Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 2

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    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)

Max Linn's accusation should have stayed... people have been arguing about whether or not to put the plethora of gay rumors on this page for about 5 years now. Too many people are defending Crist's reputation because of a political agenda. The page is currently telling a lie by creating the idea that the only reference to Crist being gay was in the movie "Outrage" but that ignores the MANY accusations which lead up to the film. I added the Max Linn statement and was finally told by an editor that it could stay because it was properly sourced and was significant enough. Let's not forget that there were the two Republican aides who claimed (publicly) to have slept with him... It's not like these rumors don't have any foundation. 98.203.23.189 (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2009 (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)

There are no solid sources for the rumors of homosexuality regarding Charlie Crist, though as a Floridian I can tell you these rumors have been around for decades and predate the "liberal blogs" that JGHowes cites as the ultimate source for such. And "Max Linn" isn't the sole person to come forward making accusations. He's just the first to get widespread coverage. Be that as it may, there is, as noted, no solid evidence, and the governor denies it. Whether you follow the adum of "where there is smoke there is fire" is a personal choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackFloridian (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 October 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
"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.


 * Morgan, Lucy (May 9, 2005). "Crist Will Enter Governor's Race." St. Petersburg Times, pp. 1A.
 * 1998 U.S. Senate race results.
 * Bousquet, Steve (February 18, 2006) "Crist's landlord reportedly takes illegal tax exemption" "St. Petersburg Times"
 * March, William (January 8, 2006) Tampa Tribune
 * (February 13, 2006) "Candidate's Fundraiser Uncovers Questionable Supporters" "Miami Herald"
 * Tisch, Chris (January 17, 2005) "The Woman Who Asked Charlie That Question" "St. Petersburg Times"
 * Capital Bureau
 * Attorney seeks to block steroid questions in corrections lawsuit
 * (October 3, 2006) "Book: Crist tried to "whitewash" probe" "The Gainsville Sun"
 * 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 and 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). 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 sanitized, scrubbed
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. I am referring to the edit job done by Nathan  T and posted on 03:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC) --4rousseau (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored Nathan's revision, as it was an enormous improvement over the previous version. There are some grammar issues, but the structure of the article is much tighter and better organized. Add apostrophes and capitals where needed, and maybe tweak the formatting of individual sentences, but don't revert back to the previous version again, please.  Horologium  (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, a fair bit of copyediting is definitely necessary. I'll try to get to that today, restructuring and framing the content was my mission yesterday. Nathan  T 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

section below pasted in from living persons biographies noticeboard:

Charlie Crist, Outrage (documentary), Palinized major revision and Carole Crist article

 * - I am concerned that adding defamatory content about the so-called "outing" of the Florida governor ("Personal life") is contrary to BLP. A wider consensus on this is requested. It relies on an indie film Outrage (documentary) and opinion blogs such as salon.com and huffingtonpost, without any reliable secondary sources. The article Outrage (documentary) has similar concerns.  JGHowes   talk  21:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've compiled and edited in a rewrite of this article, and proposed on the talkpage that it be accepted as a starting point for further development. Comments invited and welcome. Nathan  T 03:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The section on Outrage the documentary within the Charlie Crist article is well sourced, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle among others- JGHowes  needs to take a look at it. The article page for the documentary itself should have its own section on this page, like the Carole Crist issue, because they are separate articles.

Last night the Charlie Crist article underwent a major revision by Nathan.

The two conservative state supreme court judges Crist appointed were left in the article, however two of the moderate state supreme court judges were removed along with the references.

Over fifty different other footnotes were deleted, purged.

There are sections of the article now that have paragraphs beginning mid sentence with no capital letter at the beginning of the sentence, many misspellings,grammatical errors and it looks very crude--not a good way to represent content for WP image.

This article looks like it is getting Palinized--there is an attempt to only highlight Crist's conservative actions and remove content that details his moderate actions. It also mischaracterizes Crist's relationship to environmental groups.

I would appreciate someone higher up the chain to take a look at what has been done to the Charlie Crist article and the Carole Crist article- how they appeared prior to major purges of information made by Nathan  and Hurmata (talk) and to advise on what content should be part of the article and what should not be purged.--4rousseau (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The article on Crist's wife Carole Crist has also had content purged without a good reason: the fact that she has two daughters and the name of her ex husband removed from the article even though this information is well sourced and widely seen in print publications. Details on her divorce date were also removed. And her participation in an expensive and unpopular overseas economic trade trip were also purged from her article. Also, her appearances on the Real Housewives of New York was purged.--4rousseau (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, many of the grammatical and other copyediting errors were present before my revision. I've fixed some of them, and plan to do more polishing, but I think a comparison of the revisions shows that the current version is superior in a number of ways. The article on Crist's wife is something I don't know anything about, although I suspect that we have an article at all is probably inappropriate. Some footnotes were removed, that is true - a chunk of content that chronicled political developments in Florida but weren't relevant to a biography was condensed, and in the process approximately a quarter of the 200 or so references became unnecessary. I wouldn't object to reincorporating some of that content into the article, if it can be done without returning to the former disorganized and disjointed format. Nathan  T 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

due respect, but, <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan , your response simply is not true. many of the grammatical errors were not present prior to your revision. License plates were not referred to as License place-- broken links to Partial Birth Abortion etc were not broken links prior to your edit.

you also did not address the removal of info on the moderate judge appointments. i simply can't continue to believe that you are operating in good faith if you can't acknowledge that, in your haste to post a new version of the article, you made a lot of errors that make the article read like an elementary school paper rather than a high quality live page in WP- please at least be honest about the facts of what can clearly be seen in the history even if you can't be about the quality of your edits.--4rousseau (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that you might be irritated at significant changes to an article that you've been expanding for about a year, but I submit that it would be more constructive to fix problems you identify rather than complain about them on a noticeboard. Copyediting is being done; some errors were made, some already existed. At any rate, issues about the article unrelated to the BLP policy should be discussed on the article talkpage rather than both there and here. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 17:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

what would have been most constructive would have been for you to operate with some collegial respect and to have reviewed your major revisions prior to posting, perhaps if you would have made the effort to correct at least the grammatical and form errors prior to posting- which you now want others to fix for you but not talk about-- perhaps the major revision would have been received better.

the intentional omissions and, in my view, attempts at obfuscation remain a problem however, and I believe others on this noticeboard need to be aware of what is happening to this article. --4rousseau (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you found my edit not collegial; I've made an effort to be collegial, which is why I have been ignoring your accusations of bias, whitewashing, etc. You are, of course, free to not correct any typographical or other errors you see in the article but I'm not sure why you would choose to do that. In the mean time, I've corrected the errors you noted and replaced mention of the moderate judges Crist appointed to the Florida Supreme Court. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

all details and resources on the Lawton Chiles Fund and the Chiles family potential lawsuit against Crist was removed, as well as Crist's response. instead the article makes statements like "the health insurance reform efforts have been well received - standing next to former football star Dan Marino,"--4rousseau (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

all balanced references that detail pros and cons on Crist's environmental policy have been removed, instead it now states "lauded by environmental groups for his opposition to coastal oil drilling and his efforts to restore the Everglades using land purchased with public funds"--4rousseau (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I removed any references about the environmental stuff; what you've quoted is part of the intro. As for the Lawton Chiles controversy, it doesn't seem significant enough in the scheme of things (either his career as governor, or his life) to include in a biographical article. High profile public officials attract accusations and lawsuits, and the public coverage of this one seems to be pretty slim - which indicates to me that it isn't particularly serious or meaningful, and that argues against including an unresolved accusation of misappropriation of public funds in a BLP. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 13:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sections that can be expanded
I'm going to try to do some work expanding the Florida Attorney General section, and adding some additional sources for the content that is there, particularly the lawsuit and the part about the AAG. The 2006 campaign section needs some additional work as well - - the bit about Convergys and the other critical bits need some clarifying, referencing and updating (since some events have presumably progressed since they were originally reported, and we should track down their current status). <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Referencing needed
The Rev. O'Neal Dozier, a member of Crist's team and the Worldwide Christian Church, also generated controversy after being dismissed from his position on the Broward Judicial Nominating Commission for calling Islam a "cult" and a "dangerous religion" and opposing the construction of a mosque on the grounds that "we don't want our area to be a breeding ground for terrorists". Crist initially declined to take action about Dozier and said that he was "happy" with the help he got. However, he later told his staff to remove Dozier from all campaign committees, saying "While Charlie Crist respects Rev. Dozier's right to express his political and religious beliefs, he does not agree with Rev. Dozier's recent statements and writings concerning Islam".

Crist's platform as a gubernatorial candidate included a "pro-life and pro-family" approach to abortion, characterized by $3,000 subsidies to adoptive parents and $5,000 subsidies to foster parents as well as support for limiting adoption to heterosexual prospective parents and banning gay marriage.

The platform also included: advocacy for parent school choice and strict, standardized testing in education; tracking drug prescribing and dispensing; limiting the cost of homeowners insurance; report cards for insurance companies; abolition of Citizens Insurance; support for right to die legislation; legal protection for individuals in eminent domain cases; tort reform through the elimination of joint and several liability; property tax flexibility; support for Florida's Defense of Marriage Act; support for the death penalty ; gun rights (Crist endorsed by the National Rifle Association as an "A+" candidate) ; efforts to stop the combat growth in hate crime incidence; support for closed borders with promotion of legal immigration; opposition to further statewide expansion of legal gambling; and support for environmental protections such as a ban on off shore oil drilling near Florida's coastline.

Outrage again
While I have no desire to get into the wider issues surrounding the inclusion of this section, one of the comments I noticed was the claims most of the sources don't mention Crist by name. Using a simple browser search, I've checked all the sources and I'm come across a few that don't but also found most do. The NPR ones are one but given that The Huffington Post source (I'm presuming it's a RSS) mentions the NPR, there is perhaps some relevance so I'm willing to let that slide. But I don't see any reason for the inclusion of the WashingtonPost sources, neither of which appear to mention Crist. Remember this is an article on Charlie Crist therefore any coverage of the documentary should be how it concerns Crist and not general commentary. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the WP sources given the lack of any objection or explanation as to why they belong Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Assault on an Atheist
http://lifewithoutfaith.com/?p=3336 Maybe there's a sub-section in this. For now though I say we sit on this and see if it develops. Protectthehuman (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

First Black Governor?
The article states "and has been described as the state's "first black governor."" According to whom? What is the source for this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.13.195 (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Crist Party Affiliation
Hello. I am a regular user of Wikipedia, and came across something on the Charlie Crist page that I feel needs to be addressed. Here is an exchange I had with a Wikipedia staff member:

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; margin: 0 2.5%; padding: 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa;"> I know that, technically, this edit of yours is correct. However, what does "Independent" mean? Independent is not a party, it is used to refer to someone who has no party affiliation, which is what Crist is right now (and will be as long as he believes it helps him). Your edit seems to introduce an awkward redlink without really improving anything. I'm not reverting right now, but I'd like to hear your reply. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This website, provided by TIME Magazine, clearly states that Charlie Crist is in fact a Republican, although he is presently not running as either party. To say that his Republican Party affiliation status ended in 2010 is incorrect. We could create a hyperlink on "No Party Affiliation", telling readers what it means. It's important to emphasize though that Crist is still a Republican.


 * Wow, I hadn't seen that anywhere else. So yes, you are correct in your edit.  But some type of explanation is needed, as you indicate, because I'm sure other persons will not understand any better than I did.  I suggest you start a section at Talk:Charlie Crist, staking out your position and asking others for their suggestions on how to handle this.  I'll look for your post, and of course, barring more persuasive arguments, I'll be in your corner. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You could start it just by pasting this entire exchange between us to Talk:Charlie Crist. 98.82.34.167 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bushin2016 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a second source, the Orlando Sentinel that also says he intends to run as an independent but remain a registered Republican and I revised the article with this information. If this changes, it will have to be updated again. 5Q5 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about reverting you a minute ago, I was trying to respond. As far as I can tell that is the case: Crist himself is staying a Republican but is not going to be running as one. That is different than someone who is a registered independent.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gov. Crist has now changed his party affiliation to NPA (no party affiliation). Source. --Kudzu1 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Include past affiliation?
I think that Crist's until-recent affiliation as a Republican should be noted in this article's infobox, as well as his current no-party status. The years he was registered as a Republican should also be included. For examples of this concept being used in other articles, refer to: --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.
 * Strom Thurmond
 * Ronald Reagan
 * Arlen Spector
 * I agree, this should be done. Your suggestion, go ahead. 5Q5 (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would, but I don't have the year that Crist first registered as a Republican. I am not a Floridian, I just thought that adding his past affiliation would be of benefit to the article and be consistent with articles of others who have switched parties, as listed above. Whoever wants to make this addition, please feel free to do so. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved : It appears that an editor has included a timeline of his party affiliations in the infobox. 5Q5 (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Critics of Crist's Senate run
I want to store these here in case the guy wins, or if he is a presidential or vp candidate someday, and they could be used to source a line. 5Q5 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Why Crist is done. ... Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is the saddest of political spectacles."

- Charles Hurt

"T is for triumph in Crist cross. As an independent, Gov. Charlie Crist is finished."

- Rich Lowry

Outing in 2009 preceded by outing in 2006
One of the references in the article is "Re-outing Charlie Crist", written by Alex Koppelman in April 2009 for Salon's War Room. This reference supports the documentary film Outrage which includes men describing themselves as sex partners to Crist. One such man is Jason Wetherington, at the time a GOP staffer.

Why is it that the article does not first mention Crist's outing by reporter Bob Norman of the New Times Broward-Palm Beach? Norman wrote about Crist in October 2006, saying that 21-year-old Jason Wetherington said he had sex with Crist. Wetherington in turn named 42-year-old Bruce Carlton Jordan as Crist's longtime partner.

To me, the reports of Crist having sex with men should not start in 2009, they should start in 2006. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before, at Talk:Charlie Crist/Archive 1. Norman was on a self-described crusade to out gay Republicans: "I was interested in pursuing the lead mainly because I've come to believe that any closeted politician in the Republican Party — which openly woos homophobes into its ranks while opposing gay rights — is fair game for the media." His "sources" (and I use the term loosely) are two unnamed people who claim that a 21-year old aide to Katherine Harris boasted of having sex with Crist, and the Reform Party's 2006 candidate for Lieutenant Governor (running against the Crist/Kottkamp ticket), who claimed that Crist told him he was gay. Neither source is in any way reliable, and there was an obvious motive for Linn to lie about Crist. (For what its worth, the aide flatly denied any relationship with Crist when Norman spoke to him directly.) Norman didn't get anyone to bite with that first column, except a bunch of leftist gay bloggers. When he ran essentially the same story two years later, he got a handful of reliable sources to mention his column, but all of it was the "Bob Norman says..."; nobody did any additional investigation. Wikipedia doesn't deal in rumors and innuendo, and that's all there is there.  Horologium  (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you arrived at the judgment that a reporter's sources are not reliable if they are not named by the reporter. I also do not see how a reporter on a mission can be dismissed out of hand for having a motive. More importantly, we can see that Wetherington features in Norman's article and in the film Outrage, bringing additional credibility to Norman's earlier investigative work. And we have Koppelman determining in 2009 that Norman's 2006 article was the first instance of outing. When a reliable source such as Koppelman gives the nod to Norman's earlier story it is lifted above the level of rumor or innuendo. Binksternet (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein kept their sources anonymous in their work to uncover the Watergate scandal, yet their work was not judged unreliable. Woodward and Bernstein were also motivated to zero in on Nixon in their investigation, ultimately finding a laundered check to link him to the scandal. The fact that they wanted to pin a scandal on Nixon (if they discovered it was true) did not lessen their credibility.
 * Your points about Norman's 2006 column failing to gain notability upon its release are accurate. The stakes have changed, though; now people are re-examining the 2006 column and giving it credence. The earlier judgment must be re-assessed. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the documentary's re-awakening of interest in the 2006 news item, I am putting it and its allegations into the article. As well, I am changing the section heading away from focusing on the documentary, and instead focusing on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Is he still technically a republican?
I know Crist is now running as an independent in the Florida senate election (and surprisingly in the lead), but is he still a registered member of the Republican Party outside the race? - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the article, and backed up by The Miami Herald in this item, Crist left the Republican Party on May 13, 2010. His current registration is "non-party affiliated".  Horologium  (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info, I thought it meant only for the senate race. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Allegations
In this edit, the heading of a section was changed from Allegations of homosexuality to Sexual orientation allegations. A quick reading of the section tells the reader that the allegations are about Crist having sex with men, not about Crist's sexual orientation. The section does not quote anybody saying Crist is gay or bisexual, it quotes people saying that Crist had sex with men. "Homosexuality" is sex with someone of the same sex, while "sexual orientation" is how a person feels. Nobody tries to guess Crist's orientation. It's a fine point, but I believe that the former section heading is more accurate. If there were BLP issues with one of the headings, I would say that the one which is not supported in the section is the one with issues. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sexual orientation" is a far more neutral term than "homosexuality" as should be clear. Meanwhile, I doubt that even that belongs in a WP:BLP now that the policy was tightened.   Collect (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The more neutral term depends on the situation. In the situation we are faced with, no commentator talks about Crist's feelings on sex, his orientation. They concentrate on his actions, allegations of his homosexual acts. What's clear to me is that his "orientation" has not been questioned—nobody has alleged that "Crist prefers sex with men" or that "Crist likes sex with men or with women".
 * I have perused the "tightened" BLP page and I see that it does not have any comment on this issue. The only thing it says about sexual orientation is that a person should not be put into lists or categories about sexual orientation unless the person has stated the connection. If there is some part of BLP that I missed, please point it out. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This material really seems like a clear-cut case of BLP violation. Yes, the story is out there, but so is the story that Obama is a Muslim or what have you - that doesn't make it any more compliant with guidlines, and so no amount of sourcing will make it so. My sense is that there are only two possible ways to handle this: 1. would be a separate article on "Rumors surrounding Crist" (akin to Barack Obama conspiracy theories), but that possible solution runs afoul of lots of other glitches and I don't recommend that at all either; 2. would be to mention that there have been X rumors, but that there is no hard evidence to support the allegations, and leave it at that. The rumor may or may not be true, but it is not for Wikipedia to propagate such allegations. (cross-posted on the BLP page) Arjuna (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Seems like" does not a clear-cut case make. A specific section of WP:BLP should be cited. If you opt to point out the "avoid gossip" part of BLP I must argue that the cited documentary and news article do not treat this story as gossip, they treat it as the truth. I am restoring the section you removed. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In using "seems like", I was expressing editorial judgement. As for your argument that the documentary in question "didn't treat this story as gossip", that is completely irrelevant. Certain groups don't treat "Obama is not a U.S. citizen" as non-factual, but that doesn't make their claim any less false. Just because someone shouts an untruth with utter conviction does not make it more credible. Now, the allegations regarding Crist may or may not be true, but it is clearly not Wikipedia's role to propagate what can only be considered, for now, as "gossip". Leave this stuff out until and unless there is dispositive evidence backed by RS. Arjuna (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree.Ichormosquito (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Outrage
Why is this even in this article? Just because someone accuses a politician of something does nto mean it ought to be in his BLP. If anything it belongs in the Outrage article. It is undue to have such allegations in a blp based on a movie in which the director is just guessing who may be gay? mark nutley (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Salacious but unproven allegations about something that is obviously as sensitive (to some people) as this should be handled especially carefully in a BLP article. Wikipedia should not be a party to the "outing" movement. I appreciate offtoriorob's effort to have some watered-down version, but I'm not sure that's not like being "a little bit pregnant" (to use a double negative). Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Marknutley, I'm sure you will want to weigh in at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I feel certain that all the BLP concerns have been addressed, and now we're down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm bringing this paragraph back into the article, because the discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive94 determined that the section had good references. Regarding BLP violations, Jclemens, Protonk, Are You The Cow Of Pain? and myself felt that the subject violated no BLP guidelines and was well referenced. Off2riorob, Arjuna909 and Marknutley felt that it violated the "Avoid gossip" part of WP:BLP. We're past gossip, here, with such national level references, and in an inconclusive BLP/N discussion, where the topic was shown to be a national news item, not mere gossip, with no consensus reached for removal, text supported by reliable, verifiable references trumps removal. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to include it and it was disputed as undue, your addition is not a neutral portrayal either. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to remove it, no consensus regarding WP:UNDUE, in fact, no consensus was reached at all, including the most important point: "is the material a violation of BLP?" If editors cannot come to a consensus about BLP, the material cannot be taken out of the article for BLP reasons. As well, your reversion just now cannot be upheld by saying a consensus was reached. You, Arjuna909 and Marknutley do not make a supermajority over me, Jclemens, Protonk, and Are You The Cow Of Pain? There is absolutely no consensus to keep the material out of the article, nor about whether any of the BLP guideline applied. With well-referenced material that lacks consensus for removal, the material can be kept in the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Are_You_The_Cow_Of_Pain%3F is a blocked sock of the puppetmaster Otto4711 a indefinately blocked user with a lot of LGBT contributions. The content the way your presenting it is POV and presents the subject as homo - sexual'Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh no! A homo! Yes, the mainstream and reliable sources say that Crist has been accused of having sex with men. Looks like we are down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT again. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and accusations are not facts about someone's personal life. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for "outing" someone. This material is a clear BLP violation. Leave it out. Arjuna (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that this "is a clear BLP violation" has been disputed by other editors, and no consensus was reached. Accusations themselves are facts. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of homosexuality
How much, if any, of the cited allegations of homosexual activity should be presented in this article? Note that a previous discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive94 failed to produce a clear consensus about whether there was a BLP violation, about whether the material gave undue weight to unproven allegations, or whether to remove the allegations entirely. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I have removed the RFC template, ten days of no interest is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Crist Denies Trysts" by reporter Bob Norman in October 2006 for the New Times Broward-Palm Beach.
 * "Crist Denies Trysts II" update by Norman in November 2006, discussing sworn depositions by Dee Dee Hall and Jay Vass.
 * "Re-outing Charlie Crist", written by Alex Koppelman in April 2009 for Salon's War Room.
 * It seems to me that hwen allegations are covered by the LA Times, New York Times, and NPR, they're worth a mention. How much mention is an open debate, but whitewashing this stuff out entirely is problematic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The problem Off2riorob, I and others have been wrestling with is how much, and at User_talk:Binksternet there was an offer by Off2riorob to cease his removals if a compromise paragraph was inserted. We were nearly there, but I did not like the wording of the compromise because it did not state clearly that Crist has been alleged to have had sex with men, or that he has been alleged to have had homosexual liaisons. In the compromise version, no allegation is mentioned, but Crist denies everything... kind of a weird construction. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues of sexuality require exceedingly strong sourcing - WP is not the place for rumours about sexuality, and where a person denies the claim, they are rumours only. Many discussions on BLP/N about such stuff. Collect (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And there were discussions on BLPN about this very article.  Problem is that a person doesn't have a monopoly on the facts.  Nixon denied he was a crook, but he was all the same.  We aren't interested in treating rumor as fact or repeating rumors from gossipy sources.  All we want is a smal, qualified mention based squarely on claims made by reliable sources.  If Salon, the NYT, NPR and the LA Times aren't good enough to include mention of a claim, then what is?  Does Edward R. Murrow have to rise from the grave and report on the subject? Protonk (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is all rumors started and propagated by involved gay rights activists and better kept out of our BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It matters not at all who "started the rumors" or began outing Crist for real. That you don't like gay rights activists as a source does not figure in our discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (rep to Binksternet) The claim that was in the comment that he denies was  the film claims he is a "closeted" homosexual who votes against gay rights. - I did try to come to a compromise with you but to no avail, you wouldn't move at all, the spirit of compromise is that you each move towards the others position. I also quite strongly agree with Collects statement as regards sexual rumors which is exactly what this is. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your version only says that Crist is a subject of the documentary, not that he was one of the political figures alleged to be homosexual. There is a disconnect there, one which does not explicitly state the allegation. With your version, Crist could just as well be a subject of the kind of politician who is an exception to the film's basic premise. He is not that, of course, but your version does not make it clear. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just seems like hair splitting to me, you want to say someone claimed he had gay sex with him when there is nothing at all apart from gay activist claims to support that, sorry but I hate bigoted POV pushing claims, such as this from activists,. makes me sick. We don't even add peoples sexuality unless they self declare, wikipedia should not be used for absolutely unconfirmed gay outing with false claims from activists. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You communicate as if you think the "rumors" were nothing more than that. I think you are wrong. Neither one of us has firsthand personal proof. The article is not here to represent your viewpoint or mine, it is here to represent reliable sources. Reliable ones include NY Times etc. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The sourcing here is impeccable. Three of the top news sources in the country have reported on the allegations. Trying to marginalize this as rumors is ridiculous. It would literally be impossible for there to be better sources than this on an unconfirmed issue. So the issue is whether something has to be confirmed to be in a BLP. The answer is clearly not - WP:NPOV becomes a joke under that view. If there are numerous discussions of a rumor in reliable sources (and the Kirby Dick documentary on its own would be a reliable source - he's an extremely acclaimed filmmaker) then the existence of the rumor is verifiable by any standard, and the importance of the rumor is clear. The article obviously cannot say "Crist is gay." But it equally obviously cannot just decide to ignore the issue because it's controversial. NPOV is not the practice of removing anything that someone might get their panties in a bunch over. It's the practice of carefully sourcing it and making sure article claims accurately describe the content of the sources. This article used to do that. Now it doesn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Users that are gay article active, want to add it, its a kind of COI issue, as in, it is in my interest so I think it should be added, its opinionated rumours about someone sexuality, it is a violation of BLP. Such weak claims by activists are used to slur people like Crist all the time, please don't push wikipedia to be that sort of place. Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, if I help edit articles that touch upon gay issues, then I have a conflict of interest? No, not at all. The claims are as weak as the sources; in this case they are not weak claims at all. Wikipedia is the place where neutral accounts are related to (told to) the reader. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a COI issue? Users adding the content are gay activists?  Are you being serious? Protonk (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not asserting any users here are activists. I mentioned COI only in an interested in the topic way, not in an involved way, please excuse me if I expressed myself badly. I do how ever think that this issue is simply an unproven slur against a living person, there is no evidence and he has denied it, end of story. Sexual titillation created because he has at times taken an anti gay position and I don't think it should be propagated here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your preference that "it" not be propagated here is not supported by Wikipedia policy. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia's policy to simply ignore issues like that. Your arguments for its exclusion seem more and more contrary to Wikipedia policy. The problem is that gay rights activists are still a valid POV to report when their claims come from reliable sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Coming in an uninvolved editor: to me it seems clear that this should be included. The issue is notable and the sourcing is solid (and in the context of a medium-length article, 2-3 sentences is not giving it undue weight). It doesn't matter whether the slur is proven, it's the fact that the slur was made (and responded to) which is notable. BLP does not say to avoid controversial issues, it says to make sure they are neutral, verifiable and don't contain original research - all of which are true in this case. The "amount" of inclusion is a judgement call, but if it says he is denying allegations, the specific allegations he is denying must (obviously) be included. Trebor (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of inappropriate sexual titillation is an important ones but it cuts both ways. Obviously Crist would not be in outrage had he not taken anti-gay positions.  At the same time, there would not be as much sensitivity to the issue itself if the issue of homosexuality were not so deeply contentious because demagogues and hatemongers seek to criminalize and marginalize homosexuality.  That said, "interest" in the topic does in no way color the judgment of editors here. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

All devolves from one film. The allegations were denied. No reliable source has reported this as "fact" other than as being in the film. Collect (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, but not relevant. No one here wishes to put the claim "Charlie Crist is a homosexual" anywhere in the article.  Period.  The claims we are talking about relate to the coverage of the accusations by eminently reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. It devolves from a notable reporter in 2006 before the notable documentary film. Very good sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, it's the allegation which is notable, regardless of whether it's true. Trebor (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for paragraph content
Here are three versions of the paragraph that have been in the article:
 * Off2riorob compromise offer:
 * "In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. Crist denied the allegations."


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

The first version has two problems: it does not trace the outing from 2006 and it does not say what the allegation was. The second paragraph is brief and pointed; the third paragraph has more details, arguably too much for this article per WP:WEIGHT. Comments? Suggestions? Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob Norman detail version:
 * "In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. The film featured interviews with multiple men who claimed to have had sexual relations with Crist. One of the men in the film was Jason Wetherington, a Republican party staffer, who, three years earlier, was described to Bob Norman, a reporter at the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, as a man who had boasted of having sex with Crist, and who had named Bruce Carlton Jordan as Crist's longtime sex partner. Norman independently contacted Wetherington and Crist, who both denied the allegations. Of Jordan, Crist said, "I don't know who you are speaking about." However, Jordan's father told Norman that the two men were friends, "but I don't think he's seen Charlie in a while.""
 * I think the first version is fine. The existence of allegations prior to 2006 doesn't offer much.  I think some may feel it corroborates the 2009 film, but I'm not so sure.  There are some stylistic differences between the first sentence in the first and second versions.  The second reports on an allegation and the first mentions an inclusion in a film comprised of allegations.  I don't know if there is anything meant by the difference, but we should pay close attention to that. Protonk (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the second version. It includes all the relevant details, but is very concise and does not give undue weight to them. The first version doesn't explicitly state the allegation he's denying, but it does heavily imply it, and that's not a good thing for an encylopaedia to be doing. Trebor (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not: Crist denied allegations of homosexuality made in the film "Outrage" in 2009.  One sentence which conveys the allegation and denial compactly and succinctly. Collect (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * well for one, because that's a bizarre sentence to have by itself. It cries out for some context. Protonk (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Allegations of homosexuality do not belong, period. A good rule of thumb for a BLP is, if it's not true, it wasn't a humongous deal to the course of their lives, and it's the sort of thing you might be invited to step outside over, then it shouldn't be here. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid or a place for spreading vicious rumors about people. Ray  Talk 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ray, WP:BLP doesn't support your position. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, let's try quoting this one: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." What part of that policy says "Wikipedia shall be a vehicle for repeating scandalous rumors regarding people's sexual orientation, simply because the vulgar press has reported it, even though it's had little significance on somebody's life, and has been denied?" Ray  Talk 14:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Allegations of homosexuality do not belong, period." Utterly pointless generalisation. For counterexamples currently on Wikipedia, try Tom Cruise and Cliff Richard (and I expect many many more). Allegations can be notable. The rumour is not being spread by Wikipedia. We include the fact that the allegations are denied. Trebor (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll amend to "scandalous allegations of homosexuality with no major impact on a living subject's life do not belong." Can you demonstrate major impact, a la Clarence Thomas or Larry Craig? I thought not. Ray  Talk 14:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any backing for the criterion that it must have a "major impact", or are you just making stuff up at random? To quote WP:BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". I'm struggling to see how it fails any of those, given the breadth of coverage and notability of the documentary. Trebor (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline at WP:BLP says we should not be the "primary vehicle" and we are not—we are quoting notable sources. It says "the possibility of harm to living subjects" should be foremost, but these allegations are already out in the world in a big way. We are not harming the subject's life, the previous publications already did their damage, whatever that may be in Crist's case. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

For those just checking in, note that Crist's Wikipedia article is the only one among those politicians alleged to be a closeted homosexual by the film Outrage which does not have the allegation mentioned in it. The articles about Larry Craig, David Dreier, Ed Koch, Jim McCrery and Ed Schrock all include it, some more than others. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to the discussion of Outrage in this article. However, I am opposed to using the Bob Norman articles as supporting references, because a) they don't discuss the film, and b) the sources are of dubious veracity. (One of the sources was the Reform Party candidate for Lieutenant Governor, running opposite the Crist/Kottcamp ticket; the others were two unnamed people who allegedly heard a congressional aide claim to have had a relationship with Crist, which the aide has flatly denied. Discuss Outrage, but leave out what is really nothing more than he-said-but-he-said gossip. We don't mention the widespread "gerbil" rumors in the article on Richard Gere, and we should leave out partisan axe-grinding as well.  Horologium  (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect your opposition to putting Bob Norman in the article, but you may change your stance once you discover that the Outrage filmmakers put Norman in the film itself, and Kirby Dick lists Norman as "the first journalist to report on questions of hypocrisy with regard to voting records and the private lives of two prominent Florida politicians", basically kick-starting the whole film concept. Kirby Dick examines Norman's "dubious veracity" sources and determines that they are "compelling" enough to include in the film. Not everybody asked about Crist would discuss him: in Outrage a former Crist girlfriend is quoted as saying "Call me in 10 years, and I'll tell you a story." I wonder what this article will look like in 2020?
 * Kirby Dick told The London Times he doesn't expect to be sued partly because of the solidity of the evidence he presents in the film: "Dick doesn't expect to be sued: 'In America it's not defamatory to say someone is gay, and if a lawsuit comes the men would have to argue their case in court which would generate a lot publicity. We worked extremely hard to verify stories.' Indeed, this is a determinedly sober, rather than scurrilous, piece of film, and Dick applauds the men who came forward to help to expose the politicians." Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * - After reading this discussion I don't see a consensus for this sculirious rumour and personal attack to be included and when I look at the content I seem unable to do anything but remove it, this citation is reflective of the whole unfounded claims http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2006-10-19/news/crist-denies-trysts - awful. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So can we keep the sentence without the bob norman bit? One sentence supported by three of the best news organizations in the country ought to be reasonable. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the less is more, two citations is plenty to support a simple comment, its absolute scandalous gossip designed to demean a living person, I don't support such vicious unproven crap in any BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we can have a calm discussion about this. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, reading that bob norman article was an awful BLP experience, reading it compounded my objections. Its all unproven gossip, its an awful POV documentary without any support or factual reporting, its a gay activist and gay right promotion. This is a living person with nothing at all to say he is gay so why should we add it? In fact we shouldn't add it, we should keep it out. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks to me as if both talk page consensus and Wikipedia policy uphold the mention of the allegations of same sex activity. Not only are the relevant sections of WP:BLP answered neatly and satisfactorily, the guideline at WP:WELLKNOWN absolutely clinches it. Editors who do not wish to have the paragraph are falling back on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a tactic that cannot prevail. At WP:WELLKNOWN it says "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not well known its scurrilous gossip, and need to be thrown were it is worth, the rubbish BLP bin. Don't keep stuffing it in unless it is consensus supported. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (E/C) Actually, it looks to me that two editors have objected specifically to the Bob Norman piece. I can support noting the documentary Outrage, with one of the reviews you have listed from mainstream sources, but Off2riorob and I have both raised objections (grounded in BLP concerns) over the Bob Norman piece, and WELLKNOWN does not trump the rest of BLP. It's not well-documented at all; All of the sources which discuss the topic are based on Bob Norman's claims (including Outrage), and since Norman has not seen fit to identify his sources (and the players involved--Crist and the Harris aide--both deny the allegations), it could be argued that it should be excised from the article entirely. Allowing the discussion of the claims in Outrage is a compromise, but the film did garner a fair amount of coverage.  Horologium  (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Replacing that bob norman gossip piece when you know there are objections to it, just here on this section is no way to encourage consensus. There are also other users that object to any mention of the unsupported claims in the BLP. User:Collect, User:Arjuna909, User:Marknutley to name a few from the discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please can people tone down the rhetoric - we're advocating presenting the allegations neutrally and with sourcing, it doesn't mean we agree with them. Which part of WP:BLP do you think supports the idea that this shouldn't be in the article? Your personal view on whether the documentary is good or bad shouldn't come into this at all - the real question is is it notable? and I think the answer is 'yes'. (I'm leaving aside the Bob Norman article for the time being, but can we get consensus that some reference to outrage should be in the article?) Trebor (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already said that I can support a reference to Outrage, but the Bob Norman piece which has been supplied as a reference doesn't have any mention of the film, since it precedes the film by about a year. Binksternet has provided a set of references from reliable sources which do discuss the film; they are more reliable and appropriate sources. It should be made clear, however, that Crist and Jason Wetherington (the Katharine Harris aide who supposedly claimed to have sex with Crist), both flatly deny the anonymous allegations. I've not seen the film, but I doubt that Crist's and Wetherington's denials are addressed in the film.  Horologium  (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the documentary a few weeks ago. In it Crist is said to have denied all charges of being gay. Wetherington was in the film, but I would prefer a film transcript rather than trying to remember all that was said about him. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't support any mention of the trash allegations, they are unsupported by any other location, the claims have not stuck and nothing additional has surfaced, we should not propagate a single activist documentaries unsupported allegations of this subjects sexual preferences all of which he has totally denied. These claims are slurs on a living person of no note and without independent or additional support from anywhere and should be simple editorial conservative BLP editing to keep them out of the article and not to allow such unsupported allegations to be propagated through the project. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This talk page entry of yours does not say anything new about your stance which is unsupported by Wikipedia policy. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob, you're not engaging in discussion here - you're just dogmatically repeating your position. You say, "These claims are slurs on a living person of no note" - you have to justify why they're not notable when they're covered in several high-quality sources. You seem to be letting personal opinion get in the way here. Trebor (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) This is my first (and hopefully last) comment at this talk page. It seems beyond dispute that Dick's film Outrage is a highly biased and non-neutral attack targeting politicians who have not voted as Dick would like on certain gay right issues. Dick does not contend that the politicians are letting their sexual preference affect how they vote. Because Dick's film is so biased and non-neutral, I don't see any reason to mention it here in this article, or even footnote it, given that Crist's sexuality has been covered by many mainstream, neutral, reliable sources. Some of those reliable sources have published articles that are primarily about Dick's film, and only mention Crist as a target of Dick. If a reliable source mentions Crist's sexuality as somethng more than a target of Dick, then maybe that deserves brief mention in the present article, but otherwise it belongs in the Dick article or the Dick flick article, rather than in this one. In a nutshell, I think this article should at most say, "Crist has said he is not gay." Period. ANYTHINGYOUWANT HAS SPOKEN! :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And that becomes precisely an issue on the order of Crist denies that he still beats his wife I fear. Once  WP inserts a rumour, then denial of the rumour becomes almost worthless.  Off2 is correct on all this -- WP:BLP requires not that we include all rumours about notable people, but that the rumour itself both have sufficient credible RS sourcing and that it be relevant to the person.   And per WP sourcing - sources which all trace back to a single source are not regarded as separate sources.  Thus we have a rumour which has not been supported by independent credible RS sources, and which has further been denied by the person at issue.  The combination is poisonous in any BLP. Collect (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, the rumors of Crist being gay are not only from the film Outrage—they are not from a single source. You'll recall that in January 2005 Crist was publicly asked by Lee Drury De Cesare, a prominent reporter and columnist, if he was gay as rumors said he was, and he replied "I'm not." In October 2006, his longtime friend Max Linn said Crist was bisexual, that the two men had discussed his sexuality on two occasions. Also in October 2006, reporter Bob Norman outed Crist with what he felt was conclusive evidence taken from sources he would not name, sources that named Jason Wetherington as boasting about having sex with Crist. Sworn affidavits were given on video, ones by Dee Dee Hall and Jay Vass who both said that Crist had a long term lover in Bruce Carlton Jordan. In 2008, gay bar owner Rick Calderoni said that Crist was gay, that he frequented his Tampa bar and hung out with gay men. All of this was summed up by The Daily Telegraph in July 2008 when they wrote that Crist had been "dogged for years by homosexuality rumours." What the film Outrage does is collect many of these sources (not all) and present them to the viewer. The film can be viewed as a "single source" but its own sources are quite varied, and named. The film puts it all together with Crist's voting record and frames Crist as being hypocritical in his politics. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You say "Dick does not contend that the politicians are letting their sexual preference affect how they vote", but Dick does exactly that in the film, and he reinforces this in panel discussions and audience questions at two of the early showings of the film, recordings of which are included as extras on the DVD of Outrage. Dick's contention is that the politicians targeted in his film are terribly hypocritical in that they throw up a defense against their true sexuality in the form of voting which goes much farther into extremes against gays than their heterosexual colleagues. Dick films acknowledged gay politicians who agree that this defense is a real problem in closeted politicians, and Dick uses statistics on voting to show that politicians in the closet vote more harshly against gay rights. He firmly connects the voting record with being closeted. He holds that outed politicians would vote more humanely than otherwise, and he finds interview subjects who affirm this belief. His film is not a personal attack on the politicians, it is a political attack on their voting record and hypocrisy. The film is a political documentary, intended from the start to take a political position and prove it, defend it.
 * The film is notable because of the reviews of it and its content found in major newspapers in New York, London, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc. The filmmaker is an Academy Award winner. The film itself is a perfectly suitable reference; there is no need to dump the film and instead present the newspaper reviews of the film. All of the above can be used as references. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely how is Crist's rumoured gayness relevant in this BLP? And isn't it exactly analogous to the "Have you stopped beating your wife" sort of charge being pushed here? He has denied being gay. No reliable source asserts that he is gay. Gay oriented publications and films may make any claims they wish (US laws make it difficult for public figures to win defamation cases) but that does not make them "reliable" for BLP purposes. Consider: ''John Doe was asked by Clare Crow whether he had stopped beating his wife. Doe denied the allegation. Doe was featured in a film as being rumoured to be a wife beater. WP article:  Doe has been accused of being a wifebeater, which he denied.''  The damage is done. Collect (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Crist's rumored gayness is relevant to his being a politician who votes against gay rights.
 * We are not trying to prove Crist is gay, we are simply reporting on widely reported rumors and allegations. The allegations are notable in that they appeared in The New York Times etc., we need look no farther than that. Our reliable sources have spoken: Crist is dogged by rumors of being gay. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dick can make all the statistical arguments he wants, and we can describe them in the Wikipedia articles about him. But that's far removed from stuffing them into the Crist article.  If someone is on trial for murder, shall we mention in that person's Wikipedia article that he's probably guilty?  After all, most people who stand trial for murder are convicted.
 * As far as the notability of Crist's denial is concerned, if it's just a brief denial (e.g. "I'm not") then the notability is very doubtful. But if there's elaboration, then we have a Tom Selleck situation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If a person is on trial for murder, we say in his bio article that he is on trial for murder—a simple statement of fact. Here, some editors are against even that much; they are against saying that Crist has been dogged by rumors of being gay, which is a simple statement of fact.
 * There is no guideline on Wikipedia which attempts to determine how simple or elaborate a denial of allegations must be. These allegations need no denial at all to be notable; they have appeared in mainstream news and a documentary film. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The crux of Dick's allegation is not that Crist is gay, but rather that Crist has been voting on public policy based on his own private sexual orientation. Dick provides nothing more than statistics to support the latter charge.  Without the latter charge, Dick wouldn't have said anything about Crist allegedly being gay.  This charge by Dick is just as unencyclopedic as a statement that someone on trial for murder is presumably guilty given that most defendants are convicted.
 * You would bolster your argument if you stop talking about Dick. As for the distnction between a concise denial and an elaborate denial, there may not be a specific Wikipedia policy expressly addressing it, but a concise denial is certainly a lot closer to ignoring the rumor than an elaborate denial is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been pleasant to discuss Dick, Crist and the film with you but the issue on the table is inclusion of same-sex allegations in this BLP article. Do you have a proposal for how best to accomplish this? Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Have reliable newspapers directly addressed Crist's orientation without addressing Dick?  Has Crist himself said anything more than "I'm not"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, people are failing to separate the ideas that an allegation can be notable without necessarily being true. And that judging an allegation as true or not true (or anything in between) is essentially original research. The real question is "is the allegation notable" (see WP:WELLKNOWN). And I think most people would say that an allegation from an academy award winning director, via an emmy-nominated documentary, probably is notable. Following the above reasoning to a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum, suppose Barack Obama (or some similarly famous personage) said that Crist was gay, but newspapers only recorded the fact that he said it (and did not "directly [address] Crist's orientation without addressing" this famous personage) - surely that would that be worthy of inclusion? If so, a line must be drawn somewhere between a non-notable allegation, and one which has notability? And surely one measure of such notability must be the mention of such an allegation in notable and independent sources? Can anyone make an argument against its inclusion based on sources, and not of their own (necessarily biased) judgement of the documentary? Trebor (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Try looking at the JournoList debacle where several noted journalists floated the idea of randomly accusing people of being racists. And did so.   Ought we include those allegations in the BLPs of those falsely accused?  Sorry - the bar is set high for contentious claims in any WP:BLP.  And for Crist - the allegation fails to cross the bar. Collect (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * `JournoList has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Have you read WP:BLP? Point me to the relevant bit, please. Trebor (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) I would be willing to consider inclusion of the allegation regardless of whether it is true, but only if reliable newspapers have directly addressed Crist's orientation without addressing Dick, and/or if Crist himself has said anything more substantial than "I'm not". The Dick stuff is poisonous, and if newspapers have written about him and his outing campaign then those sources can be cited in our article about Dick and his movie. He is specifically not outing people who vote as he would like, so his whole approach is non-neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect your personal stance on the topic, but Wikipedia's policies allow Dick's political documentary to stand as a reference because it has been discussed in mainstream press and is notable. Nobody is arguing that the film tries to be neutral. It was conceived as political cinema on the order of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko, and has no pretensions to neutrality. Accuracy, yes; neutrality, not at all. Anything said in the film can be quoted, with special emphasis on parts of the film that have been commented upon in mainstream media. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just a personal opinion. I'm trying to follow policy here.  Personally, Crists' political behavior makes my skin crawl.
 * It may be useful here to use the word "theory" instead of "allegation". Dick's theory that Crist is gay, and his accompanying theory that only gay politicians should be outed if they vote contrary to LGBT dogma, are not mainstream theories, right?  So we can describe Dick's theories in an article about Dick. His theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way, instead of merely in a report about Dick.  As you may have noticed, I'm analogizing here to fringe theories and their treatment at Wikipedia.  A fringe theory about the Apollo landing does not need to be discussed in the Neil Armstrong article, for example, even if books have been written about how some people thnk the moon landing never happened.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we are ignoring the opportunity to cut the gordian knot. We don't need to discuss Dick's poltics or his film in Crist's article. In fact the first "option" above pretty much avoids this. We are just looking to include mentions from the LAT, NYT, and NPR on the subject. The notability of the original film or the poisonous nature of its accusations are nearly irrelevant. to make a poor analogy, the various accusations leveled at the Clintons during Bill's first and second term (accusing them of, variously: murder, treason, corruption, conspiracy, etc.) were absolutely unpleasant and politically motivated. They were put forth by conservative agitators and gobbled up by a press hungry for scandal (this is before the arrival of FOX news even). But those allegations should be in Clinton's biography because they had some impact on his public portrayal--this is notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of the accusations were total fabrications. I understand the limits of my analogy, but please try to follow the spirit and not get caught in the particulars (the biggest particular being that some of the allegations triggered an investigation which prompted an impeachment trial!). We are only looking to summarize the coverage of the subject in reliable sources. That's it. A one or two sentence mention of the film cited to the best news sources in the country should do that without needing to dwell on the politics of the film or its director. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is one loose end with the first paragraph: The final sentence "Crist denied the allegations." Crist denied being gay in 2005 and 2006 when asked by reporters, but we do not yet have a source saying he denies whatever is presented in the film Outrage. The wording we use in our paragraph should say that Crist has denied being gay, as an answer to direct questions, not as a response to the film. If anyone has his on-the-record response to the film I would be interested to see it. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about the following paragraph as a solution to the problem of the final sentence?
 * "In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. Crist has repeatedly denied that he is gay."


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

At Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, discussion took place between a handful of editors who largely expressed disapproval of the insertion of the same sex allegations. However, in discussion of Wikipedia policy issues, none successfully countered the guideline at WP:WELLKNOWN. Because no one has been able to dismiss that guideline, I am putting the paragraph back in the article; the latest version with Crist denying something he actually denied. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IOW, you dislike the consensus there and here and decided to violate both? Sorry -"Bold" does not include "Ignore Consensus." And WP:BLP is a strong policy. Collect (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the editors who form the consensus have misinterpreted WP:BLP, that's no justification for Binksternet to demand his interpretation instead. See WP: Ignore all rules (which is perhaps the only rule that cannot be ignored).  Additionally, here is how the NY Times connected Crist to Outrage: "Their reflections are interwoven with allegations about the sex lives of several well-known current political figures, including Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida...." This NYT sentence is bland to the point of being non-notable, and is quite different from what Binksternet put into this article.  I agree with Collect (although I tried to rephrase what Binsternet put into this article, I support removal).Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, I agree that BLP is a strong policy. Check out the section Biographies of living persons which applies to Crist. This is the relevant section which must be addressed. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, without wishing to rehash old arguments more than necessary, this is not a WP:BLP concern. The additions are well-sourced, so it's more of an editorial decision as to whether they "deserve" inclusion in the article. Trebor (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Which infobox photo?
Quick poll: which infobox photo do you prefer?

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

Cropped closeup

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

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


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

and


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

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

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


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

I suggest that anyone intent on including allegations of CC being homosexual read up on Wiki policy on POV for BLP. While your at it, read up on creditable sources and be very sure that youhave multiple citations in equal number to the dozens that are creditable that dispute this fact. Afterall, CC is the ultimate authority on his sexuality. Wiki must remain neutral and respectful in articles regarding BLP.I am not democrat, nor did I every vote or like CC, and it doesnt matter here...BTW.74.233.198.235 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant BLP section is found at WP:WELLKNOWN, where information that is unwanted by a politician may still be put into his Wikipedia biography if reliably sourced. The the multiple citations can be found linked in previous discussions of this issue here on this talk page and in the archives. Basically, there's the Lee Drury De Cesare direct question from 2005, "are you gay", which Crist denied, the Bob Norman questions and investigative work from October 2006 coming at the same time as the Max Linn announcement that Crist was bisexual, and finally the Kirby Dick documentary film Outrage from 2010. No new sources have arisen since then as far as I know. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite in order?
At what point will a reorganization be in order for this article? Will we continue to sneak in the information that he has switched parties and have major sections about the Future of the Republican Party professing that he is a Republican? - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Marked with POV tag to encourage discussion and editing of the article. - UnbelievableError (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. Rendinan (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Gay controversy + Same-sex marriage position
The controversy on the subjects sexual orientation seems to focus on his positions on legislation that affects the rights of gay people (specifically the documentary). In 2010, the subject reversed some of those positions (adoption rights for gay people in Florida) and last week he reversed his position on same-sex marriage. This narrative seems best bundled as a political position so I've created a new par there integrating the information that has strong cites (also, wikilinked the documentary and director). EBY (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The material about his political position(s) is a good addition, but the references to the documentary and Crist's rebuttal of the claim about his sexuality are, in my judgment, still a BLP violation. The reason is that if the speculation put forth by the documentary is in fact false, repeating it (even alongside Crist's own rejection of it) on such a widely read website like Wikipedia can still do harm to living people (especially but not exclusively Crist himself), and preventing such harm is the whole aim and purpose of BLP. alanyst 22:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would argue that preventing harm is not the aim and purpose but creating an fair/balanced article excludes misleading or false information. The documentary was major news. If you feel that including the documentary information isn't appropriate in conjunction with the subject's position on legislation then I would argue that it deserves a line on its own like that of Larry Craig.EBY (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored the paragraph about the film Outrage which was apparently removed by Alanyst without discussion last month. I energetically disagree with the complete removal of this material, which is a prominent factor in Crist's career. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This has been repeatedly rejected at BLP/N and is a pretty clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Ask there again if you think the views there have changed.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I just scanned through 3 years of archives - this conversation has indeed been going on a long time. I never found the consensus of pretty clear violation - please give us a link. Thanks. EBY (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Try the WP:BLP/N (note also the "Shepard Smith" referenced cases) archives ... this contentious claim was just reinserted here a few days ago. Note that claims about a person;s sexuality requires strong sourcing and this neither reaches strong sourcing for the allegations, not does it reach importance in this person's biography.  Cheers.  Now the onus is on those seeking to include this material to gain consensus for inclusion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are links to the various conversations, and my thumbnail take on consensus. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * April 2009 :Talk:Charlie_Crist/Archive_2. Sources are questioned with better ones requested.
 * May 2009: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive64. No consensus.
 * June 2009: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive_2. One Washington Post reference removed as irrelevant as it did not mention Crist.
 * July 2009: Talk:Charlie Crist/GA1. The wording was tweaked with regard to the Outrage film. The presence of the bit was not questioned.
 * September 2010: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive94. Debate about a large paragraph and a small mention resulted in consensus for a small mention.
 * November 2010: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_29. A discussion about LGBT category. Tightening BLP rules was suggested but opposed by consensus.
 * November 2010: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive99. Consensus was against the allegations.
 * April 2013: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_36 Collect's position that the outing could not be told in any article was not supported.

Your "thumbnails" do not comport with the dialogues. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Collect's desire to speak on behalf of all of BLPN can safely be ignored. BLPN is for requesting additional input for BLP articles, but the talk page of the article in question is where consensus is determined, and any editor claiming to hold a master position on issues of this sort has delusions of grandeur.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the "controversy" belongs on this page, either. The fact that claims have been made are more or less irrelevant - it is literally impossible for anyone who is not Crist to prove that Crist is gay, because being gay is a sexual identity that can only be self-declared, and if he refuses to so declare, then he is not gay. If there was proof he had sex with another man, that might mean he would be provably among the group of men who have sex with men. Or it might mean he is bisexual, or it might mean he was experimenting, or heteroflexible, or... what it would not do is permit Wikipedia to forcibly apply the label gay. There is no way to externally prove that someone is gay or not. Even speculation about a person's sexual orientation is therefore wholly suspect, much less speculation sourced solely to a polemic documentary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have had a chance to go back and look at the back history and do a bit of research on the subject myself. There's 3 separate issues in the blender that I can see; here's my recommendation. Please chime in. EBY (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Subject's recent position flip on same-sex marriage. Highly notable, covered by most respected news outlets. My thought? Definitely needs including, and included with perspective that this IS a flip (this is the emphasis of the sources, not me.)
 * 2) Subject's sexual orientation. The only reason this is at point of contention is a documentary that makes allegations. I can't find any reputable source that points to any kind of newsworthy reason to discuss the subject's sexual orientation that DOESN'T come from the documentary. My thought? A single source (documentary) allegation isn't enough reason to include the controversy in the article.
 * 3) Mention of the subject's inclusion in the documentary in THIS article. The documentary itself is notable, has an article page, and the subject is highlighted in that article itself. That would be the appropriate place for subject's denial of the documentary's premise because the denial was specifically focused on the documentary. If the subject's article space had a "In popular media" section, then a single-line mention that the documentary existed with a "main article" link back to it would seem to give it all the weight it deserved.


 * Regarding your point #2, you might want to take another look at the archived discussions. There is not just one source for Crist's sexual orientation being other than purely hetero:
 * January 2005: Crist was publicly asked by Lee Drury De Cesare, a prominent South Florida reporter and columnist, if he was gay as rumors said he was, and he replied "I'm not." De Cesare, the founder of the area's NOW chapter, would not have said this in front of so many other media people if she did not have a strong source.
 * January 2005: In a WQYK radio interview, Crist was asked if he was gay and he said no, per the New York Blade.
 * October 2006: Crist's longtime friend Max Linn said on the radio Crist was bisexual, that the two men had discussed his sexuality on two occasions. Sources: local Palm Beach paper and also Huffington Post.
 * October 2006: This story was picked up in various US gay media such as the New York Blade.
 * October 2006: Reporter Bob Norman outed Crist with what he felt was conclusive evidence taken from sources he would not name, GOP staffers that named Jason Wetherington as boasting about having sex with Crist.
 * November 2006: Sworn affidavits were given on video, ones by Dee Dee Hall and Jay Vass who both said that Crist had a long term lover in GOP aide Bruce Carlton Jordan.
 * February 2008: Gay bar owner Rick Calderoni said that Crist was gay, that he frequented his Tampa bar and hung out with gay men.
 * July 2008: All of this was summed up by the UK Daily Telegraph when they wrote that Crist had been "dogged for years by homosexuality rumours." This demonstrates that, prior to the 2009 political documentary film Outrage there was already a lot of gay rumor being printed in the local Florida press, and even in the international press. Binksternet (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see the cites so I did a quick search (Google) for "dogged by rumors gay" and "politician dogged by rumors gay" looking for more along those lines, because 1 cite (and a foreign one, which is fine but a domestic cite is important). The second search brought up the cite you named (Telegraph) but none others like it. This makes it hard for me to move my view. Here's one measure of the notability of the rumors -. ABC News does a good-length article on the subject's flip on same-sex marriage and never once mentions the allegations of his sexual orientation or the documentary. It just didn't merit inclusion. How can Wikipedia include this when it isn't notable to reliable sources? As far as BLP guidelines, the guiding force is the resources, not our opinions. EBY (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, let me see if I understand your argument. The situation is that opponents of a politician claim that he secretly maintains an identity at odds with his public self-identification with respect to a private aspect of his life. The rumors gain enough traction in certain circles that the controversy surrounding the claim is reported by reliable press sources, but no reliable sources independently verify the substance of the claim. You argue that because the claims were so widely repeated that the controversy was reported by mainstream press, it must be mentioned in the politician's bio, BLP notwithstanding. Is that a fair restatement? If not, where do I have it wrong? alanyst 14:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's accurate, except for the bit about "no reliable sources independently verify the substance of the claim", which Wikipedia is not worried about. We are not trying to determine whether the allegations are correct. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Wikipedia does not simply publish anything about anyone that has been published elsewhere. Any mention of a fringe theory with little to no support from mainstream sources may, indeed, be undue weight in relation to the biography of a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet: In my above summary of the situation, let "the politician" be Barack Obama and let "the rumors" be that he is secretly Muslim. The scenario is essentially unchanged from that of Crist and the rumors about his sexuality.  Do you still argue that the material ought to be included in the bio?  (I still argue that it ought not, per BLP, and I note that Barack Obama properly does not mention such rumors, even though the press has reported on the controversy.) alanyst 19:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

None of that alleged evidence can prove that Crist was gay. At best, taking all of them at face value, it would be proof that he was potentially bisexual, heteroflexible or among men who have sex with men. Crist has no way of disproving or otherwise responding to these allegations other than flatly denying it, because how does one prove they are not gay? It is literally impossible.

Wikipedia has no business promoting and disseminating the relentless efforts of a small group of people trying to hound a public figure out of the closet, if indeed he is in the closet. It's demeaning, invasive and unbecoming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are repeating yourself, NorthBySouthBaranof. More to the point, you are arguing whether Crist's sexuality can be proven or not—a question Wikipedia has no business wrestling with. Instead, what Wikipedia does is tell the reader that Crist's public hetero persona has been, let's say, expanded or augmented by other notable public reports from people such as Max Linn, Crist's former longtime friend, and filmmaker Kirby Dick, with such reports mentioned in the Los Angeles Times, the Daily Telegraph, etc. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are repeating yourself with an endless list of times when Crist has been asked a question and answered in the negative, claiming that "there is not just one source for Crist's sexual orientation being other than purely hetero." The fact that someone asked a question is not in any way, shape or form a source for asserting that the answer to the question is yes.
 * Then you close the book by citing The Daily Telegraph, which calls it nothing more than rumors. Wikipedia does not publish rumors. It is not a scandal sheet or a tabloid. If they are, indeed, nothing more than rumors - as your own reliable source suggests - then they have no business on this page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've re-visited WP:WELLKNOWN which cautions against allegations such as "closeted" (using this in the vernacular) homosexuality that do not have reliable cites with clear sources. Then to Collect's links - there is NO overwhelming consensus not to include but there IS consensus towards caution. Then I went hunting. First, "Gay Rumors" - so John Travolta springs to mind, yes? Certainly has thousands and thousands of hits as a US figure who is "dogged by gay rumors"? Checked - no mention of it in his Wikipedia article. Next prominent name in the search was Tom Cruise - and indeed, the rumors ARE mentioned in his article mention but only vis a vis the lawsuits he has won AGAINST papers who have printed those allegations. Finally back to Google looking for addition sources of the allegations themselves - even in an official rebuttal to the documentary (although that would more belong in the film's article space than this article, but I digress). Not much. What I DID find was this interesting Fla. Gay-interest blog that wrote that the claims in the documentary were flimsy:. To summarize: there is simply not enough reliable citations to overcome the caution required in a BLP. Short new information, at this time my due diligence in response to your reconsideration request, Binksternet, leads me to stand on my recent assessment in including the claims about Crist's sexual orientation: Oppose. Of course, this is only one vote, but it seems that consensus here is close to overwhelming. EBY (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP Notice Board re Outrage
The issue of whether to include the Outrage documentary allegation against Crist was posted on the BLP Noticeboard. After researching the Wiki guidelines on this, I posted this comment there:

IMO multiple reliable sources are needed before the mention/allegation could be included. And they are not provided here. Here's what I found at WP:BLP:

"WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." "•Example: 'John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe.' Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: 'John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced.'" "•Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did."Coaster92 (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus regarding Outrage material
Given the recent tussle over the Outrage material, I thought I'd summarize the positions of the editors involved in the May 2013 discussion for the purposes of determining the current consensus:
 * User:Alanyst (me) opposes inclusion of the material on BLP grounds: "If the speculation...is in fact false, repeating it...can still do harm."
 * User:Collect opposes inclusion of the material on BLP grounds: "Claims about a person's sexuality requires strong sourcing and this neither reaches strong sourcing for the allegations, not does it reach importance in this person's biography."
 * User:EBY3221 originally advocated its inclusion ("I would argue that it deserves a line on its own" ) but upon reexamination concluded "there is simply not enough reliable citations to overcome the caution required in a BLP."
 * User:Nomoskedasticity argued that Collect's reference to BLPN was immaterial, but did not express an opinion on the inclusion of the material.
 * User:Binksternet advocates inclusion of the material: "a prominent factor in Crist's career."
 * User:NorthBySouthBaranof opposes inclusion of the material on BLP grounds: "Wikipedia does not publish rumors. It is not a scandal sheet or a tabloid."
 * User:Coaster92 opposes inclusion on BLP grounds: "IMO multiple reliable sources are needed before the mention/allegation could be included. And they are not provided here."

Given that five editors independently oppose inclusion of the material, all basing their opposition on BLP concerns, and one editor denies the applicability of BLP and advocates inclusion of the material, I feel secure in pointing out there's a consensus that (a) BLP is applicable and (b) the material should not be included. On that basis, any further attempts by Binksternet to restore the material to the article should be considered edit-warring against consensus. alanyst 15:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * BLP is being misused as a trump card here when its provision WP:WELLKNOWN actually covers the exact sort of issue that is in the disputed material. Thus the inclusion of this material can be based on WP:BLP in contradiction to what some might expect. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the consensus of the editors above is that WP:WELLKNOWN is not sufficient in this case to clear the high bar BLP requires for inclusion of the material. I'm sorry you disagree but your interpretation of WP:WELLKNOWN's applicability to this article is not a trump card either.  alanyst 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also point out innumerable BLP/N discussions where the consensus has invariably been that contentious claims about a person's sexuality require extremely strong sourcing. Why anyone would wait six months to re-introduce a dead horse is quite beyond me.  And yes -- WP:BLP is of primary importance as policy.    Collect (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As important as BLP is, so is WELLKNOWN—they are the same guideline. The example in WELLKNOWN is about the prominently reported sexual peccadilloes of a politician, which is what this is. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at BLP/N before -- and now you are strongly in WP:DEADHORSE territory.  Care to explain why you decided to do the revert at the six month mark?  This is not strongly sourced factual information about a politician's acts -- it is purely speculative and based on a single source deemed not sufficient in the past at BLP/N for the claim to be placed in the BLP.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To add to what Collect said, it's also different from the hypothetical scenario in WP:WELLKNOWN in that it is speculation not merely about a politician's peccadilloes, but about his private sexual identity, which is harmful even to a public figure if false. That demands an even higher degree of caution, and gossip promulgated by people trying to score political points simply doesn't clear the bar. alanyst 02:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

depuffed and tightened
Also remove "allegations", and material not directly relevant to the BLP, including speculation as to motives and positions, and video "extended links". Collect (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Flip Flopper King
Is there anything about Charlie Crist that's real? Nope...nothing. Charlie is the most self-serving, worthless piece of political garbage since Harry Reid! (Harry Reid...ick...sounds like a porn star!) Speaking of porn, it's obscene what Mr. Crist is trying to do for HIMSELF! Clearly and cleanly beaten in the Republican Senatorial race by Marco Rubio, Mr. Crist flops over to the DIM-oh-craps just to try and get another political feather in his cap. Well, "sorry Charlie"...it isn't going to happen. Republican, DIM-OH-CRAP, or Independent...there is ONE big letter on your forehead. Yep, you bear the mark of the BIG L....LOSER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.76.30.253 (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Walt McNeil
How big a deal was Christ's appointment of Walter McNeil to a head the department of corrections as reported here? I came across some articles about how McNeil didn't actually go to classes or do actual coursework to get a degree. Seems pretty shady. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Marco Rubio - Tea Party
This morning I reverted the removal of text by who objects to Marco Rubio's characterization as a "Tea Party candidate". In reviewing the edit, I checked Rubio's wiki article, which states that he, and appears to me to be reliably sourced to and. Therefore, it was my opinion that adding the "Tea Party" label was only a WP:BLP violation because the source was not given inline per WP:MINREF, so I restored the text and added the source. reverted my edits with a note to BLP discussions about contentious claims of Tea Party affiliation. However, it appears to me to be a reliably-sourced claim of his prominence in the Tea Party movement, so I don't see any reason to object to its inclusion here. Thoughts?

Aside: as far as I can tell Collect's edit should have been automatically accepted under the PC1 criteria but it was not for some reason, so I have accepted it myself in good faith.


 * Um -- calling someone the "Tea Party candidate" where such a party does exist, and where no source states Rubio is a member thereof (in fact, he is not even a member of any "Tea Party caucus" as far as I can tell) is a contentious claim and would require more than an article saying Rubio is called the "crown prince" of anything.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting this to Talk. I appreciate your consideration of my edit.


 * I believe at least one of your sources is an opinion article. Also, the "crown prince" article does not cite who called him that.


 * Let's say I were to hereby declare Barack Obama the crown prince of the "Teleprompter Party." I bet I could find many conservative opinion articles to support this criticism. Does that mean one should go change Barack Obama's Wikipedia article to state my projected political association? Of course not.


 * The way "Tea Party" is used in this article, in substitution of "Republican Party," is a pejorative attack used by left-leaning individuals to try to draw contrast between traditional Republicans and what some try to suggest to be a further-right group that somehow should not be considered Republicans. This is all politics and nothing more. Regardless, this article isn't about Marco Rubio, the political spectrum of American politics, or any of these other issues. It's about Charlie Crist. Saying that Crist lost to Marco Rubio in the Republican primary without assigning membership in a non-existent political party (as my edit attempts to do) is purely factual and appropriate. A political pejorative such as "Tea Party candidate" wreaks political bias. Doorzki (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , you're right, your edit reflects NPOV and that's the smart move here, sources or not. I withdraw my criticism.
 * , off-topic, but from what I can tell Rubio was once held in high regard by "Tea Party" contemporaries, particularly around the time of the primary with Crist, but later fell out of favour with the more right-wing conservatives (or however you view it). Anyway I don't have an argument here.
 * Thanks for discussing. See you around the wiki. Ivanvector (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Tea Party candidate" requires something more than being backed by a tea party group - as I said above, we would not call, say, a presidential candidate a "Communist Party candidate" because they were endorsed by the CPUSA, would we? Collect (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Are Crist staffers monitoring this page?
Crist is a primary subject of noted director Kirby Dick's 2009 documentary Outrage. In general, when a person is the subject of a documentary or featured in a work of art generally, that work is referenced. I understand that the film makes allegations against Crist -- namely, that he may be gay. I added this to a "art and media" section once and it was promptly removed, within an hour or so -- my suspicion is that it was removed by a staffer, based on the peremptory message I received from the editor who removed it, whose insistent, inflexible tone and immediate action were highly unusual for a neutral, unbiased editor unconnected with the subject of the page in question. Crist's name has also been removed from the Outrage Wiki page which thoroughly list all the subjects included in the film -- yet Crist alone is suspiciously absent. Just wanted eligible editors -- without ties to the politician -- to keep an eye out for Crist staff intrusion into this page. Thanks Joeletaylor (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are probably Crist staffers who edit this page, but that doesn't mean that removing the contentious content was wrong. We take a very cautious approach and almost always require self-identification for something as sensitive as sexual identity. You have given no specifics about the edit in question to this article, so it's difficult to say whether reverting it was appropriate.- MrX 19:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have lived in South Carolina all my life and think that Florida and anti-gay-rights politicians deserve to be taunted, so I'm definitely not a Crist staffer. The edit you describe violates the general understanding of WP:BLP that claims about sexuality require the self-identification of the subject in question.  Speculation isn't enough.  Even if a subject was found having sex with others of the same gender during a LGBT pride parade, the possibility of bisexuality would require us to wait until they specified.
 * A number of speculated entries (including Crist) were removed from the article Outrage (2009 film) by George Ho (who identifies as gay), Collect (who has received awards for ensuring that WP:BLP is followed), and Jehochman (who is an administrator). Collect undid your first edit here, asking you to see one of the many discussions establishing that Outrage is not reliable enough to speculate on Crist's sexuality.  Your second attempt was undone by Alanyst, who fully explains the reasoning here.
 * If you had evidence that there were Crist staffers here, that would be important information -- but your assumption that that could be the only reason is just a violation of WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have no connection at all with Crist nor his various campaigns over the years. I don't really have an opinion of the man either personally or politically. alanyst 22:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Charlie Crist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829174600/http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/04/15/0415gunsatwork.html to http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/04/15/0415gunsatwork.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 16:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 one external links on Charlie Crist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060916182231/http://www.tbo.com:80/news/metro/MGB5Q9E6NQE.html to http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGB5Q9E6NQE.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205123942/http://www.forbes.com:80/feeds/ap/2009/01/27/ap5968997.html to http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/01/27/ap5968997.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091007103945/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/story/901859.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/story/901859.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101001035606/http://www.marcorubio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Charlie-Crist-on-pro-life-and-family.png to http://www.marcorubio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Charlie-Crist-on-pro-life-and-family.png
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100615165715/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_el_ge/us_political_insider to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100609/ap_on_el_ge/us_political_insider
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110808070312/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CGGV81&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91CGGV81&show_article=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100514160300/http://www.flgov.com:80/release/9150 to http://www.flgov.com/release/9150
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724120030/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/calling_mccain_a_true_american_hero_fla_governor_endorses_senator to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/calling_McCain_a_true_american_hero_fla_governor_endorses_senator/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070920173255/http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,274254,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274254,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081113131005/http://www.cnn.com:80/2008/POLITICS/05/31/dems.delegates/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/dems.delegates/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100605140510/http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/13/1626770/crist-no-refunds-for-former-fans.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/13/1626770/crist-no-refunds-for-former-fans.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081007023354/http://cbs4.com/local/Florida.Governor.Charlie.2.790985.html to http://cbs4.com/local/Florida.Governor.Charlie.2.790985.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Crist. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022223613/http://www.fadp.org/news/MH-20051103.htm to http://www.fadp.org/news/MH-20051103.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C274254%2C00.html
 * Added tag to http://www.wisconsingazette.com/national-gaze/ex-republican-charlie-crist-backs-gay-marriage.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Crist. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.topix.com/content/ap/2008/11/fla-revises-deal-with-us-sugar-to-save-everglades
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202223326/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004121276_rudy12.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004121276_rudy12.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129120307/http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11%2F2%2F2010&DATAMODE= to https://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/Index.asp?ElectionDate=11%2F2%2F2010&DATAMODE=

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlie Crist. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919011619/http://www.childnett.tv/videos/stories/foundation_inspired_family to http://www.childnett.tv/videos/stories/foundation_inspired_family

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)