![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this paragraph should be added. I think if it is not, this article is very clear example of Liberal/left-wing bias and should be classified as not being NPOV.
The Frank article alleges that Graham was involved in the gay sex trade. And he engaged in this activity as a married man with two children. Lawrence Metherel, a former teen male prostitute, has long ago disclosed that he had a sexual relationship with Graham dating back to 1980, when Metherel was 15 years old. In a recent interview with a Canadian magazine, Metherel said that, for 15 years, Graham provided him with regular support payments of up to $1,500 a month. [1] anon9:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe somebody should actually Google (name removed). There are over 200 links. I think this counts as proof that Bill Graham was involved in the gay sex trade.
Oh Bearcat, by the way, a Dipper is just a Liberal in a hurry.
The author of this article is obviously biased, and until there is video footage or an admittance, it will never me mentioned here. It easily be added to a section that in titled ``Controversial``. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.15.156 ( talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
When he passes away, the liberal biased media will let the cat out of the bag. FactsAre Everything ( talk) 16:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I know this sounds confusing, but according to today's reports, while Graham has become interim parliamentary leader of the party, and Leader of the Opposition, he is not the interim Leader of the Liberal Party; the leader for now remains Paul Martin. So it is premature to add the Liberal Leaders template unless Martin drops his other duties and makes Graham full interim leader. 23skidoo 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to Talk:Bill Graham to discuss and vote on the requested move. - Jord 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How quick you guys are
Although "Parliamentary leader" is a common shorthand, I believe that the descriptive template should say "Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons" which is more accurate. -- JGGardiner 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that Graham heads the entire Liberal caucus ie both the House of Commons caucus and the Senate caucus that he is the leader of the Liberals in parliament, not just in the House of Commons. Homey
A total lack of reference to Graham's strongly alleged homosexuality seems inappropriate. Would the following statement, placed at the end of his personal history, be acceptable: "Graham has neither confirmed nor denied his alleged homosexuality"
The article says that he grew up in Vancouver and Montreal. It also says that he went to Upper Canada College which happens to be in Toronto. Did he "grow up" in all three? -- JGGardiner 07:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What does the "D.U." post-nomial listed stand for?
Bill Graham received a Doctorate in Law from the University in Paris. He studied there, it is not an honourary degree. Dunstanramsey 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. User:HistoryBA originally removed any reference to the gay rumours from this article, stating that their inclusion or exclusion should be discussed on the talk page. So they were discussed, and while the number of participants wasn't exactly overwhelming, the discussion ended a month ago with a slight preference in favour of inclusion. Now another user readded the material, again in about as NPOV way as possible, and User:HistoryBA again reverted that, again stating that their inclusion or exclusion should be discussed on the talk page (as if they hadn't already been). No offense against anyone, but since this dispute looks like it can't be resolved by the current participants, I'm taking it to RFC. Bearcat 23:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Like Malcolm Forbes, it’s the worst kept secret in Toronto. The elites are hypocrites in protecting their own. FactsAre Everything ( talk) 16:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it appropriate or inappropriate for Graham's article to mention and/or discuss the existence of rumours about his sexual orientation?
Background: in the early 1990s, the Canadian gossip magazine Frank published allegations that Graham had a sexual relationship with a youngish man. Although Graham has never publicly acknowledged the rumours, they've never quite died out — in 2002, an opposition MP, Cheryl Gallant, heckled Graham in the House of Commons by shouting "Ask your boyfriend!" at him.
No editor in good standing is seriously suggesting that we should treat the rumours as proven fact — but there is a dispute as to whether this article should even acknowledge their existence at all. I'm of the opinion that as long as the matter is addressed in a neutral and careful way, the matter should be discussed in this article, because it's entirely relevant to the subject and not acknowledging that such rumours exist presents a POV problem, but User:HistoryBA believes that it shouldn't even be hinted at here on the basis that Gallant's comment is only relevant in her article, and that the actual background for her comment isn't relevant anywhere.
HistoryBA also compares this to an earlier situation in which Doug Young called Deborah Grey a "slab of bacon" in the House of Commons, and figures that addressing the gay rumours in Graham's article would be akin to using Grey's article to discuss whether or not Grey is "fat". I find that an invalid comparison, because body type and sexuality aren't even remotely equivalent issues in any way whatsoever, but HistoryBA apparently doesn't believe I've answered it at all.
To be perfectly honest, speaking as a member of Toronto's gay community there's a very tricky balancing act involved here: there's the matter of rumours about his sexual orientation existing on the public record, and the very separate matter of what we know off the record but couldn't post here without violating WP:NOR.
The matter has been unresolvable by the discussion that's taken place so far, so I'm asking for outside input. Bearcat 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I live in Graham's riding and it's pretty much an accepted fact that he's bisexual - I also went to university with John Baird (he was in my "Gael group" and know people who know him today and I have no doubt that he's gay. I wonder if those pushing for inclusion of the allegations of Graham's bisexuality also favour the inclusion in the John Baird article of allegations (with Frank as citation) that Baird is gay? BTW, if we do state that Graham is bisexual (or that there are rumours he hasn't denied that attest to this) we should not refer to the callboy story nor should we be sensationalistic about Graham's sexuality. I seem to recall the Globe & Mail mentioned it in passing in a profile they did of him several years ago (before 2002), if we can find that I'd be far more comfortable referencing that then Frank or Sky Gilbert ( Now Magazine once wrote that Keith Norton is well endowed [5]- don't see a push for including that in his biography. Homey 00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would simply reccomend referencing the Frank story if and only if the Gallant remark is to be included, because that story is a necessary component to understand the context of the remark. And even if referenced, the nature of the magazine should definatly be noted first. Otherwise, I don't think any other statement involving rumours surrounding Graham's sexuality should be included, unless they're in a serious or at least semi-serious newspaper. I know a few things around this area that are "understood", but they shouldn't be in factual articles that depend on verification of sources. Habsfannova 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been silent on this discussion until now, primarly due to the fact that I haven't been certain which side to support. As a general rule, I believe we should respect the privacy of public figures who choose to keep their sexual identities private, even when said information is an open secret (I've removed several references to John Baird's sexuality, for instance, even though the accuracy of the information has never been called into question -- it's simply a matter of ensuring privacy and avoiding tabloid sensationalism).
The situation with Graham is a grey area, in that (i) he didn't volunteer the information, and has not publicized it, but (ii) it has nevertheless been discussed in public forums. Whether or not it's "relevant" is still unclear, and I'm not even certain what standard could be used to determine "relevance" in this instance. I don't know if I favour inclusion of the rumours or not.
I can, however, shed a bit of light on material in the public domain from the respectable press:
(i) Globe and Mail, 22 January 2002, A4 (referenced by Homey above - this was before the Gallant incident)
Then there is his flamboyant personal life. He doesn't believe that the stories that circulated in the mid-1990s about his homosexuality kept him out of cabinet. "I was made Foreign Minister by the Prime Minister," he says when asked about probes into his private life. "I believe I have his support and I have the love and support of my family and my friends."
"People might be interested in that aspect of my private life, but it is not relevant to my performance as a politician," he says.
It is relevant, of course, if it makes him politically vulnerable.
"Absolutely," he agrees. But he says that he is "at total ease with himself and the respect of my family and friends and the Prime Minister who put me here." As for the rest, look to his voting record, he says.
(ii) Canadian Press report, 11 April 2002, 17:22 report
Graham, who has maintained in the past that questions about his personal life aren't relevant to his success as a politician, said Thursday he had not heard the remark.
"I didn't hear what Miss Gallant said, so I'm not going to comment on that," he said outside the House. ``I understand she said something on the other side of the House; that's amongst them."
(iii) National Post, 12 April 2002, A08
In a newspaper interview just after he was appointed Foreign Affairs Minister in January, Mr. Graham was asked about stories from several years ago regarding his homosexuality.
He said it was not "relevant to my performance as a politician."
CJCurrie 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hm, yes, the Globe story is vaguer than I remembered it (though we all know what they are asserting when they say "Then there is his flamboyant personal life".) As well, I don't think any serious newspaper has even gone that far in the past two years. (The Globe reporter also doesn't say "his rumoured homosexuality" but "stories... about his homosexuality"). While we can personally read between the lines I don't think it's wikipedia's job to do so. Given that there hasn't been a clear assertion in the mainstream media about Graham's private life (Sky Gilbert's "The first thing you need to know is that Bill Graham is gay" aside [6] - Sky Gilbert is not a journalist) and as there hasn't even been any hinting in the media about Graham's sexuality since the Gallant episode I think we should not refer to it - at least not until and unless it becomes a public issue or unless he acknowledges it himself the way Ian Scott (finally) did a few years ago. Homey 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to start tacking "allegations" onto Wikipedia articles based on Frank and every nutty thing that gets used as heckling material in the House of Commons, Bearcat, I can't wait to see the Stockwell Day article after it's been subjected to your tender ministrations. -- MattShepherd 15:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that Wikipedia should help the reader who consults Wikipedia because, for example, she has heard the rumors and wonders if they are true. The reader would consult the article and learn that they are not verified. This would be informative to the typical reader. I agree with a standard that rumors must be significant to be reportable in Wikipedia (for example, there are "rumors" that aliens landed in Roswell, New Mexico that Wikipedia reports, even though many people find the rumors ludicrious). I wonder if it would move the debate along to see if we have consensus on the following point:
Then we only have to discover what significant means in order to settle this dispute. I don't see a reason to differentiate among significant rumors.
Harts4Life 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)It appears as if the only real controversy over the allegations exists on this discussion forum, and not in the main media. For the record, I am a Liberal supporter, and didn't actually know about all of this (although I do barely remember the initial incident) until I read it here ... which as far as I'm concerned, is reason enough to not count the allegations as having a significant impact on his political career, nor to treat it as a reportable controversy.
I would certainly oppose including a statement on what someone may have said, at some point, about something that may have happen, at some time, somewhere, based on unsubstantiated rumours, in something that should be an encyclopædic article. However, if there were concensus to proceed [along what I would deem an unfortunate path], then at the very least, such a statement should make the doubts about the reliability of the claims quite clear. In exemplia,
For the record, however, I oppose the inclusion of any such statement. Paradokuso 06:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie contends that references to Graham's advocacy of gay rights constitute "tabloid sensationalism" and are therefore unworthy of mention. My response to that is not to say that Graham’s relationship with the gay community ought to be newsworthy, but rather that perhaps it simply is news, like it or not. If Graham does not want his advocacy efforts made public, he could simply resign from public office and become a private citizen. Not that being a private citizen means one’s advocacy efforts would be ignored (witness Harper and the NCC), but one presumably has a greater claim to privacy when one is not holding and seeking public office. I might add that there seem to be a number of editors here partisan to Graham who would be purging Wikipedia of any reference to, say, Monica Lewinsky were they equally as partisan to Bill Clinton. This purging is exceedingly patronizing to the intelligence of the reader, who can form his or her own judgments about the information, and is making a mockery of Wikipedia’s informative value. Because the gay lobby already knows that Graham is one of theirs, the object of political partisans like CJCurrie is apparently to keep the fundamentalist religious vote in Graham’s camp by keeping that group ignorant about the fact that Graham is highly unlikely to be sympathetic to their values. According to this article, there is not the slightest reason for anyone anywhere to have any issues with Graham. Yet the Vic Toews article is a non-stop litany of “controversies” and “criticisms”. My suggestion to CJCurrie is that you cannot have it both ways. If you want to whitewash the Graham article, then you have to allow that Toews’ article may be similarly whitewashed of all “irrelevancies” and unsubstantiated "allegations", etc etc. What is it going to be? Bdell555 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the "pussy palace" reference was included for reasons other than demonstrating Graham's support for the LGBT community. In any event, I'll reiterate my reasons for the reversion: (i) several politicians on the Toronto left opposed the raid; Graham's view was neither unique nor especially noteworthy, (ii) Graham's statement on the matter was trivial in the context of his career, and (iii) the presentation in the previous edit was clearly one of tabloid sensationalism. Please don't return the text unless you're able to able to respond to all three of these points. CJCurrie 18:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe a compromise can be made. How does...
Graham is considered progressive on social issues, and has represented [If it's pro bono, put that here] a number of causes in Court, including refugee claiments and LBGT rights activists.
It's a valid point, I'd guess, but we shouldn't be specific about every politician/lawyer's cases.
Habsfan
|
t
21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Having known CJCurrie personally I've never known him to be a member of any political party, Liberal or otherwise. Nor do I know of him being a Liberal supporter. Homey 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This section is a stub. You can help JGG out by expanding it. Thanks. -- JGGardiner 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there is a genuine bias about not at least indicating that Mr. Graham is a proponent of a homosexual agenda for Canada, and is well-known to be either a bisexual or homosexual. In response to a article in a gay magazine- Fab, a mainstream weekly magazine, Eye (cit.1,a publication by TorStar),columnist Sky Gilbert wrote on Feb 14 that "the first thing you need to know is that Bill Graham is gay,". This was not done to violate his provacy or reputation, but in his defence against, what he called homophobia. Cit.1 Eye Magazine, February 14, 2002. Other articles on Wikipedia, have indicated possible extramarital affairs of celebrities with far less credible evidence. It appears that the label of homosexual is a item that needs proven factual data, before it is allowed to be printed. Poliscimaj 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC) poliscimaj
This incident is most associated with the RCMP, so what is Foreign Affair's role in this? GoldDragon 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a more accurate citation from the CBC article:
CJCurrie 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Biography is not hagiography, Mr. Currie. It is not for you to intuit what Graham intended. The words he spoke in his last address to Parliament are recorded and history must judge, not you. -- Kibomt 05:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This whole article is a whitewash. Mr Graham could have written it himself. It avoids any controversies, and truths. He has never stated that he is a member of the Anglican Church. His homosexuality is well-known and should be noted. Without the discussion page; nobody would have a clue of who this man is. Shame on the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcorrect12 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps adding a "controversy" section as found on many Wikipedia articles. A national newspaper has written about the prostitution charge, and a homosexual comment by a fellow MP was even mentioned in Parliament. The word alleged can be used. The reason that so many people continue to write on this topic is that there is the feeling this is common knowledge; and at the very least deserves some mention. I do not believe that anyone is trying to "out" someone, but the requirements for proof seem very high. Please address his religious affiliation? Has this been verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcorrect12 ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Due to the strong feelings expressed by many that Mr.Graham is a homosexual from several news articles, comments in the Parliament of Canada and his lack of denial; and the constant refusal to print these "allegations" in the main page,I feel that the editor should identify if she/he has any association with Mr Graham. It is not merely allegations as the editor states of the need to identify a heterosexual as such, but the hypocrisy that people straight or gay disapprove of, and the illegal accusation that Mr. Graham publically hired an underage male prostitute,that was covered my the mainstream press. What proof does this editor require? The comments should and can easily be covered under a controversies section as many inividuals are, with far less supporting evidence. Public officials receive taxpayers money while in office and out of, and are held at a higher level of accountability. If we require 100% verification for anything controversial on a public person; nothing would ever be mentioned. We would never even have heard of PM Mulroney and the Airbus scandal. It is a good thing ths editor does not edit a newspaper, although maybe Pravda would be in her/his style. Who are you and what are your irrational motives? 12.47.191.130 ( talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
To many people reading the question of Mr Graham's alleged homosexuality, and from the numerous evidence provided, one would be a fool to believe he is not; I think the person managing this discussion should disclose their affiliation with Mr Graham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.182.121 ( talk) 00:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Since this deliberation has gone on for years now, regarding Mr Graham's involved in payment for sex, and the editor, clearly has motives, I agree with the previous suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.179.162 ( talk) 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Graham (Canadian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Bit of a conundrum here. Per Bill Graham's autobio, his birth certificate listed his father as Loring Bailey, his mother married F. R. Graham after Bill was born, and Bill only started living with F. R. when he turned four. It follows, then, that Bill's birth name must have been William Carvel Bailey, not William Carvel Graham. But nothing says this outright— not even his autobio.
So what to do? Do we leave Graham as his birthname, even though it wasn't, to match how no source really talks about this? Is it fair to infer his birth name from the information we have? Or can any primary source be used to confirm? I mention this last one because I actually found a mention in the British Columbia Gazette of one William Carvel Bailey changing his name to William Carvel Graham, and used that to source his name… before worrying that constituted original research and self-reverting. I would appreciate any input from others on what to do here. — Kawnhr ( talk) 05:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think this paragraph should be added. I think if it is not, this article is very clear example of Liberal/left-wing bias and should be classified as not being NPOV.
The Frank article alleges that Graham was involved in the gay sex trade. And he engaged in this activity as a married man with two children. Lawrence Metherel, a former teen male prostitute, has long ago disclosed that he had a sexual relationship with Graham dating back to 1980, when Metherel was 15 years old. In a recent interview with a Canadian magazine, Metherel said that, for 15 years, Graham provided him with regular support payments of up to $1,500 a month. [1] anon9:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe somebody should actually Google (name removed). There are over 200 links. I think this counts as proof that Bill Graham was involved in the gay sex trade.
Oh Bearcat, by the way, a Dipper is just a Liberal in a hurry.
The author of this article is obviously biased, and until there is video footage or an admittance, it will never me mentioned here. It easily be added to a section that in titled ``Controversial``. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.15.156 ( talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
When he passes away, the liberal biased media will let the cat out of the bag. FactsAre Everything ( talk) 16:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I know this sounds confusing, but according to today's reports, while Graham has become interim parliamentary leader of the party, and Leader of the Opposition, he is not the interim Leader of the Liberal Party; the leader for now remains Paul Martin. So it is premature to add the Liberal Leaders template unless Martin drops his other duties and makes Graham full interim leader. 23skidoo 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to Talk:Bill Graham to discuss and vote on the requested move. - Jord 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
How quick you guys are
Although "Parliamentary leader" is a common shorthand, I believe that the descriptive template should say "Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons" which is more accurate. -- JGGardiner 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that Graham heads the entire Liberal caucus ie both the House of Commons caucus and the Senate caucus that he is the leader of the Liberals in parliament, not just in the House of Commons. Homey
A total lack of reference to Graham's strongly alleged homosexuality seems inappropriate. Would the following statement, placed at the end of his personal history, be acceptable: "Graham has neither confirmed nor denied his alleged homosexuality"
The article says that he grew up in Vancouver and Montreal. It also says that he went to Upper Canada College which happens to be in Toronto. Did he "grow up" in all three? -- JGGardiner 07:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What does the "D.U." post-nomial listed stand for?
Bill Graham received a Doctorate in Law from the University in Paris. He studied there, it is not an honourary degree. Dunstanramsey 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. User:HistoryBA originally removed any reference to the gay rumours from this article, stating that their inclusion or exclusion should be discussed on the talk page. So they were discussed, and while the number of participants wasn't exactly overwhelming, the discussion ended a month ago with a slight preference in favour of inclusion. Now another user readded the material, again in about as NPOV way as possible, and User:HistoryBA again reverted that, again stating that their inclusion or exclusion should be discussed on the talk page (as if they hadn't already been). No offense against anyone, but since this dispute looks like it can't be resolved by the current participants, I'm taking it to RFC. Bearcat 23:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Like Malcolm Forbes, it’s the worst kept secret in Toronto. The elites are hypocrites in protecting their own. FactsAre Everything ( talk) 16:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it appropriate or inappropriate for Graham's article to mention and/or discuss the existence of rumours about his sexual orientation?
Background: in the early 1990s, the Canadian gossip magazine Frank published allegations that Graham had a sexual relationship with a youngish man. Although Graham has never publicly acknowledged the rumours, they've never quite died out — in 2002, an opposition MP, Cheryl Gallant, heckled Graham in the House of Commons by shouting "Ask your boyfriend!" at him.
No editor in good standing is seriously suggesting that we should treat the rumours as proven fact — but there is a dispute as to whether this article should even acknowledge their existence at all. I'm of the opinion that as long as the matter is addressed in a neutral and careful way, the matter should be discussed in this article, because it's entirely relevant to the subject and not acknowledging that such rumours exist presents a POV problem, but User:HistoryBA believes that it shouldn't even be hinted at here on the basis that Gallant's comment is only relevant in her article, and that the actual background for her comment isn't relevant anywhere.
HistoryBA also compares this to an earlier situation in which Doug Young called Deborah Grey a "slab of bacon" in the House of Commons, and figures that addressing the gay rumours in Graham's article would be akin to using Grey's article to discuss whether or not Grey is "fat". I find that an invalid comparison, because body type and sexuality aren't even remotely equivalent issues in any way whatsoever, but HistoryBA apparently doesn't believe I've answered it at all.
To be perfectly honest, speaking as a member of Toronto's gay community there's a very tricky balancing act involved here: there's the matter of rumours about his sexual orientation existing on the public record, and the very separate matter of what we know off the record but couldn't post here without violating WP:NOR.
The matter has been unresolvable by the discussion that's taken place so far, so I'm asking for outside input. Bearcat 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I live in Graham's riding and it's pretty much an accepted fact that he's bisexual - I also went to university with John Baird (he was in my "Gael group" and know people who know him today and I have no doubt that he's gay. I wonder if those pushing for inclusion of the allegations of Graham's bisexuality also favour the inclusion in the John Baird article of allegations (with Frank as citation) that Baird is gay? BTW, if we do state that Graham is bisexual (or that there are rumours he hasn't denied that attest to this) we should not refer to the callboy story nor should we be sensationalistic about Graham's sexuality. I seem to recall the Globe & Mail mentioned it in passing in a profile they did of him several years ago (before 2002), if we can find that I'd be far more comfortable referencing that then Frank or Sky Gilbert ( Now Magazine once wrote that Keith Norton is well endowed [5]- don't see a push for including that in his biography. Homey 00:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would simply reccomend referencing the Frank story if and only if the Gallant remark is to be included, because that story is a necessary component to understand the context of the remark. And even if referenced, the nature of the magazine should definatly be noted first. Otherwise, I don't think any other statement involving rumours surrounding Graham's sexuality should be included, unless they're in a serious or at least semi-serious newspaper. I know a few things around this area that are "understood", but they shouldn't be in factual articles that depend on verification of sources. Habsfannova 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been silent on this discussion until now, primarly due to the fact that I haven't been certain which side to support. As a general rule, I believe we should respect the privacy of public figures who choose to keep their sexual identities private, even when said information is an open secret (I've removed several references to John Baird's sexuality, for instance, even though the accuracy of the information has never been called into question -- it's simply a matter of ensuring privacy and avoiding tabloid sensationalism).
The situation with Graham is a grey area, in that (i) he didn't volunteer the information, and has not publicized it, but (ii) it has nevertheless been discussed in public forums. Whether or not it's "relevant" is still unclear, and I'm not even certain what standard could be used to determine "relevance" in this instance. I don't know if I favour inclusion of the rumours or not.
I can, however, shed a bit of light on material in the public domain from the respectable press:
(i) Globe and Mail, 22 January 2002, A4 (referenced by Homey above - this was before the Gallant incident)
Then there is his flamboyant personal life. He doesn't believe that the stories that circulated in the mid-1990s about his homosexuality kept him out of cabinet. "I was made Foreign Minister by the Prime Minister," he says when asked about probes into his private life. "I believe I have his support and I have the love and support of my family and my friends."
"People might be interested in that aspect of my private life, but it is not relevant to my performance as a politician," he says.
It is relevant, of course, if it makes him politically vulnerable.
"Absolutely," he agrees. But he says that he is "at total ease with himself and the respect of my family and friends and the Prime Minister who put me here." As for the rest, look to his voting record, he says.
(ii) Canadian Press report, 11 April 2002, 17:22 report
Graham, who has maintained in the past that questions about his personal life aren't relevant to his success as a politician, said Thursday he had not heard the remark.
"I didn't hear what Miss Gallant said, so I'm not going to comment on that," he said outside the House. ``I understand she said something on the other side of the House; that's amongst them."
(iii) National Post, 12 April 2002, A08
In a newspaper interview just after he was appointed Foreign Affairs Minister in January, Mr. Graham was asked about stories from several years ago regarding his homosexuality.
He said it was not "relevant to my performance as a politician."
CJCurrie 01:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hm, yes, the Globe story is vaguer than I remembered it (though we all know what they are asserting when they say "Then there is his flamboyant personal life".) As well, I don't think any serious newspaper has even gone that far in the past two years. (The Globe reporter also doesn't say "his rumoured homosexuality" but "stories... about his homosexuality"). While we can personally read between the lines I don't think it's wikipedia's job to do so. Given that there hasn't been a clear assertion in the mainstream media about Graham's private life (Sky Gilbert's "The first thing you need to know is that Bill Graham is gay" aside [6] - Sky Gilbert is not a journalist) and as there hasn't even been any hinting in the media about Graham's sexuality since the Gallant episode I think we should not refer to it - at least not until and unless it becomes a public issue or unless he acknowledges it himself the way Ian Scott (finally) did a few years ago. Homey 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to start tacking "allegations" onto Wikipedia articles based on Frank and every nutty thing that gets used as heckling material in the House of Commons, Bearcat, I can't wait to see the Stockwell Day article after it's been subjected to your tender ministrations. -- MattShepherd 15:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that Wikipedia should help the reader who consults Wikipedia because, for example, she has heard the rumors and wonders if they are true. The reader would consult the article and learn that they are not verified. This would be informative to the typical reader. I agree with a standard that rumors must be significant to be reportable in Wikipedia (for example, there are "rumors" that aliens landed in Roswell, New Mexico that Wikipedia reports, even though many people find the rumors ludicrious). I wonder if it would move the debate along to see if we have consensus on the following point:
Then we only have to discover what significant means in order to settle this dispute. I don't see a reason to differentiate among significant rumors.
Harts4Life 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)It appears as if the only real controversy over the allegations exists on this discussion forum, and not in the main media. For the record, I am a Liberal supporter, and didn't actually know about all of this (although I do barely remember the initial incident) until I read it here ... which as far as I'm concerned, is reason enough to not count the allegations as having a significant impact on his political career, nor to treat it as a reportable controversy.
I would certainly oppose including a statement on what someone may have said, at some point, about something that may have happen, at some time, somewhere, based on unsubstantiated rumours, in something that should be an encyclopædic article. However, if there were concensus to proceed [along what I would deem an unfortunate path], then at the very least, such a statement should make the doubts about the reliability of the claims quite clear. In exemplia,
For the record, however, I oppose the inclusion of any such statement. Paradokuso 06:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie contends that references to Graham's advocacy of gay rights constitute "tabloid sensationalism" and are therefore unworthy of mention. My response to that is not to say that Graham’s relationship with the gay community ought to be newsworthy, but rather that perhaps it simply is news, like it or not. If Graham does not want his advocacy efforts made public, he could simply resign from public office and become a private citizen. Not that being a private citizen means one’s advocacy efforts would be ignored (witness Harper and the NCC), but one presumably has a greater claim to privacy when one is not holding and seeking public office. I might add that there seem to be a number of editors here partisan to Graham who would be purging Wikipedia of any reference to, say, Monica Lewinsky were they equally as partisan to Bill Clinton. This purging is exceedingly patronizing to the intelligence of the reader, who can form his or her own judgments about the information, and is making a mockery of Wikipedia’s informative value. Because the gay lobby already knows that Graham is one of theirs, the object of political partisans like CJCurrie is apparently to keep the fundamentalist religious vote in Graham’s camp by keeping that group ignorant about the fact that Graham is highly unlikely to be sympathetic to their values. According to this article, there is not the slightest reason for anyone anywhere to have any issues with Graham. Yet the Vic Toews article is a non-stop litany of “controversies” and “criticisms”. My suggestion to CJCurrie is that you cannot have it both ways. If you want to whitewash the Graham article, then you have to allow that Toews’ article may be similarly whitewashed of all “irrelevancies” and unsubstantiated "allegations", etc etc. What is it going to be? Bdell555 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the "pussy palace" reference was included for reasons other than demonstrating Graham's support for the LGBT community. In any event, I'll reiterate my reasons for the reversion: (i) several politicians on the Toronto left opposed the raid; Graham's view was neither unique nor especially noteworthy, (ii) Graham's statement on the matter was trivial in the context of his career, and (iii) the presentation in the previous edit was clearly one of tabloid sensationalism. Please don't return the text unless you're able to able to respond to all three of these points. CJCurrie 18:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe a compromise can be made. How does...
Graham is considered progressive on social issues, and has represented [If it's pro bono, put that here] a number of causes in Court, including refugee claiments and LBGT rights activists.
It's a valid point, I'd guess, but we shouldn't be specific about every politician/lawyer's cases.
Habsfan
|
t
21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Having known CJCurrie personally I've never known him to be a member of any political party, Liberal or otherwise. Nor do I know of him being a Liberal supporter. Homey 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This section is a stub. You can help JGG out by expanding it. Thanks. -- JGGardiner 17:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there is a genuine bias about not at least indicating that Mr. Graham is a proponent of a homosexual agenda for Canada, and is well-known to be either a bisexual or homosexual. In response to a article in a gay magazine- Fab, a mainstream weekly magazine, Eye (cit.1,a publication by TorStar),columnist Sky Gilbert wrote on Feb 14 that "the first thing you need to know is that Bill Graham is gay,". This was not done to violate his provacy or reputation, but in his defence against, what he called homophobia. Cit.1 Eye Magazine, February 14, 2002. Other articles on Wikipedia, have indicated possible extramarital affairs of celebrities with far less credible evidence. It appears that the label of homosexual is a item that needs proven factual data, before it is allowed to be printed. Poliscimaj 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC) poliscimaj
This incident is most associated with the RCMP, so what is Foreign Affair's role in this? GoldDragon 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a more accurate citation from the CBC article:
CJCurrie 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Biography is not hagiography, Mr. Currie. It is not for you to intuit what Graham intended. The words he spoke in his last address to Parliament are recorded and history must judge, not you. -- Kibomt 05:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This whole article is a whitewash. Mr Graham could have written it himself. It avoids any controversies, and truths. He has never stated that he is a member of the Anglican Church. His homosexuality is well-known and should be noted. Without the discussion page; nobody would have a clue of who this man is. Shame on the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcorrect12 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps adding a "controversy" section as found on many Wikipedia articles. A national newspaper has written about the prostitution charge, and a homosexual comment by a fellow MP was even mentioned in Parliament. The word alleged can be used. The reason that so many people continue to write on this topic is that there is the feeling this is common knowledge; and at the very least deserves some mention. I do not believe that anyone is trying to "out" someone, but the requirements for proof seem very high. Please address his religious affiliation? Has this been verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factcorrect12 ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Due to the strong feelings expressed by many that Mr.Graham is a homosexual from several news articles, comments in the Parliament of Canada and his lack of denial; and the constant refusal to print these "allegations" in the main page,I feel that the editor should identify if she/he has any association with Mr Graham. It is not merely allegations as the editor states of the need to identify a heterosexual as such, but the hypocrisy that people straight or gay disapprove of, and the illegal accusation that Mr. Graham publically hired an underage male prostitute,that was covered my the mainstream press. What proof does this editor require? The comments should and can easily be covered under a controversies section as many inividuals are, with far less supporting evidence. Public officials receive taxpayers money while in office and out of, and are held at a higher level of accountability. If we require 100% verification for anything controversial on a public person; nothing would ever be mentioned. We would never even have heard of PM Mulroney and the Airbus scandal. It is a good thing ths editor does not edit a newspaper, although maybe Pravda would be in her/his style. Who are you and what are your irrational motives? 12.47.191.130 ( talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
To many people reading the question of Mr Graham's alleged homosexuality, and from the numerous evidence provided, one would be a fool to believe he is not; I think the person managing this discussion should disclose their affiliation with Mr Graham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.182.121 ( talk) 00:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Since this deliberation has gone on for years now, regarding Mr Graham's involved in payment for sex, and the editor, clearly has motives, I agree with the previous suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.179.162 ( talk) 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Graham (Canadian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Bit of a conundrum here. Per Bill Graham's autobio, his birth certificate listed his father as Loring Bailey, his mother married F. R. Graham after Bill was born, and Bill only started living with F. R. when he turned four. It follows, then, that Bill's birth name must have been William Carvel Bailey, not William Carvel Graham. But nothing says this outright— not even his autobio.
So what to do? Do we leave Graham as his birthname, even though it wasn't, to match how no source really talks about this? Is it fair to infer his birth name from the information we have? Or can any primary source be used to confirm? I mention this last one because I actually found a mention in the British Columbia Gazette of one William Carvel Bailey changing his name to William Carvel Graham, and used that to source his name… before worrying that constituted original research and self-reverting. I would appreciate any input from others on what to do here. — Kawnhr ( talk) 05:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)