Talk:Lindsey Graham/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Immigration

Due to original research (clumsy at that) I've deleted the last two sentences from the following?: "Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake," explained Graham. "We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen." ***He did not suggest, however, what his alternate criteria would be - if any - for gaining citizenship by birth. He continued to suggest that all immigrants should be compelled by law to learn English, another new position for Graham."***

Senator Graham never suggested changing the laws for gaining citizenship by birth for anyone who isn't an illegal alien. The mechanism he provided was illegal aliens should never get birthright citizenship. The reason he didn't provide an "alternate criteria" was because he doesn't want it--period. Those born to illegal aliens, in his clearly stated view, should not automatically become citizens (as they currently do). The last sentence was removed because it is hostile (another), not supported, and OR. Scotti 69.245.157.223 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Service Section

I removed a biased opinion statement calling him a "true warrior" from this biography section.

Detainee Interrogations section

In this section the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case is mentioned, followed by the statement that this case is already cert. Is there a way to clarify this abbreviation? Cert. could mean certified or could be other undefined legal jargon. Boston public (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jag Memos

I considered posting a link to the memos at http://balkin.blogspot.com/jag.memos.pdf , but considered that making this only the 2nd external link might be considered a violation of NPOV. (Full disclosure: I'm a great admirer of Sen. Graham because of his actions in this area.) You can read more background about why these are significant primary sources at http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/07/heroes-of-pentagons-interrogation.html - I suppose the might be more relevant to a page about criticism of US interrogation tactics than to Sen. Graham's article. - PhilipR 15:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. If other editors think you have added NPOV then you can fix it.Jarhed (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

JAG Memo Link: Why not?

Phillip R.,

Posting the link to the Jag Memos would not a problem becasue Sen. Graham is a Jag and was instrumental in getting them released. Just because you are a great admirere of Sen. Graham (as I also am) that does not make it a non-neutral post. It could be linked to both the page on Senator Graham and a page on US interrogation tactics.

Now posting a link to my own website would an NPOV violation because one of the sites is basically a site for supporters (http://grahamsgrassroots.tripod.com) and the other while not as blatant may also be becasue it is a blog that catalogs news stories (http://lindseygraham.blogspot.com) about Sen. Graham.

Judy

More information

I have constructed a biography of Sen. Graham from several sources and was wondering how best to incorporate the information into the article. For example I am aware of all the committeess he has served weather it be in the SC House, US House, or US Senate. I am also knowledgeable about the jobs government positions he held while he was in private practice, as well as other facts. "I am aware of all committeess (sic) he has served weather (sic) it be in the SC House...I am also knowledgeable about the jobs government positions..." Really? That's how you would write in this article? I see one spelling mistake, one use of a homophone (whether), and one series of words that makes no sense "about the jobs government positions". Brush-up your writing, then come back. TomTominrochester (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Graham is still on court

Graham also has the distinction of serving in Congrss and being on the Air Force Court of Criminal appeals. https://afcca.law.af.mil/content/resources_filter.php?parent=12&content=103 (see panel 4) though there is a case pending before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces which argues that decisions by the panels, on which he sits are unconstitutional.

Graham has, thus far, avoided the impact of the Don't Ask Don't Tell military policy for suspicion of homosexual conduct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.131.181.242 (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

New person here. I wonder about the statement: "He lives with his mother and is a lifelong bachelor, causing some to question his sexuality." The first part before the comma may be a verifiable fact. The second part seems to me to be someone's speculation based on a rather tired stereotype. I would consider removing the "causing some to question his sexuality" statement, but will wait until I hear some other opinions before doing so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcwright (talk • contribs) 21:54, January 21, 2006.

You are correct. It is now gone. In the future, be bold and feel free to fix stuff like this yourself. --rogerd 02:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Being from Columbia, I can attest that the phrase "causing some to question his sexuality" isn't factual. Not because people don't question his sexuality, but because it's been pretty widely rumored for some time, and his living circumstances seem to be effects, not causes. The phrase isn't an attack on Graham, it's a statement which reflects the issues in his life. Considering the Cary Grant entry devotes 1/3 of the page to speculation about his sexuality (and he was married 4 times), this phrase seems wildly appropriate.--24.196.175.110 09:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions about Sen. Graham's sexual preferences, specifically, the long-standing rumors of his homosexuality should be included in the article. This Senator has consistently spoken and voted against equal rights for homosexuals, something that should be noted, given his personal life.Papagoose (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Just because somebody has never been married doesn't mean that person is gay. We don't live in the 1950s where singlehood was marginalized and derided.--sn 2 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.52.22 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who think so should read Wikipedia guidelines for Biography of a Living Person. Such speculation has no place here.Jarhed (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does being a life-long bachelor and living with your mother have to make you gay? Whatever happened to just being a big loser? See: Principle Skinner. - Signed: a HETEROSEXUAL life-long bachelor living with his mother. 97.102.221.16 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't live with his mother. She died when he was in college, as did his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.31.237 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review Joe Wilson (U.S. politician)

Jimbo Wales has requested that we try to improve Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) for the reasons he stated on Talk:Joe Wilson (U.S. politician). I put in a few hours but can't think of anything else, except a photo or two which we are unlikely to get permissions for over the weekend. Please see if you can improve the article any further. --James S. 10:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Censure hearing confontation with John Dean

This was a historic moment [1], and Graham's inept, ignorant, and mean-spirited questioning of John Dean deserves mention in the article.

Edits by 72.242.65.58

The continued anonymous, uncommented edits by User:72.242.65.58 violate WP:NPOV. Each time I (or another editor) tried to remove them, they were reverted. I feel I cannot revert any further, without shattering the 3RR policy. I'm hoping other editors might agree and work to ensure this article remains WP:NPOV. To me, this would be a neutral mention of Graham's position on S.1033:

Graham is a cosponsor of S. 1033, which would make it possible for illegal aliens to pay tax penalties and eventually (after a few years) become citizens (supposing that they meet a number of other criteria).

Any other language ends up being POV. --mtz206 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the entire mention of this bill. His position on one bill out of hundreds (thousands?) is not notable for specific mention. --mtz206 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It is my belief that edits like this one [2] show this user's intentions to only be for trolling and vandalism. I think you're pretty justified in reverting it as vandalism, which is not counted against 3RR. --Llort 17:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree. Syrthiss 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Demise?

Judging by the letters to the editor in upstate newspapers, Graham's stance on amnesty for illegal aliens has ended much of his support in this part of the state. Appearing to be a good friend of Ted Kennedy hasn't helped him either. People are very angry with his "to hell with everybody" attitude toward the voters. If the democrats can find a challenger that is half way electable I believe he/she would receive a huge protest vote in 2008 particularly if the amnesty bill passes. I predict other republicans are going to suffer from the back blast.

It would be interesting to hear how he is perceived in other parts of the state.

Well this page [3] describes why this article has been the subject of vandalism of late. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is important to note that Graham has a current challenger. Tim Carnes; http://www.carnesforsenate.com/ this campign is gaining strength and support across the state. The desire to replace Graham remains high among the Republicans I have spoken to as I campaign across the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimCarnes (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is he still in the Reserve?

"While in the Air Force Standby Reserve, Graham served as an appellate judge on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. In September 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that it was a violation of the Incompatibility Clause of the Constitution, which states that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office", for Graham to have been a judge on the criminal appeals court."

Ok but is he still in the Reserve or was his discharged? Thoughtman 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I got my answer.

http://www.drudge.com/news/97928/reservist-senator-serves-two-weeks-iraq

Though to be fair his serving in Iraq while a Senator seems illegal. Thoughtman 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is no way way illegal, obviously...--Panzertank (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it not illegal, when he was elected to Congress he was eligible for an immediate discharge and he chose not to take it. I imagine that fulfilling his duties in both is a challenge.Jarhed (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He is not expected to face substantive Democratic opposition for a second term.

The latest Rasmussen poll has Conley at 41%. Is that substantive? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_senate ENDelt260 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cited Rassmussen link above is no bueno — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitizenDaveS (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Families Military Service

Did he not have a Nephew who served in, in the Military, in Iraq at some point? Fry2000

Senator Graham promised to keep the idea of investing in the cure for MS in mind.

I receved a letter from Senator Graham last year. I told him to use the citizens of South Carolina's Tax Money to invest in the cure for MS instead of spending it on expensive things. Senator Graham promised to keep the idea of investing in the cure for MS in mind. http://www.physorg.com/news169211700.htmlMultiple/ . Sincerely, ( ~~71.68.211.187~~ )

Alito Section

Isn't the Alito section a bit much? At best it was mildly controversial and is of very little significance, I see little reason to have an entire section devoted to that. A quick note would suffice, I'll reduce it to that in one week if no one makes serious objections. Seelum (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding in NYT info about his personal life.

Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs) added this in:

Graham has never been married. Asked if he's gay by Robert Draper of the New York Times, he responded "I know it’s really gonna upset a lot of gay men--I’m sure hundreds of ’em are gonna be jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge--but I ain’t available.

with the edit summary " added important info." I modified to read:

Graham has never been married and when asked by Robert Draper of the New York Times said he wasn't gay.

moving the quotation to the footnote itself to read:

I know it’s really gonna upset a lot of gay men--I’m sure hundreds of ’em are gonna be jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge—but I ain’t available. I ain’t gay. Sorry.

and used the orignal New York Times reference instead of the Boston Edge reference. Jerzeykydd entirely reverted my changes with the edit summary: "No reason to get rid of quote."

I don't understand several things:

  • What exactly is the harm in moving the quotation to the footnote? Isn't it sufficient to say that he isn't gay? Why do you see the value in adding weight to this non-issue? Why is this such an "important issue"?
  • Why are you excluding the explicit statement "I ain’t gay." from the quotation?
  • Why do you prefer the Boston Edge reference which simply refers to the NYT reference? Don't you think that a) using the original source is better and b) that it is better to use a properly formatted reference than your use of a URL?

I encourge Jerzeykydd to follow WP:BRD and discuss this without simply doing a revert. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what your problem is. I mean it's just a quote, interesting and relevent.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I outlined my concerns: undue weight, a complete quote (your abridged version leaves room to infer he is gay, just unavailable), proper sourcing and proper formatting. I asked why it needed so much weight. It's not just a quote -- "just a quote" isn't a sufficient reason for inclusion. I included the quote (in its complete form), just don't see a need for that much weight in the article text. I'm sorry I've been unclear. I don't find it interesting at all -- this is a bizarre meme created by a fringe group. Why do you think it is so relevant as to merit so much space beyond the briefest mention? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's be bold policy WP:BOLD I am going to trim this quote to reflect only the fact that he is not married. A United States Senator is quoted - literally - a thousand times, so singling out only one quote is inappropriate. And people need to grow up about constantly gossiping about this person whom they do not know.Catherinejarvis (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Homeland Security Committee?

The article currently states that as a congressmen, Graham served on the Committee for Homeland Security from 1995-1997. Is this an error? According to our article on that committee, it wasn't established until 2002. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Couldn't find verification of any of his House committees. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment

Sen. Graham supports amending the U.S. Constitution. This should be reflected in his wiki-page.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/12/politics/p160453D77.DTL&tsp=1
Native94080 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A degree in Psych ?

Under Early life and education it says graham has a degree in "Psych" would that be Psychology? It should be spelled out, yes? Catherinejarvis (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead section is way too light on words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute--August 2, 2013

It was recently brought to my attention that under the "Tenure" section of Lindsey Graham's page, there is a clear bias in how information is being presented.

"Graham is almost universally reviled by conservative Republicans. He is an important figure of the progressive wing of the Republican Party. He voted for both of Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominations. One of the biggest positions of his that angers many conservatives and moderate Democrats is his repeated support for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. He has also made a reputation as extremely fiscally liberal."

Without a citation for "universally reviled by conservative Republicans," which is, at best, questionable language, it reads as libelous rather than informative. "He is an important figure of the progressive wing of the Republican Party" also does not have any sort of citation, and when using a term such as "important," it's helpful to have a link to a credible source to prove it. Additionally, I find it troubling to assert that Lindsey Graham is "extremely fiscally liberal." The provided source for that quote does not actually include the quote in question, but is clearly inflammatory in its rhetoric--"FITS has made no secret of its distaste for “Liberal Lindsey,” repeatedly calling him exactly what he is – a warmonger, special interest whore, fiscal liberal and habitual abettor of Barack Obama (oh ... and a liar)." This is not something that any credible Wikipedia article should be linking to.

If I have done this improperly, please forgive me. I am not used to flagging articles for neutrality, and in fact I have never done it before.

Tqycolumbia (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree. The "universally reviled" bit might not pass muster under WP:BLP even if it were an actual quote, but it certainly does not pass our standards when expressed in Wikipedia's voice. Not to mention, it's not even in the right place in the article. I'm taking it out. I'm inclined to think that the article should avoid any attempt to summarize overall opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and should stick to specific issues and specific quotes from highly reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've posted a notice about this at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Lindsey Graham. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Completely agree. I previously warned the responsible user, Wilskyle (talk · contribs), and warned him again. I'm not an admin but at some point intervention may be necessary. II | (t - c) 06:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree. Since it has been removed it shouldn't be a problem. Leujohn (talk, stalk me?) 13:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


recent Benghazi contractor story

Shouldn't something be added about Grahams regular exploitative commentary from assorted individuals who have been proven to be liars; for example, his most recent exploit, the Benghazi contractor? He needs to be called out for the critical and often cruel commentary he regularly provides from people like this Benghazi contractor. When the truth comes out Graham ignores it and continues with his agenda. The shame often proves to be on Graham rather than those he is trying to shame. A section on his failings in being quick to jump on the exploitative bandwagon in this area is worth adding. 203.131.210.82 (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to add such things to a personal political blog, go right ahead, but they have no business in a Wikipedia article. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing content

This content is not supported by the sources provided.

This edit removes content which includes the following citations: 1) Link to gpo.gov, which appears to be a primary source, 2) Link to ACLU press release, which is not WP:reliable, 3) Broken link to The Nation.

A reliable secondary source is needed to indicate the significance of the amendment and to validate the commentary provided.

This content is contentious and unsourced.

This content is not supported by the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that a paraphrased source does not support the content; which is nonsense. Also, a broken link is not sufficient reason to remove information. ACLU is perfectly reliable for a factual statement; it is not commentary here, so it can remain. 59.97.32.186 (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I was able to find a working link for citation to The Nation, so I've fixed that.
Paraphrasing secondary sources is certainly ok, as long as the meaning of the source is not changed. The notes that I believe you're referring to above deal with content that is not supported by the source, period. Please address the remaining points above, specifically.CFredkin (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life

How would people feel about deleting this section? RomanSpa (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Why remove it? Are you hoping to avoid vandalism? I guess I don't feel strongly either way since there is so little material there, but I think it is standard to include such a section on a Congressperson's page.HistoricMN44 (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking that it might be better to avoid people adding the latest batch of gossip. RomanSpa (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The second sentence is sourced, so should remain. The first would be appropriate, if sourced. We should not delete appropriate material because inappropriate material may be added. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

War on grammar

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.655115

Does his campaign to become educator in chief make this notable? Hcobb (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Received request to merge the Lindsey Graham presidential campaign, 2016 into Lindsey Graham; datd =January 2016. Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 11:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Rationale: We do not need articles on every individual's presidential campaign, especially in Graham's case where he dropped out of the race after just six months and never made it in the top ranks, barely getting 10% of the votes. {unsigned}
  • Do not merge it. If everyone has a campaign's page, why should Graham do not? - Castiel 2015 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge - I understand the rationale, but the article on his campaign seems to have enough content to stand on it's own. It doesn't seem necessary, but I always look forward to being convinced otherwise. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[4] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[5] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[6] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[7] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[8]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[9] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[10] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[11] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[12] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[13] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked the article for indication that this subject is notable because of his religion, and didn't see any. His religion is covered in the article, but the extra highlighting has been removed per WP:BLPCAT. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Bilderberg 2016

Lindsey Graham appeared on a list of Bilderberg participants for 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.7.214 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2016

70.154.9.253 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Unknown by most, Sen. Graham was in the Monty Python Sketch "Upperclass Twit of The Year", in a cameo.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lindsey Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lindsey Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

2016: Trump "unfit to be president" / "jackass" / "unfit for office"

[https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&ei=uyiZW7XKDIKrrgSQyZGQBA&q=%22Lindsey+Graham%22+%22unfit+to+be+president%22&oq=%22Lindsey+Graham%22+%22unfit+to+be+president%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30k1l7.37872.40286.0.44183.4.4.0.0.0.0.160.570.0j4.4.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.312....0.bVIBYq9NXfI

i.e.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKLO4lXYaGI

The last sentence of the introduction (In May 2016, Graham refused to support or vote for Donald Trump when he became the presumptive nominee; and later the Republican Presidential candidate.[18]) is (imo) no detailed enough; I think the article should quote Graham's 'most famous' statements about Trump.
agreement(s) ? disagreement(s) ? --Neun-x (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. In the fullness of time, Graham's quotes will matter.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. I think a few quotes from the beginning of Trump's campaign, the midway point of Trump's campaign, and after his electoral victory could be helpful. In addition, Graham's evaluations of Trump's performance in debates and his reactions to other actions and speeches would clarify Graham's position.--Bluewolverine123 (talk) 9:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

the article has very little on Senator Graham's views on Saudi Arabia. To read what little there is I gather that Graham is an unconditional supporter of the Saudi's (allied against Iran, arms trade...), yet I am reading BBC articles that give Graham as a fervent critic of the Saudi government: "A number of US lawmakers, including a Republican highly critical of the Saudis, Senator Lindsey Graham, said they were sceptical about the report on the journalist's death" (and other articles I recently saw that list Graham as the main/leading US Saudi critic). Good if the article could shew/clarity the origin and history of Graham's criticism/support of Saudi Arabia, as it seems to be important (and confusing). Perhaps a Saudi Arabia section. Yours ever, --86.158.81.106 (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

War hawk

You are invited to participate in Talk:War hawk#Requested move 21 May 2019 about whether War hawk should be moved to Hawk (foreign policy). The discussion could be closed as early as today. Sorry for the late notice. R2 (bleep) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality

The reason it matters is because if he is gay, he is clearly self-hating and has chosen to lead a life of hiding and self-denial. This is damaging to other gay people who have not chosen to live a life of lies. Furthermore, his hypocrisy is damaging to an already marginalized minority. It is terribly naive to deny that he is gay. He has had no girlfriend, no wife, no female companions of any kind, and he is wealthy, eligible, and not unattractive by female standards. How many heterosexual men do you know who can fit this description and still have zero romantic or sexual interests in women? So, let's stop denying the obvious, and let's talk about how this kind of self-hatred impacts his representation of a long marginalized minority.73.66.40.44 (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

So let's see...being never married is "proof" of being gay. What a bunch of bullshit.--sn 25 April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.19.34 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a friend in Charleston who swears he saw Graham out at a gay bar (I'm sure after he was soused), but that's hardly enough to start writing anything. It would be irresponsible and, in my humble opinion, look somewhat politically motivated, to speculate on something that would be extremely damaging to him professionally, when no real evidence exists. Now, should any pictures surface, mention should be made, but as someone who lives in South Carolina, I am aware that the ultra-conservatives are trying to whisper such rumors to discredit him so that he might lose to a more conservative challenger (Ravenel possibly?) in the next Republican Senate primary. --Chuchunezumi 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll add my concern about your goal of "fueling the speculation"; that's decidedly not our goal, and not what citations are supposed to accomplish. MisfitToys 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not a tabloid and it is wholly inappropriate and unencyclopedic to spend an entire paragraph addressing an item of gossip. It seems completely in violation of NPOV, and it is most certainly potentially libelous. A blog quotation is not adequate to source this nonsense. Furthermore, the prolific use of weasel words showed the lack of integrity to this paragraph. I have removed it, and insist that anything in this vein be properly sourced, or I will remove it according to the Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons. Chuchunezumi 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia policy WP:BLP, you would need a substantial body of rumor to exist in published media to support even a short paragraph saying that people 'suspected him of being gay. You would need even more, and it must be from very reliable sources, to actually support a paragraph claiming that he was gay. - perfectblue 11:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Strom Thurmond, Graham's predecessor, didn't marry until he was 45, a fact that Graham pointed out several times when he was first running for Thurmond's seat and asked about his wife-deficiency by the press. Graham was 46 at the time. As far as rumors go, it was fairly well known among the SC press (and many in the public) that Thurmond had for years supported a mysterious black woman from her childhood forward. Though I can't recall a specific investigative story on the issue, I do know that newsmen as late as 2000 would mention it in passing before shrugging it off and some people had sniffed around Thurmond's finances to see where his money was going. The press was all but sure, but reluctant to press the issue for various reasons, some good, others bad. After Thurmond died and his black daughter was revealed, few in the state were surprised. The point of all this is that questions of Graham's sexuality are based on pure speculation and not rumor. There is a difference: rumor can be based on hearsay, speculation almost always grows out of people's imagination. Neither should be the basis for an entry. Besides, given the number of married-to-women, yet practicing gay politicians who have fallen from grace in recent years, why is marriage seen as a reliable indicator of sexuality anyway? --Mistergoodbar (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
So being never married is proof of being gay. I never read so much bullshit in my entire life. This crap is right out of the 1950s. Who gives a shit about Graham's sex life or lack of it? This link doesn't count? It was a well known fact on the McCain campaign, and to me that wikipedia would block these rumors seems ridiculous. http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/PressTime/archives/2007/09/12/is-lindsey-graham-in-scs-gay-closet/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.126.65 (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That's right, Wikipedia gets ridiculous fast when political interests are involved. Good lord, this sounds like a high school girls locker room. Thismightbezach (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I added material about his voting record on LGBT issues. I also included a sentence which linked to the article http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A32974 (unlike the above link which was to a blog on the newspaper's website [also an allowable source as opposed to self-published blogs], this is a link to a news article.) User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom removed the sentence mentioning Michelangelo Signorile's opinion of Graham as reported in the article. We had some discussion on his talk page and mine. He cited WP:BLP. A quote from there: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." In this case, since the source is a newspaper, that falls under the definition of reliable, third-party published sources. Therefore, the information should be in the article. --Larrybob (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
it is one opinion piece - hardly "a multitude of reliable sources" discussing rumors that he might be gay because he is not married. pretty laughable "logic" to begin with. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The London Telegraph is now running Intolerance of the American Left over 'outing of gay Republican': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7628367/Intolerance-of-the-American-Left-over-outing-of-gay-Republican.html So, at this point, the lack some discussion of the question of Lindsey Graham sexual orientation is absurd because that is very important issue in American politics. Speculation about somebody's sex life or the lack of it is not fact. LGBTs need to fight other battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.52.22 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about absurd, but the story may have "legs" to it so it's worth considering adding it. Or at least a mention of the tension between Graham and ALIPAC.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
What legs? What tension? A fringe group asks Graham to admit he is gay. Graham hasn't (and won't) respond to this nonsense. No reliable source has covered this except for a British editorial who stated the fringe group should be deservedly ignored and criticized The Daily Show/Colbert making an issue out of it. This doesn't come close to passing muster to satisfy WP:BLP. For this to be covered in this article, many more reliable sources would need to cover it. None have. If this fringe group had a Wikipedia article (it doesn't), it may make sense to include it there, but given the lack of reliable sourcing, even then I would doubt it. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 02:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I said it's worth considering not that we must do it. However looking it up it's mostly just in blogs[14][15][16] so I guess it's not much of a story. My mistake.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
just because he has a female first name - does not mean that he is transsexual/transgender and/or homosexual and/or ... less prejudice please 12:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.243.218 (talk)
Wrong about the "female first name". Lindsey = male, Lindsay = female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77Mike77 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect: Bullshit. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It is often whispered in South Carolina politics that Lindsey Graham is a closeted homosexual, especially since he has never married. In so conservative a state it is doubtlessly an important issue to be discussed, yet the article has little to say about it. Are there any sources to fuel the speculation? can a new section of paragraph be added? It has been rumored that Graham’s allegiance to President Trump is, in part, driven by Graham’s fear that the President would “out” him as a closeted homosexual if he did not show 100% for Trump at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:C080:5370:E1D9:730D:CBAF:9573 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


So, the Kevin Spacey article included the speculation about his sexuality prior to him coming out. What's the difference?Gonzalo84 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, as much as I personally buy into the rumors, there's one possibility that y'all aren't considering. Graham could be asexual and not be interested in either gender. It would be one thing if we had credible accusations from people who have been with Graham (of either gender), but Wikipedia doesn't report on speculation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Gay rumors

Really kind of unnecessary to even discuss in this article. The precedent is not to discuss them unless there is some pressing need to do so. The wording is kind of ridiculous -- picking phrases random people have said, and painting the existence of rumors as some kind of slam on his critics. Wiki policy would dictate to just take out this whole paragraph. Moncrief (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree – the gay rumors don't belong there, per WP:RUMOR. You were right to cut them out. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. If he prefers not to come out then it's not acceptable to print rumors and gossip. If he confirmed the rumors about his personal life just now it would jeopardize his chances in the upcoming presidential race, so we should not expect anything to be said at the present time. He hasn't done anyone any harm, and we're living in a time when people's sexuality isn't supposed to matter anyway, so why should he say anything? At least he won't be as much of a womanizer as Kennedy! RomanSpa (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Disagreed, specifically because of the point that it is relevant to the upcoming election cycle. His staunch voting against LGBTQ+ rights initiatives should be put in context, especially since there are multiple primary and secondary sources for said "rumor". The page as it stands may massively misrepresent his character. Adding this as a controversy can both show that it exists without damaging claims while avoiding a lie by omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.191.15 (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"To the extent that it matters, I'm not gay"

It might be worth adding in the Personal Life section that Graham explicitly announced in 2018 that he is not gay.[1][2]

Do you buy that for one solitary second? If Keith Olbermann denied being a Liberal, would you believe him?Todd Bond (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
THIS conversation's about to get interesting.... Thmazing (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm just posting this right here because I enjoy These Quiet Moments before the storm arguments. And it's worth pointing out that Jon Stewart has compared Lindsey Graham to Scarlett O'Hara for decades now. Caffoti (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Not really notable in my opinion, if he says he is not, then take it at face value, we can't really speculate since WP:TABLOID Eruditess (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/12/lindsey-graham-extent-it-matters-im-not-gay/
  2. ^ https://people.com/politics/lindsey-graham-denies-being-gay-after-chelsea-handler-trolls-him/

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021

"Graham is currently leading efforts to oppose the second impeachment of President Donald Trump in the Senate." This sentence should be added to the section on the 2021 Storming of the U.S. Capitol. 138.51.249.244 (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KRtau16 (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Title in judiciary committee

Graham is no longer chair of this committee and has be made ranking member Bigfoot7822 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

DA Investigation

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: It seems pretty obvious to me that the investigation belongs in the lede. It and the lead-up to it has accounted for a huge percentage of reliable coverage of Graham for the last several months. Other content in the lead, including his medal, should be removed IMO as too unimportant and resume-like, and it should be shortened, but this is one of the things that belongs. WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply, this isn't a breaking news alert, rather an update to a long-term political issue that reliable sources will be writing about for years. Gershonmk (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gershonmk. Firstly, in response to "a long-term issue that reliable sources will be writing about for years"--please be aware of WP:CRYSTAL. Editors should not be making speculations at all. If reliable sources do end up writing about this event for years, then of course it would be appropriate to be placed in the lead. But, as of now, that's simply not the case. We need to follow MOS:BLPLEAD and not give undue weight to very recent events. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: First of all, thanks for the citations in your response. I am not an editor who finds it patronizing; we should all be reminding each other. However, I am aware of the relevant guidelines. I meant it in the completely non-CRYSTAL sense that the investigation is ongoing, as is the wider fallout of Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. And the test for MOS:BLPLEAD is notability -- this is, simply put, among the top ten most notable things about Graham. He is the only US senator under criminal investigation and the second most prominent figure in the Georgia efforts. The current lede contains a of dozen things less noteworthy, most or all of which should also be there. It's kind of amazing that if you read the lede knowing nothing about him, you find out a lot of his resume -- a resume, pre-Congress, that would not approach wiki article level notability -- some things that have definitely failed WP:RECENTISM, like the Tea Party and waterboarding, more that is likely to, viz. the various episodes between him and Donald Trump, and nothing about the ongoing criminal investigation into his conduct, which has semi-dominated reliable coverage of him for about 4 months now. Gershonmk (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Gershonmk, If you think there are non-notable items in the lead, then we could certainly take a look and try to restructure or reduce the lead. However, attempting to counterbalance the lead with a news story that broke approximately two days ago is not the way to do it. "he is the only US senator under criminal investigation"--this actually is not true. Sen. Warnock is currently under investigation. If you take a look at the Raphael Warnock page, you'll see that someone attempted to put his recent investigation into the lead too. However, that edit was promptly reversed for a similar rationale I have given you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thismightbezach: @Mistergoodbar: @Chuchunezumi: @Soibangla: @VGKCUPCHAMPS'19: @Ben76266: Trying to discuss this with more editors who have been active here. Should there be a line (I proposed "Graham is under criminal investigation by the Fulton County, Georgia district attorney for a possible attempt to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election.") about the Georgia election investigation in the lede? Gershonmk (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Gershonmk, Per the explanation I gave on my talk page, would you mind striking your first sentence? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you very much! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Am inclined to agree with Gershonmk, and frankly regard invioking CRYSTAL as a blocker as specious at best, if not outright nonsense, given how patently significant and defining Graham's alignment with Trump is in the context of his [Graham's] overall career to date. Regardless of how current moves towards GOP reform turn out, I can't see anything eclipsing that. Also agree that some of the resume style claims should be cut. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
CRYSTAL was not the reason why I reverted the edit. I reverted the edit because it was undue for the lead and it had a strong recentism bias. I completely agree that Graham's "alignment with Trump is in the context of his [Graham's] overall career to date" is quite notable. His relationship to Trump is notable enough that we have these sentences in the lead: "He was an outspoken critic of fellow Republican Donald Trump's 2016 candidacy and repeatedly declared he did not support Trump;[15] in particular, he took issue with Trump's comments on Graham's close friend, Senator John McCain.[16] After a March 2017 meeting with Trump, Graham became a staunch ally of the president, often issuing public statements in his defense. His reversal caught both parties by surprise and sparked much media attention.". That seems to be a pretty solid summary of his relationship to Trump, don't you agree? However, the OP's edit was not about Graham's relationship to Trump per se. It was about a newly opened investigation into Graham's phone call with the Sec. of State of Georiga. We have exactly one sentence about this investigation in the main body of the article, so it makes no sense to repeat the sentence in the lead. Leads are supposed to summarize the article, and not give undue weight to breaking news controversies. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
My personal life took me away from here for a bit, but I want to say that I have removed it and, moreover, I apologize.
The issue here isn't that there are things in the lede that shouldn't be -- if there were, I'd remove them. What I mean is, we apparently both agree that things less important and which have already faded dramatically in importance should be there. Warnock (btw) is not actually under investigation by prosecutors, just recommended for investigation by the election board, but also Warnock's case hasn't been covered in national newspapers, nor has any of the underlying conduct. In contrast, the Raffensberger call, the dueling statements, and the investigation have all been heavily covered by national media. WP:RECENTISM doesn't mean that you have to wait six months to insert something, even if it belongs there. Gershonmk (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Frankly I think Gershonmk is over zelious, and you are overtly passive aggressive, a bit touchy and easily offended, so awaiting further comment. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Ceoil, Um, okay? I didn't ask for your input on my personality. Please stop with the aspersions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't bring it up except its writ so large in the above wall of text. As I say, interested in other openions. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, seems like the lede had strong recentism and bias, and also he has a good point with WP:CRYSTAL , its a guideline for a reason. Eruditess (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal life

New on wiki edits, but I do not understand why the "personal life" section includes homosexuality (e.g. his nickname among male sex workers "Lady G")? Homosexuality is not anything negative or to be ashamed over – what is mind-boggling is his hypocrisy on voting against gay rights and not being transparent on being a homosexual.

06.17.15—Co-sponsored the First Amendment Defense Act, which seeks to create an exemption to nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people by those citing a religious-based objection to marriage equality. 11.07.13—Graham voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 09.13.00—argued against federal hate crime legislation, saying it was not needed and that it would “divide Americans.” 07.29.99—Voted in favor of an amendment to prohibit same-sex couples from adopting in Washington, D.C

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/10/ladygraham-went-viral-not-just-because-lindsey-grahams-politics/ https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/10/16/the-sad-closeted-hypocrisy-of-lindsey-graham/ Verificity (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindsey_Graham/Archive_1&oldid=1136909083"