurmata, I would not expect you to have constantly defend your good faith intentions and answer the question of "Why are your interest in editing Wikipedia". While you may claim this as arrogance, I just think its a common sense application of WP:AGF.
• Now to hone in on the heart of the matter. In previous places, you claimed the LGBT tag on the talk page somehow constitutes a BLP violation. Can you explain how a tag whose only purpose is to indicate an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards constitutes a BLP violation? Can you explain how the interest of these groups of LGBT editors can be a BLP violation? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agne, I agree with your points in the main and I've (as is clear from the page history) come around to your side of the debate in a lot of ways, but Hurmata is raising some valid points here. Interest from a project is distinct from editor interest. It is not the intent of Hurmata (nor was it my intent when I originally removed the tag) to assume that interest from LGBT project members is good, bad or indifferent to Charlie Christ. He is explicitly distinguishing the interest of project members from the tag itself and asking if the tag confers some negative BLP connotation. This distinction is not a strawman and is important. Without that distinction we cannot sanction interest without breaking some core wiki principles. With that distinction the answer is significantly less clear. Let's try and resolve how we can view this distinction (or if we can agree it exists) rather than arguing at cross purposes. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This debate started out being about the text that was put into one particular LGBT tag. Agne27 is trying to mislead us into thinking this debate as being about any LGBT tag anywhere in Wikipedia. She also simply refuses to read what has already been written. This is all so partisan.

• Note to the post 1980 generation: "hone in on" is a Malapropism for "home in on".
• Agne27 is digging herself into a deeper hole by accusing me of what she is guilty of, namely semantic obfuscation. All I did was shine light on her machinations. I forgot to point out Agne27's silly assertion that a BLP violation would never be committed by mistake. Of course, this assertion is a contrivance that Agne27 is forced into in order to try to build a case against me: it combines with the refusal read previous comments and the incantations about AGF.
• Protonk, I would like to remind you of what the issues are. First one is that if text, content, would be in violation if it was inserted into a BLP, then it would be a violation if inserted into a project tag. We had article content being challenged and one participant in the debate did put the challenged content in the LGBT project tag. My understanding is that you too disapprove of putting disallowed or challenged content in a project tag, so we can move on to the second. I say that a project has a duty to define its range of topics -- its mission (e.g., Russian history) and a duty to justify claiming an article if it's not obvious why the article falls under the project's scope. For example, why would the Russian history project claim to "have an interest in the fairness and accuracy" of an article on flower taxonomy. Could you explain why you are finding Agne27's arguments persuasive in this regard? I see you just announcing you're being persuaded, you're being persuaded. Hurmata (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm generally persuaded because while I feel that some possible harm comes to the subject from an added "assumed confirmation of rumor" that the harm is small indeed and it is likely outweighed by the legitimate interests of a wikiproject. If this were a WP:NPF, we would not be having this balancing discussion. Because Christ is a public figure, we are not bound to "do no harm". We are instead compelled to make decisions by weighing impacts. I found (after some long discussions here and elsewhere) that the 'harm' is small and the benefits are likely larger. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh...oooh. Sorry, while I'm trying to cut down on fragmenting the conversation in several places, I just had to jump on this one. I think it nails something down. Above Hurmata notes "First one is that if text, content, would be in violation if it was inserted into a BLP, then it would be a violation if inserted into a project tag." So you say that if the text of the LGBT tag was inserted in the article that would be a BLP violation. You mean the text that says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia."--i.e. that there is an interest by LGBT project in maintaining accuracy and standards? OR do you mean the phantom, imaginary text that says something like "This article is tagged because the guy is gay!"? In short, and this really does need to be clarified, are we dealing with the actual text of the tag or some phantom, imaginary added text that somehow appears and disappears depending on who is looking at the tag? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No clarification needed. You are repeatedly putting words in other people's mouths. You consistently show refusal to acknowledge replies made to you. You're participation in this debate now consists only of taunting and fencing with others. Hurmata (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So since you won't (or can't) offer an explanation or clarification to support your contentions, your next strategy is to "attack the man"? Interesting. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse restoring the WP:LGBT project tag as a member of the project and endorse Agne27's rationale. — Becksguy (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hey Protonk, I appreciate you shedding some light on the discussion. As an editor focusing heavily on project work, I appreciate the independence and collaborative spirit that goes with it. A single editor working within the project has the independence to put a project tag on any article that they are interested in. Generally the greater project community supports it because the overall goal of any project is to build content for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Now sometimes there are conflicts within projects about what should be tagged (See the famous Highways Arbitration case) because tagging does play into several organization templates and assessments. But those are intra-project disagreements which is quite different from an editor outside the project deciding that one particular project should not be interested in maintaining accuracy and standards in an article. To use one of Hurmata favorite words, that does seem a little arrogant does it? Much like an editor telling Hurmata that he should have no interest in editing linguistic articles. Who is anyone to tell anyone else, be they a single editor or an entire project what articles they should or should not be interested? Let's look at the edit history where we see Hurmata repeated removal of the LGBT tag-despite being added 3 different people-2 of them LGBT project members and 1 an editor who previously removed it but then changed his mind. Additionally we can see vocal support by LGBT project members on this talk page. How can we look at this picture and not see it as one editor telling another editor (or in this case groups of editors) what articles they can and can not be interested in maintaining accuracy and standards on? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh BTW.... just a friendly reminder that we're still missing the explanation for how a project tag, whose only purpose is to indicate that there is an active interest in maintaining accuracy and standards in this article, constitutes a BLP violation. Just keeping you updated. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This question has already been answered. I wonder if we should all indulge in wine. Hurmata (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's always a nice indulgence. :) Though it appears that there is no substantiation to the claim that the LGBT (or any project tag for that matter) constitutes a BLP violation. There is, however, some substantiation to the inclusion of imaginary, mythical text to projects tags being a BLP violation. I suppose the next question is, why are we having this big fuss over imaginary, mythical text that doesn't exist? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is "we"? I've been responding to you because you have addressed me directly. But you came to this dispute very late and nobody else is paying attention to you. Hurmata (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That last comment seems a bit unnecessary, Hurmata, although I'll assume good faith that it wasn't intentional. Agreeing with Agne, I also don't believe there has been an adequate answer to the question on why the WP:LGBT project tag, per se, is potentially a BLP issue. That makes about as much sense as claiming that the WP:WINE tag is a potential BLP issue because applied to a person, it might imply that the person is an alcoholic (specifically a "wino"). — Becksguy (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue to me (when I removed the tag) was empirical. If we attached WP:WINE to people with rumored or known alcohol problems, then I could make a case that the attachment of the WP:WINE project tag would represent some small negative connotation. We don't, so it is humorous to imagine that we would. In this case I noticed that politicians who were rumored to be gay had the tag attached. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Becksguy, glad you have asked. There is a myth that has been cultivated in this discussion that someone is claiming that, as you summarize it, "the LGBT project tag per se is potentially a BLP issue". This myth has been created by Agne27, who has been making a barrage of catcalls and misrepresentations, including (for another example) strewing comments in various places and then bemoaning "fragmentation of the discussion". This dispute was initiated by a user editing an LGBT project tag so as to create a BLP violation (this user was not Agne27, it was another user, although Agne27 does barrage us with catcalls that she can't find the edit in question). However, one of Agne27's manipulations has been to harangue about "editing the LGBT project tag" even when there is no editing taking place. Recall that WP provides templates for project tags; the tags usually require no editing, and I think we all know how common it is for project tags to be placed WITHOUT any editing. SUBSEQUENT to the initiation of this debate (again, due to a tag edit which constituted a BLP violation), a new objection has been raised, namely: the inappropriateness of placing project tags arbitrarily, without giving a valid account of the project's interest. It is hard for me to see what this per se has to do with BLP violation. Hurmata (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow myself up: I forgot to mention that the earlier complaint of BLP violation being inserted into a project tag has been largely put to rest. Not the general (philosophical?) conundrums of what things do constitute BLP violations, but the specific incident here. Hurmata (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. Since general BLP issues don't belong here, I'm marking this specific issue/thread resolved. — Becksguy (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A doozy of a comment. Why don't they belong here, and even more important, where do they belong? Hurmata (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Becksguy decided this topic was a subheading of another, so he reoutlined it. He did that with two topics. When I undid this reoutlining, the edit didn't even show up in the page history. So I'm trying again. This time, instead of just changing the heading markup (from === to ==), I'm typing in text that I can sign. Hurmata (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that general BLP issues, i.e. - those not related to a specific article or project, might make more sense and gather more participation in the Village Pump, or on the BLP talk page. If it's related to a specific project, then it might make more sense to have that discussion on the project talk page, also for wider participation. My comment was in response to your comment about philosophical BLP issues: Not the general (philosophical?) conundrums of what things do constitute BLP violations... which seemed to imply that general BLP issues may be separate from article specific ones. As to outlining, I was just performing housekeeping to group what looked like three logically related threads so that it was easier to follow, since all three threads seemed to relate to the concept of the talk page template in some way. Nothing more, nothing less. If you are unhappy with that, then reverting it is no problem. — Becksguy (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll hunt around the Village Pump. WP is not well organized, it's difficult to find answers and it's difficult to find the correct forum for asking particular categories of questions. The title of this thread indicates the issue has to do not with one project, but with any. And -- again -- it's not a necessarily a BLP matter. Hurmata (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are looking for one of these areas that deal with Wikiprojects in a much more general sense: Wikipedia:WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, or maybe this one Wikipedia:WikiProject reform that seems to discuss project tagging as an issue. I agree that the encylopedia is not internally well organized and it is indeed hard to find questions/answers or even the right forum. I find myself sometimes stumbling onto things rather than finding them in any really structured way. One seems to have to both know there is a specific answer available, and even more importantly, it's name before one can find it. In other words, for a working editor, it's like a massive book without a table of contents, and the index is the search function. — Becksguy (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sheesh, take a couple days off for perspective and a lot changes, though strangely a lot stays the same. Looking at the talk page history, it looks like we still have a US-Army style "Consensus of one" to remove the LGBT project tag under unclear or unsubstantiated reasons. Now we may have made some progress in uncovering this mythical BLP violation since the discussion has moved from pinpointing any concrete and definite BLP violation from the LGBT tag itself to now "... general (philosophical?) conundrums..." Becksguy has made an excellent suggestion about taking those general, philosophical conundrums to more appropriate venues. An influx of new thoughts and new voices would probably add more light and dilute some of the heat that seems to be coming across in the last few replies. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In an edit summary to this page within the last few hours, Becksguy claimed that it is arbitrary to claim that something is arbitrary. I call upon Becksguy to justify this logic. Hurmata (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Unilaterally removing a project tag against consensus is arbitrary. It’s also wrong. Even discounting the gay rumors, Crist is a sitting governor with the power to impact the gay community, especially in Florida, and his anti-gay agenda makes him a person of interest to the LGBT project. The application of the project tag was not arbitrary, as clearly demonstrated in much discussion here by Agne, Benjiboi, and others. — Becksguy (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true Becksguy. A consensus of one is not consensus and it is quite arbitrary for a non-project member to tell a Wikiproject what articles that they can and can not be interested in maintaining accuracy and standards on. Hurmata, please, you've already said that your concerns are relating to "... general (philosophical?) conundrums...". Rather than wage this one man war against consensus over a project tag, please take your concerns over whatever general, philosophical conundrums you to the appropriate pages (WP:PROJECT perhaps?). This is getting a tad disruptive. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ABF

On 25 Aug, Keeper76 wrote the edit summary, ". . . Overwhelming consensus here is that the tag is legitimate, the project wants to include this article, like any other project, and to assert otherwise is fallacious and ABF". I call upon Wikipedians to refrain from a culture of cliquishness which is big at WP. One way to do so it to use in group acronyms and abbreviations like "ABF" only sparingly, and to err on the side of full phrases. Hurmata (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"ABF"=Assume Bad Faith, or in other words, to believe that edits with which one disagrees are made with nefarious intentions. There is an essay on the topic. Wikipedia guidelines are to assume good faith unless there is a reason to believe otherwise. I don't think that either side is acting in bad faith over the back-and-forth over the template's addition, although I am beginning to develop whiplash from watching it on-off-on-off-on-off... Horologium (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the use of the acronym, Hurmata. I was out of room on the edit summary window, which should have been an indicator that I was saying too much, not an indicator that I should start abbreviating. I should've just left the last 7 words +1 acronym out of there, I regret them. Keeper ǀ 76 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Becksguy decided this topic was a subheading of another, so he reoutlined it. He did that with two topics. When I undid this reoutlining, the edit didn't even show up in the page history. So I'm trying again. This time, instead of just changing the heading markup (from === to ==), I'm typing in text that I can sign. Hurmata (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that the 2008 Republican VP contest is over . . .

Now that Sarah Palin was chosen running mate two days ago, I expect the raging urge to push rumors about Charlie Crist to disappear. I'll just have to see; hasn't happened yet. Hurmata (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, still not yet. After scrubbing the latest dreck, I got a hunch. Sure enough, since me on 22 July and someone else on 17 July, nobody has added anything substantive to this article, meaning anything about Crist's actions as governor or his expressions of opinion about Florida affairs. And also between 9 July and 16 July, nothing of that kind. What's wrong, is the legislature out of session? I'm not overlooking that people have edited what was already in the article, but I'm referring to adding new topics or new information about topics. Hurmata (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, certain people will be waiting with bated breath for the December wedding to be called off. Hurmata (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yellow journalism by User:Researchnews in this article

User:Horologium has reverted today's edit by User:Researchnews. Rightly so. The edits cited only one reference, an annual report by the state Auditor General. However, some of User:Researchnews's charges were not contained in that report. A possible source for the remaining charges is a letter to the editor of a Florida newspaper in August 2008. This letter contains the "7 percent, 93 percent" statements, the news about the federal Dept of HHS "putting Florida's MFCU on probation", and -- tellingly -- the ungrammatical use of the pronoun 'on' that crops up in User:Researchnews's edit. (It is of course possible that these talking points had been published earlier elsewhere and were just picked up by this particular letter writer.) However, User:Researchnews -- a user with a blank user page -- failed to acknowledge that Crist had only been on the job (as Attorney General) for less than a month when the Feds issued this chastening -- i.e., everything in the Feds' complaint (assuming the validity of the complaint) happened before Crist had responsibility for the problems. Hurmata (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to give the URL for the document I referred to. It's http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2008/08/17/florida_fraud/. Hurmata (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:ResearchnewsI am new to Wikipedia. In time I believe my grammar will improve and I will learn about the user page so it is no longer blank. My doctorate is in Medical Biology and Statistics, not grammar. I am open to learning. For over four years I have researched Charlie Crist (as Attorney General and Governor) in his relationship with the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. Three references were cited. One of the references was removed on the Attorney General report page (audit report No. 2004-033). Prior to removing it, I made a copy. The other two references are also audit reports. I consider these reliable references. In addition, I am the author of the article you refer to in the North County Gazette. Is it yellow journalism on my part, when I relay the information from the audit report using their numbers, but presented in a different light?

The audit report states "1270 cases closed by the MFCU." The reader is left believing the MFCU is doing a great job, until you read further in the audit report. It discloses only 88 cases resulted in convictions and the remainder were unfounded or lacked evidence. That means 1182 cases and thousands of lives were destroyed, in order for Crist to remove Florida from a “high risk status” and the MFCU from probation. When reliable and referenced information is removed is that considered censorship? Researchnews (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Researchnews (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Max Linn's accusation

I have a question on this entry - someone else put it in - "In 2006, controversy surrounding a proposed gay marriage ban and rumors about Crist's own sexuality were stirred when Reform Party candidate Max Linn claimed that he believed Charlie Crist to be gay." I would like to see it placed in chronological order, because it is something that dates to 2006, placing it at the beginning of the section if it stays- if it is edited out I would like someone else higher up the chain to make the decision to edit it out - I really don't want to get into the dialogue on the discussion page about this issue - so some editorial direction on that entry would be helpful. Also "Max Linn" should have brackets around it to point to his article page, however his article page seems to be in question about whether it is to be removed. --4rousseau (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been removing the information repeatedly, primarily because of the way it had been framed by the various editors who had been adding it before (mostly IP addresses, plus User:Researchnews), but at least this time the framing was not so outrageously over-the-top, it correctly identifies Max Linn as one of his opponents in the Gubernatorial race, and the sources are better than the previous offerings. I still think it's an undue weight issue, but at least it's well sourced (no axe-grinding columnists, gossip columns from marginal free newspapers, and blogs), mindful of NPOV, and in a section that is relevant to the topic. I'm punting on this one. Horologium (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Trade mission to Europe in July 2008

Discussion of deletions made in this subsection.

• "Crist did not give an explanation for why a Spanish solar company was required, rather than a domestic solar company". No explanation needed: long before globalization, corporations were doing business multinationally — clients were considering foreign vendors, and vendors were making sales in foreign countries. Beyond that, Crist could have made a trade mission to California, which would be within the same country but would be about equally distant, hence about equally expensive in travel costs.
• "There also were questions raised about the seriousness of the trip events, given the participation of the Governor's fiancee, Carole Rome" The reference cited does not substantiate this. The reference is a gallery of 46 photos with captions. If you're going to cite one of these photo captions, integrity demands you cite the photo number, just as you would not cite a quote from a 400 page book and leave out the page number. I found a caption (to photo number 7?) where a British newspaper alleged vaguely that Crist was "under fire for a 'jaunt'". This is not a sufficient reference. After about photo number 26, I quit the search for the damning captions. Beyond this, it is unworthy of WP to report that being accompanied by one's fiancee on a trade mission raises questions about the seriousness of the mission. Of course there will be "photo ops" and obsequious niceties spoken, that's irrelevant. The fact that one prime minister will host a visiting foreign prime minister at a gala dinner does not lead anyone to suppose that no business of state was transacted.
• Embraer in Melbourne". There is only one place that said this, a Miami Times/Herald article. Point 1, Embraer is Brazilian, not European. Point 2, Embraer's expansion came in May 2008, two months before the controversial trade mission to Europe. Either the Times/herald had a brain fart in quoting the governor, or the governor had a brain fart in composing the press release. Either way, the content is so grossly unfactual that WP would need to strongly verify it, especially in a BLP. Hurmata (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

so if it is legitimate source quoting what you call a "brain fart" as a fact- then that fact needs to be purged by you from the article?--4rousseau (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirby Dick's documentary Outrage includes Crist

Kirby Dick is an article in WP, his movie Outrage is an article in WP, thus the two items when paired with Crist are worthy of being addressed in this article. So, I have attempted to include the item as part of Crist's bio in as objective a manner possible. There have been attempts to add this item in recent days - posted and removed -posted and removed etc- however, those attempts were written in an inflammatory style, bordered on vandalism and did not cite references. Hopefully, future edits will include well sourced material and will be written objectively.--4rousseau (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John Broughton's recent edits to make this article more npov, such as retitling the blatantly opinionated "Reverses position on offshore oil drilling" and removing the section "Greer under fire", which is very unbalanced. However, this article still has problems with imbalance, non-neutral tone, and undue weight. It seems to be largely one-sided, heavy on the critics and noticeably absent supporting views for balance. By simply listing all the legislation that Crist has voted for or against as governor with little context or balance is more a collection of indiscriminate information than a biographical article.

I've asked for a BLP review of the "Personal life" section's supposed "outing" content, as the use of left-wing opinion blogs such as salon.com and huffingtonpost and an obscure indie film do not constitute reliable secondary sources required by BLP for defamatory content. It it also a misreresentation to characterize such as "mainstream media". This kind of highly negative content requires solid, secondary sourcing such as Time magazine, The NY Times, Associated Press, etc., to comply with WP:BLP. Indeed, even the Variety movie review says the film may have libel issues.  JGHowes  ^talk 21:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

" as the use of left-wing opinion blogs such as salon.com and huffingtonpost" -- they are not solely left wing blogs - to describe them solely as such conveys a right wing bias to me, but I assume good faith.--4rousseau (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the structure used for this article isn't the greatest, and also that the writing is not as neutral as I would like. I also think that perhaps the "Outrage" film information doesn't belong; its sourced to blogs (and Variety of all things), and given the claims I think we should ask for a higher degree of sourcing here. This article, like any BLP, is intended to be a full and complete biography - but a major claim of hypocrisy and homosexuality, with scant coverage and no evidence, doesn't make the cut in my mind. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"(and Variety of all things)"-- Variety is a trade magazine over 100+ years old. --4rousseau (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have included several additional sources the NY Times, NPR, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post in addition to the original sources posted.--4rousseau (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Section removed: "Greer under fire"

I've removed this section, which only very peripherally concerns Crist (he appointed Greer and he supported Greer after some questioned Greer's actions). I'm not even sure that the section would be worth including in the bio of Greer himself, since it's basically an argument over the most effective use of political funds (yawn); no illegalities are even alleged. In any case, the removal from this article is per WP:NPOV; an entire section (or even, in my opinion, a single sentence) on this matter is clearly undue weight and space. (Removed wording follows.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One day after the RGA conference, Jim Greer, the Republican Chairman in Florida appointed by Crist and a long time friend and Crist staffer, came under fire from fellow GOP McCain staff in Florida with regard to how the party was spending its money during the election. Some questioned payments made for Tampa Bay Rays games, New York Yankees games, trips to Disney World, and $682,000 on chartered planes; and wondered why the funds were not spent on air time for television and radio advertising. Greer and others responded that they were operating within the rules and such expenditures had to be made in order to court major donors. Greer also stated that all funds had been offered to the McCain campaign in Virginia, and the McCain headquarters returned the funds back to the Republican Party of Florida. Crist immediately sent a letter detailing his support for Greer and his endorsement of Greer's re-election as chair of the party in Florida.

it is always fascinating to see the new folks who arrived at an article for the first time on the date a pol launches a campaign. the section on greer remains-- it is consistent with the paragraphs preceding it -- it details the dynamics of the FL Republican party and Crist's involvment and how it affects Crist, who is the subject. Also, the subject for Ban on Gay Adoption remains because it is an existing ban the Gov supports -- not a general topic of Gay Adoption-- same thing with civil unions etc. attempting to replace "minority groups" with the term "cultural issues" lacks an understanding and sophistication about the subject and how it is discussed in academia and other spheres--4rousseau (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the changes that John made to the article, as they did a lot to restore an NPOV balance that was lacking in this article. The headings should be generic and rather sterile; the text following the headings is where it is appropriate to detail his views on the subject. I have reverted to John's last version, restoring his NPOV headings and removing the coatracky section on Greer. Horologium (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made many attempts to not be coatracky-- in fact removing other edits that were off the charts. I trust Horologium's call on this -- don't know John etc, never saw that handle before on this article etc..--4rousseau (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One final thing, i think culture, race, minority status are distinctly different things--listing "cultural issues" misses the mark in a number of ways.--4rousseau (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll coast on Horologium's reputation rather than mine. And yes, I agree that "Cultural issues" isn't quite right; all I can say in my defense is that it was "Minority groups" before, which was even more wrong. Perhaps "Social issues", or "Social and cultural issues"? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

why is "minority groups" even more wrong? they (gays, blacks) are demographically minorities in that region of the US. people are not born "socially black" so social issues and social cultural issues does not cover it. It is best to think of this in terms that the US Census uses --and demographically the census uses the term minorities.--4rousseau (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that the issue John Broughton said he "yawned" over -namely use of campaign funds- plays into Crist's runoff against his opponent fellow Repub. Marco Rubio and how the Repub. party Greer heads up is assessing each candidate.--4rousseau (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of facts from article on Carole Rome Crist b/c those facts are also presented on Charlie Crist article

"Hurmata" removed several factual contributions to the Carole Crist article - the main reason stated is because some of the facts are already posted here. I would request Horologium to review the Carole Crist history and determine what sections should remain and also to address the request from Hurmata for deletion of the Carole Crist page etc. I think we need to deal with this now rather than ongoing as items come up related to the senatorial campaign. --4rousseau (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in editing Carole Crist, but reading through Hurmata's edits and the discussion on the talk page, the only things he removed that are relevant to this article are the trip expenses and fundraising thing, which are mentioned in this article already. Adding them to her article is a bit coatracky. The rest of his removals are gossip, poorly sourced and tangentially notable trivia, or information about her ex-husband's remarriage, which is utterly irrelevant. There's not a lot of notability asserted in the article (first spouses are not inherently notable; more than half of the people at List of current United States first spouses are either redlinks or redirects to their spouses, and there are a number more that should join them (Lou Rell, Lori Easley, Mariclare Culver, Marsha Barbour, Barbara Richardson, Mikey L. Hoeven, and Jenny Sanford). I'm not going to redirect it or nominate it for AfD, but it's certainly a valid candidate, and if it were to be nominated, I'd !vote to delete. BLPs of individuals who are not inherently notable (or notable only by proxy) are tricky things, and easy to make into coatracks, even when that is not the intent. Horologium (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

i am pasting the above to carole crist's discussion page as well -along with this reply-since you agree with Hurmata that the Carole Crist article should be a candidate for AfD-- yet no one has placed that flag on the article. Some of what Hurmata removed related to the private corporate jet industry- Todd Rome, Carole's ex runs Blue Star Jet, Carole sat in at the table at meetings with Crist and aviation industry experts on the European trade trip, ---all of this was purged by Hurmata. Is this just coatracky info? I don't think so.

Crist had knee surgery in June 2008 - he recuperated at Jill Zarin's home in the Hamptons - Jill Zarin and the Housewives of New York City (along with the entire franchise) are WP articles that are routinely visited and edited --and this information was also removed. The New York Housewives pages are part of WP- Crist spent his recuperation at Jill Zarin's home and then shortly thereafter proposed to his Carole, whose home "Chateau Rome" appeared in the show and she is good friends with Zarin.

and here are the links if anyone cares to see re:friendship between Real Housewives Zarin and Carole Rome Crist --

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2009/03/lost-footage-of-floridas-first-lady-on-real-housewives.html --4rousseau (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

and

http://jillzarin.com/jills-blog/summer-update-from-the-hamptons/ --4rousseau (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carole_Crist"

The framework/infrastructure for creating pages for each new first lady of each state is something WP allowed to be created and to take up that bandwidth. I find it interesting that it is discussed as a possible AfD- since all the little nifty boxes showing incumbent predecessor etc are listed on those pages just as they are for the Governors. It would be odd not to have info that is posted on both Michelle Obama's page as well as Barack Obama's page or Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, or Laura Bush and George W. Bush. Yet, here that practice is treated as a redundancy if any linkage is implied, odd.

My hope is that this article does not become Palinized-- i.e. what happened to Sarah Palin's page when she was announced as McCain's running mate. --4rousseau (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on Talk:Carole Crist, which is a more appropriate location for this discussion. Horologium (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential sources for expansion (was "Further reading" section in article)

Per WP:GTL and WP:EL, "Further reading" is supposed to be used for offline sources, and to be the equivalent of the "External links" section. Moreover, Wikipedia has no provision for keeping ELs in the article if they don't meet WP:EL criteria, but are potential sources. So I'm moving the section here, so that these sources don't get lost.

• [1] Morgan, Lucy (May 9, 2005). "Crist Will Enter Governor's Race." St. Petersburg Times, pp. 1A.
• [2] 1998 U.S. Senate race results.
• [3] Bousquet, Steve (February 18, 2006) "Crist's landlord reportedly takes illegal tax exemption" "St. Petersburg Times"
• [4] March, William (January 8, 2006) Tampa Tribune
• [5] (February 13, 2006) "Candidate's Fundraiser Uncovers Questionable Supporters" "Miami Herald"
• [6]Tisch, Chris (January 17, 2005) "The Woman Who Asked Charlie That Question" "St. Petersburg Times"
• [7]Capital Bureau
• [8] Attorney seeks to block steroid questions in corrections lawsuit
• [9] (October 3, 2006) "Book: Crist tried to "whitewash" probe" "The Gainsville Sun"
• [10] Miller, John J. (April 7, 2008). "He's No Jeb Bush." National Review.

I suggest that if/when a source above is incorporated into the article, it be struck through (use the <s> and </s> tag pair). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

I spent a bit of time this evening working on this article in a userspace subpage (User:Nathan/Crist if you're interested) and I think I've made some improvements to the article overall, while keeping most of what was already there. There was an enormous amount of very good sourcing on the article, most of which remains, but my approach has been to make the following changes:

• I've eliminated most of the policy-area specific headers, because they generally contained only one issue each and the formatting didn't allow for placing them in the proper context

• I've removed some information on relatively minor policy issues, and condensed the remainder into a somewhat cohesive narrative that focuses on Crist as an individual and a politician as opposed to chronicling specific events during his term. My thinking here is that we are writing a comprehensive biography, as opposed to a detailed account of his tenure as governor, and while the former is achievable the article was a fairly haphazard attempt at the latter

• I've condensed the presidential campaign and other political activity not related to his role as governor (as opposed to the role of a prominent Floridian politician) in a "Political activity" section

• I've expanded the introduction somewhat, and removed the references (see WP:MOS#LEDE). For a high quality article, the intro ought to be a wide-angle overview of the contents of the article - and everything broadly described in the intro should have a more detailed treatment in the body of the article (hence references in the intro are unnecessary).

I think, and I hope you'll agree, that this version of the article goes a ways towards making the article conform with the standard Wikipedia style for biographies (and those of politicians specifically). If folks are amenable, I think this article could potentially become a GA or even an FA with some more work on the intro, ref formatting and copyediting. Nathan ^T 03:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

it looks horrible now, and has a lot of important information scrubbed, and really really bad grammar--4rousseau (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

this article is being Palinized, sanitized, scrubbed with errors and omissions and obfuscations

suddenly the references for two of Crist's moderate appointments to the court have been removed. it now looks like some sort of People magazine article. a chopped up version of the original article is now what appears--grammatical errors at every turn- run on sentences all over the place, apostrophes missing,commas needed. Many many problems. It is just really too bad that someone's political bias has resulted in this hatchet job-- and that is the kindest that can be said about it. --4rousseau (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)