Talk:Gavin Newsom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Assess

Resolved

Article lacks depth on accomplishments and status of sf during his term. Also topics are vry brief to be of broad use to readers. Anlace 15:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

2004 Weddings

Resolved

I changed "married" to "issued marriage license". Some same-sex couples had there ceremony by city officials in city hall, some did not. Even today, same-sex couples can have ceremonies in city hall. What they cannot get, regardless of who performs the cermony, is a marriage license.--DaveOinSF 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Links

Resolved

Okay, fine, in the sake of being 'fair' (which is silly considering the guy has 80% approval ratings, an amazing achievement in an extremely democratic and liberal city that disects and re-disects every politician on an almost daily basis...), Do we HAVE to have TWO 'negative' links about him? If we have to keep them to be 'fair' could we at least find two positive ones? Otherwise I just don't see the point of keeping these links which try to smear him as someone who is electioneering his way into office. The links don't really even mention Gonzales who was actual opponent, so how relevant are they?

Sofia

Resolved

Does her nationality REALLY matter THAT much when the page is about Gavin Newsom? (unsigned)

What's with the bullet points?

Resolved

Why was this article re-written using all bullet points? It is more difficult to read and looks amateurish. The article was perfectly fine in its previous format. Can we please restore it to the original version? CagedRage 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What's with the removal of his affairs?

Resolved

They are relevant to his current situation (mentioned in current articles about the Tourk controversy), were covered in major news media (thus meeting WP:BLP and WP:RS), and created controversy relative to his elected position (i.e. Scientology and the city of San Francisco, and the efforts to remove Scientology-sponsored Narconon for San Francisco schools at the time of his relationship with Milos, a Scientology member; condoning underage drinking with Mountz). Therefore, I have reverted the removal. These quotes have also been in the article before and were removed, and I think we need to gather consensus before removing them again. Calwatch 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First, they're not "affiars," since he wasn't married at the time. Second, they didn't create controversy. Dating a scientologist isn't controvesial. Dating a young woman isn't controversial. This is a biography -- stick to the main points. Griot 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They were newsworthy at the time and caused controversy (see above). This is not going to turn into an edit war, but I would like to hear other comments before continuing. Calwatch 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would too. I don't want Wikipedia to become something resembling a gossip sheet. Griot 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think affairs are a big issue in my assessment of a candidate, but if he runs for office again, the issue of having having had an affair with a married woman and betraying the trust of his campaign advisor will obviously become a huge character issue in any future campaigns, so they should be included. I think it amounts to bias NOT to include references to the issue. On the other hand, discussion of an affair clearly shouldn't overshadow his political achievements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gfanslow (talk • contribs) 06:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree. It's no slight on Mr Newsom's considerable political achievements to recognize a moral failing in the same person. It happens. But the goal of the article should be to give a complete picture, to the greatest degree possible. Omitting a substantial matter such as betraying the trust of a close confidant would be a disservice to anyone interested in the man. 69.243.221.227 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A 40 year old mayor dating a 20 year old girl and being seen and photographed with her drinking underage in public isn't noteworthy enough for this article?

Has the mayor's new girlfriend, who is only 20, been drinking? --BillyTFried 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Heading Edit War

Resolved

Griot, is there any chance of you and Hoponpop69 agreeing on a heading for the affairs topic? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Go back to editions of this article dating to last summer. The title has always been "personal life." I think Hopalong's title is bulky and hard to understand. Griot 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because it was called "personal life" several months ago doesn't mean we should keep it that way. The latest revelations about Newsom's life are not just about sex -- they deal with the fact that he betrayed a good friend, and that he had sex with a subordinate who was married to another one of his subordinates (which may or may not constitute sexual harassment -- even consensual relationships between a boss and an employee can turn into harassment after a while.) Secondly, the alcohol abuse scandal calls into serious question Newsom's commitment to his job as Mayor. These revelations are completely different from the Mayor's various girlfriends (scientologists, 19-year-olds, etc.), which I agree could be set aside as purely a "personal" matter. paulhogarth 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Last summer was before the affair was public news, so of course the heading would be different then. The section covers two things his first marriage, and the affair and subsequent revelation of alcoholism. I'd be willing to work on a compromise title, but I feel the title needs to mention the affair.Hoponpop69 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to "Rippey-Tourk affair" in this heading. It makes it sound as though this is a household name or an instance from history, like the XYZ affair. I've attempted a compromise. Hope you like it. Griot 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Controversies" heading seems eminently fair to me. In fact, I'm really puzzled by the neutrality-disputed scare tag there. The paragraph is pure reporting, as far as I can tell. I appreciate an attempt to end the revert war! Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, maybe we should stick the gay wedding stuff in that section? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Because then you'd have to put "Care not cash" in as well. I think the same-sex wedding stuff belong under Social Policy. Griot 19:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this new heading. The only thing is I added the word "personal" in front of controversies as to disambiguate it from political controversies, such as the same sex weddings, which someone mentioned earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Sheesh. After all this we go from "Personal Life" to "Personal Controversies." Moving molehills here. Griot 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because one word is changed, doesn't mean it was a small change.

Actually, I prefer "Rippey-Tourk affair" as this section only deals with that situation, not to the divorce, Brittanie Mountz, Sofia Milos, or any of the notable incidents that were reported in mainstream media about Newsom. Calwatch 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

Resolved

For the record, this is what the "neutrality is disputed tag" is referencing:

In December 2001, Newsom married Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former San Francisco prosecutor and legal commentator for Court TV, CNN, and MSNBC, and who now hosts The Lineup on Fox News Channel. On January 7, 2005, the couple jointly filed for divorce, citing "difficulties due to their careers on opposite coasts." The couple had no children.

After the divorce, Newsom was linked to various women, including actress Sofia Milos and model Brittanie Mountz , who was photographed drinking wine with Newsom while under the legal age to drink alcohol.

On January 31, 2007, Newsom's campaign manager and former deputy chief of staff Alex Tourk, resigned after he confronted the mayor about a sexual affair Newsom had with Tourk's wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk. The affair happened in late 2005 as Newsom was going through a divorce from Guilfoyle, and while Rippey-Tourk worked in Newsom's officeas the mayor's "appointment secretary." Newsom confirmed the affair at a news conference on February 1, 2007. "I hurt someone I care deeply about, Alex Tourk, his friends and family, and that is something that I have to live with and something that I am deeply sorry for."

Until I get some consensus from some more users about adding the other cited affairs in, the neutrality disputed tag stays. (I am alleging an unfair positive bias to Newsom, by omitting notable incidents of his life that were reported in mainstream media.) Calwatch 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the word "affair," with its many seamy connotations, is inflammatory and unfair to Newsom. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid -- a rag that reports on people's "affairs." Futhermore, I believe you are misusing the "disputed" tag. 71.139.27.85 23:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how I am misusing the disputed tag. POV is POV, whether it is positive or negative. The personal lives of politicians are notable, especially when reported in mainstream media, and not in supermarket tabloids (like for celebrities). I will object to the tag's removal until I have a few other people other than Griot and IP addresses making a consensus that these "issues" (how's that for neutrality) or not relevant in understanding Newsom as a person. Calwatch 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Where's the POV? There's no POV here. The question is what to title this section -- or am I missing something? I agree that "affair" doesn't belong in this title. I'd also like to see people who care about this topic and post often about SF and SF political figures weigh in, rather than people who just show up because Newsom is in the news. Griot 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this goes all the way back to when I slapped the disputed tag in the first place, when you deleted the paragraphs above. POV can be introduced by not reporting things, too. Calwatch 03:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion as per the POV as many things are not in the article that should be. Including the resignation of his press secretary "peter". I will elaborate at length later on. PEACETalkAbout 05:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The entry for John_F_Kennedy also remarks about "extramarital dalliances". If anything, the section on Rippey-Tourk could be distilled down to a sentence or two that states unbiased fact.Dautermann 06:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I think the neutrality tag is not quite the appropriate tag. I think the inclusion of his former girlfriends/dates is neither a positive or a negative thing. Honestly, I'm a resident of San Francisco, and there are some people that see his being single and dating as positive and some that see it as negative. I think the mention of specific names is unneccessary, but it is worth noting that he is an unmarried (divorced) mayor with no children. The question is not about neutrality, it's about completeness. 76.21.127.105 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This tag has been here now for almost two months. It's still unclear to me what is disputed here. This paragraph reads like a statement of facts and his well-sourced with references. I'm removing, and I ask that if anyone restores this, he or she give a good reason why it still belongs here. Griot 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

New photo...

Resolved

...looks much better. Smee 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

OK, one yes and awaiting Griot. PEACETalkAbout 02:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial request for resignations

Resolved

Shouldn't Newsom's controversial request for hundreds of city department heads' resignations be included in this article? It's certainly caused quite a stir and has made major headlines. Seems pretty noteworthy to me, no? --BillyTFried 02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No longer Roman Catholic

Resolved

- If WP:RS can be produced to show he isn't then post for reconciling refs. Benjiboi 13:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One cannot be considered Roman Catholic under the circumstances of divorce and remarriage. One cannot divorce or remarry in the Roman Catholic Church, or receive communion. See, for example, http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_rc.htm, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030418/ai_n14547909, and others. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't your job to decide who is or isn't Catholic. IrishGuy ^talk 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. It's papal policy that determines this. And please do adhere to WP:CIVIL and AGF. Thank you! IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised of WP:BLP and WP:OR. Stop adding your own personal interpretation to articles. IrishGuy ^talk 01:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! You are adding your POV, claiming that this person is Roman Catholic. It is not for you to decide. External, objective qualifiers tell us that he is not. See WP:NPOV. Require consensus here. Otherwise, this will end up an edit war.

Wrong. If the article subject considers himself Catholic, it isn't for editors to decide amongst themselves that he isn't. IrishGuy ^talk 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. It isn't editors that "decide" he is or isn't ROMAN Catholic, it is in accordance with papal policy and factual, objective factors. By definition, an individual can't make that "determination." If I consider myself Mick Jagger, but don't qualify to be Mick Jagger, does that in fact render me Mick Jagger? Of course not! In the same way, an individual cannot qualify as a ROMAN Catholic if he and she doesn't qualify. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and NO POV, sir.

{{help}}

Please assist for WP:CIVIL and problems with NPOV and OR. Request protected until dispute is resolved to prevent edit war. See above. Thank you. Again. IgorBlucher (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The {{help}} template is not meant for content disputes, please use {{RFCbio}} if you want outside intervention.--12 Noon ^2¢ 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you 12 Noon. IgorBlucher (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is disputed that the subject of this article is Roman Catholic. IgorBlucher (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsom's Catholic, as proclaimed be Newsom himself, church attendance, SF Chronicle writers. I don't think we can question if someone meets a classification of a category. There are many subjective group identities it would be almost impossible to question all of them and unless there is a large consensus among news media or people. And even then, it should be listed that they identify as Catholic but getting a divorce runs contrary to Catholic beliefs. [[User:calbear22]] (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, the theology of the original poster is incorrect here. Although he is correct in part, in that the Catholic Church doesn't allow divorce and remarriage, in Part II, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 7 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, at In Brief, Line 1665 (can be found at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P57.HTM), the Catholic Church specifically states that, although those who divorce and remarry cannot receive communion, they are NOT separated from the Church. So although Mr. Newsom shouldn't consume a communion wafer, he is still very much a part of the Catholic Church (barring some other circumstance not mentioned here). Theokrat (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2008

Given the weight of evidence that Newsom is Catholic by unbringing and identification, it would require evidence of equal validity to counter that claim. The sources provided by IgorBlucher fail that standard (laughably so, in fact). Drawing a conclusion not supported by verifiable sources is called Original Research, and that's pretty much all I see in Igor's objections. Pairadox (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm. Defines excommunication. Gonzales, a theologian, said a compilation of documentation will be forwarded to Rome within the next few days. Also, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58334: "We're also composing a letter to Neiderauer asking him to excommunicate the group, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, so that this mistake cannot happen again. And we're asking him to excommunicate (San Francisco Mayor)Gavin Newsom and (U.S. House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi for not adhering to Catholic doctrine on same-sex relationships and abortion." You must read the sources. IgorBlucher (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith that I did read the sources (which of course I did). Nowhere does it say in any of them that he is not Catholic, nor does it say that he has actually been nominated for excommunication, whatever that means. They merely report that certain people with opinions plan to express those opinions to church leaders. Not the same, and not compelling enough. Pairadox (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you? Perhaps you missed a lot in the reading. "by unbringing and ["A self-styled “Roman Catholic”, per http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020106.html]identification" isn't the issue. Adding this of interest as well, per http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm: (a) In the case of adultery, a single action, if proven, is enough for permanent separation, but in the case of infidelity or heresy, a certain persistence in the sin is required (cf. St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. xxxv, Q. i, a. 1), such for example as adhesion to a non-Catholic denomination. Does anyone have any references relating to penalties for dressing gay men up as nuns and presenting them for Catholic communion? IgorBlucher (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states this has actually been applied to Newsom in any way? That's really the only relevant question here. Pairadox (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting a document that predates the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and therefore isn't necessarily still valid. As for the POV links you continue to add...they don't state what you claim they say. Once more, read WP:BLP and stop POV pushing. IrishGuy ^talk 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The only "source" you have is an article from October 2005 which states that the some proposed to the Vatican that certain politicians be sanctioned. That was over two years ago. It obviously never happened. Stop. IrishGuy ^talk 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Document that predates current Catechism"??? No, it does not. It's from the current Catholic Encyclopedia! Adultery IS a precursor to separation from the Church. Would you post YOUR sources contrary to that?

The sources I've provided are pertinent, as are many other sources posted on Wikipedia that date back as far or farther than 2005. They certainly indicate excommunication and separation, particularly the controversy surrounding Newsom's religious standing, which is not my POV but papal policy, and mentioned in valid media sources. There is no consensus-- discussions are underway! Also, you appear to be erasing my new section on this controversy. Why? Are you now proposing that the controversy doesn't exist? IgorBlucher (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of your link. It clearly states: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. 1907 predates the current Catechism. Divorce doesn't automatically excommuncate in the current Catholic church. Technically speaking, one should always attend Mass especially on Holy days...but one doesn't get excommuncated for not doing so. It is clear that you think Newsom isn't a good Catholic and most likely not a Catholic at all. That is fine. Unfortunely, your opinion isn't encyclopedic and therefore doesn't belong in the article. IrishGuy ^talk 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem surrounding POV is evidently yours, not mine. The section I posted is derived from the CE article on Adultery, not Divorce. The precepts of 1907 you refer to were unchanged by Vatican II and hence remain applicable. Also, I am proposing a section on the controversy surrounding Newsom's religious standing. I created the section. You erased it. On what grounds? IgorBlucher (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the reasons are listed above as well as in the WP:AN/I thread. You originally clearly stated: One cannot be considered Roman Catholic under the circumstances of divorce and remarriage and you are only changing tact when it was repeatedly pointed out to you that you were incorrect. You haven't provided anything reliable about adultery...you simply keep claiming it. IrishGuy ^talk 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So, from your comments it's apparent that you didn't read my sources carefully, and your POV renders your incorrect. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For one who goes on about civility, you certainly don't adhere to it. Please don't presume to tell me what my opinions are or aren't. I am upholding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Newsom himself is irrelevant to me. I don't live in California. Again, until you can provide reliable sources, and preferably ones that aren't over two years old, there is nothing more to discuss here as there is no controversy. IrishGuy ^talk 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't detect any incivility on my part. "Please don't presume to tell me what my opinions are or aren't." Please take your own advice and afford me the same. "There is no controversy"? I think reading the link below may be of interest. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)There is no controversy over his Catholicism — he has other controversies; i.e. his affair, support for gay marriage, gay/lesbian adoptions etc. --Haemo (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Which are linked to Catholicism. Thank you, excellent summary of these issues pertaining. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't wish to contribute to my new section on this controversy, that is your prerogative, but please try to remain WP:CIVIL. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the fact remains that there is no controversy over his Catholicism. --Haemo (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is, I've provided links that reflect that. And there are others to come. IgorBlucher (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From my reading, your links do not provide the actual conclusion that there is a controversy over his Catholicism; they only indicate that, given a certain construction of the different principles each represents, there are bases on which a controversy might arise. Put more succinctly, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that your construction is the most proper, you're just saying that there COULD, or SHOULD, be a controversy, or alternatively (but note that this is an argument that is entirely distinct) that there WAS one (in 2005); nothing establishes that there remains an ONGOING controversy. And I've yet to see anything that says that the specific remedy for divorce and remarriage outside the Church, as prescribed in the official Catholic Catechism (from the Vatican website, no less), is appropriately disregarded. Theokrat (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See recent article on Clinton campaign. Could you clarify your last remark? I do not understand what you are claiming. Thank you, IgorBlucher (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. You have not provided reliable sources that support a controversy over his Catholicism. You have provided a lot of links about controversies, which are already covered in the article, and tried to synthesize them into one over his religious standing. --Haemo (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If WP:RS states he is a R-C then fine. If a WP:RS disputes that then contrast the two. Benjiboi 13:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benjiboi. It appears that sources state he is a self-proclaimed Irish Catholic. Also, it appears that, due to controversy over his religious activities and standing, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced that she will not accept his endorsement. IgorBlucher (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish Catholic refers to people of Irish descent who are Catholic. It is not a religion, it is a cultural designation; his religion is still Roman Catholic. --Haemo (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Clinton accepted the endorsement and made Newsom part of her campaign. See Newsom might hurt.. and the sources linked to the intro of the page. I think we should keep him as Roman Catholic. I don't think Newsom meant he was Irish Catholic when he said it. The attached article sources him as Roman Catholic. RELIGION.... I'd be interested in seeing what other people have to say.User:calbear22 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish Catholics are Roman Catholic; look at our own article on the subject, for instance. --Haemo (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually had read our own article. At one point, it says that there at one time was a difference in ceremonies. We should stick with Roman Catholic. There isn't a Irish Catholic Pope. It's not as if it is a different religion that has broken away User:calbear22 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Resolved

I propose a subsection under controversies surrounding Newsom's religious standing, and actions involved in these controversies. Editors help on this are welcome. So far, GHits, "Gavin Newsom affair", 24,600, "Gavin Newsom Adultery," 12,100, "Gavin Newsom Catholic controversy," 20,400, "Gavin Newsom gay nuns", 71,300, such as http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/09/MNQRTM37Q.DTL&type=politics. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to post a draft here before putting it in the article. And do try to make sure it's accurate this time, or it will be deleted again for violating WP:BLP. Pairadox (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it was accurate the first time. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not when it claimed that "Newsom guided gay men dressed as nuns to holy Communion." Not when it said "Discussions of his excommunication and subsequent separation from the Catholic Church are in progress." And not in the sources, none of which mention his affair or pending remarriage in connection to any potential church sanctions. Hmmm, that pretty much invalidates the entire paragraph. But go ahead, write another draft. I'm interested to see how you try to present your POV next. Pairadox (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And don't use the Google Test for things like that. It's well documented that he's had an affair; you can find numerous reliable sources attesting to it. However, I'm not sure if that has any specific relevancy to his religious standing, and can't find any sources to attest to it. --Haemo (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Google is a great test for determining significance of an issue. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Especially when your search terms are so broad as to provide no insight into which issue is being examined. --01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The search terms are actually quite specific. See below, proposed subsection. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, one can find sources from as little as a year ago stating that he is still a Catholic. --Haemo (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversies are the issue here. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I propose a subsection under controversies surrounding Newsom's religious standing, and actions involved in these controversies. Editors help on this are welcome. So far, GHits, "Gavin Newsom affair", 24,600, "Gavin Newsom Adultery," 12,100, "Gavin Newsom Catholic controversy," 20,400, "Gavin Newsom gay nuns", 71,300, such as http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/09/MNQRTM37Q.DTL&type=politics. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No way. This is just a POV religious sentiment, not a real controversy. Even if some people actually feel this way, it is utterly trivial in connection to his overall notability. He is a significant political figure who, though wildly popular, has his detractors. If we give space to every fundamentalist religious group that has a beef with every liberal politician all of our articles would sink under the assault. Wikidemo (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't wish to contribute to the new section on this controversy, that is your prerogative, but please try to remain WP:CIVIL. Statements like "He is a significant political figure who, though wildly popular," and "If we give space to every fundamentalist religious group that has a beef with every liberal politician all of our articles would sink under the assault" is disputable POV and unproductive. "our" includes those contributors like myself. "Even if some people actually feel this way, it is utterly trivial in connection to his overall notability" is false. See the December 9, 2007 edition of the SF Gate. IgorBlucher (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an actual proposal for discussion or has this already devolved into a "Yes it is," "No it's not" quagmire? Pairadox (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will create a subsection on the controversies surrounding Newsom's religious standing and related activities. You are welcome to contribute if you wish. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be very helpful to discuss the proposed subsection with editors interested in contributing. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You have still not provided any reliable sources showing there is a controversy over his religious standing. Until you can provide them, this isn't going to go anywhere. --Haemo (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be very helpful to discuss the proposed subsection with editors interested in contributing. IgorBlucher (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. Got anything real to contribute? Pairadox (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in contributing, and it's not particularly polite to state that I am not. However, I don't think think there's anything here to contribute towards since there has been a total absence of any demonstration that there is a controversy over the issue of his religious standing. --Haemo (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit and the edit summary illustates his desire to work within the community. IrishGuy ^talk 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the top google hits for the "google test" actually connect Newsom with any sort of controversy concerning nuns or his religion. The words appearing in the same text can mean nothing. If you read the link to the article given, there is no evidence of a controversy. I did a 25 page research paper of Gavin Newsom for a class, and there isn't a religious or gay nun controversy. Now what might be worth adding to the article is how people outside San Francisco associate Gavin Newsom with the city. When people think of Gavin Newsom, they think of gay culture, gay marriage, and the gay nun incident although that's not him.

An example of something that might also be worth adding is Newsom's gay porn day proclamation Policy changing after gay porn studio lauded. In San Francisco, this was hardly controversial, but Bill O'Reilly and some national media and "traditional" family types were critical. Still, this goes more to how some national media see Newsom then to any actual controversy, and the information was obtained be reading the source, not counting google hits which is just silly, quite frankly. Usually, we consider something to be controversial if a large number of people, like 90% believe it is wrong on some higher principle. Cheating on someone's wife is universally considered wrong. So would something like embezzling money. Those that disagree with the gay porn day proclamation or any other gay issue are having a political disagreement on an issue, but that doesn't make it controversial. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't like calling a section controversies because it is not POV. [[User:calbear22]] (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose such a section, based on the premises of Catholic violations leaving him no longer catholic, as there continues to be a dearth, nay, a bare cupboard, of reliable sources for any excommunications, or personal abandonments of faith, and so on and on. This continues to appear to be one editor against all others. For clarity, I came here to check up on this after the AN/I thread, and I continue to oppose the inclusion of IgorBLucher's SYNTH conclusions. When the catholic church says he's gone, we can include it. Until then, one lay-person's reading of the scriptures and codicils and so on and so on doesn't really amount to anythign here. ThuranX (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't Gavin Newsom Sucks.com listed as an external link?

Resolved

There's no mention of the Gavin Newsom Sucks.com [[1]] blog that not only captures the San Francisco spirit combined with this new chapter of Rich Interet Applications for the common man (low cost blogging), but more importantly chronicles the Mayor's transormation from adultry and rehab to a landslide re-election. —Preceding Dean Barbella comment added by 71.202.46.213 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, this isn't the place for your rant against Newsom; use the blog itself for that. Second, blogs aren't allowed per WP:EL. Third, a few hundred posts is really pretty insignificant. Pairadox (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood - No blogs. By the way: blogs by definiton are biased; yet, my request for a listing is hardly a rant.

For the record and as I had explained, the Gavin Newsom Sucks.com blog is a Pro-Newsom site see the About Page [[2]].

Addtionally, a few hundred posts about one man over eight months is more than sufficient to justify the Gavin Newsom Sucks.com blog as the most comprehensive source for Gavin Newsom related content. If we posted any more frequently, the quality of information and admittedly entertainment would suffer.

POV Article

I have been reviewing this article for some time. I still cannot fathom how this attained "Good Article" status. For example, one of the very first claims made in the article is that, regarding Newsom's instructions on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples to the county clerk:

"The unexpected move brought national attention to the issues of gay marriage and gay rights, solidifying political support for Newsom in San Francisco and in the gay community, and causing several other states to change their laws concerning marriage and gay rights."

This is given not one, but TWO citations. However, upon thorough examination of the sources, I can find NO claims by these authors that Newsom's actions "caused several other states to change their laws." These citations should be removed/replaced, and I would argue the entire statement should be re-written to be grounded in NPOV, verifiable, fact.

The fact is that this action was a political stunt, as evidenced by its utter futility. To add my own commentary, if Newsom cared at all for gay marriage, he would have worked towards a voter referendum, rather than making an inconsequential mayoral declaration well outside his authority (a fact he well knew).

Barney Frank, in the following article, suggests that Newsom's actions have been counterproductive: http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/?id=752&IssueNum=41

The entire article needs major revision. I am prepared to work on removing invalid citations, and adding verifiable information to contribute to the NPOV nature of the article. Can someone point me in the right direction for advice as to how wikipedia recommends dealing with citations that don't support the statements they are attached to? Marshaul (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing of the line in question is accurate. The two citations provide support for all but the last part of the sentence (which is what you seemed interested in), which could use another source. Imagen three sources for one sentence. There are lots of sources I could find and I'll find one later today. Several other states did change their laws as a response to the same sex weddings in 2004. Those changes included civil union legislation and propositions that defined marriage as between a man and a women. Frank's criticism is actually noted in the article, though it is possible that another sentence might be added under the section concerning same sex weddings.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Joanna Newsom

Should there be any mention of his relation to Joanna Newsom , or no? 63.215.29.177 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

An extended discussion of his ancestry and family is in the article"Gavin Newsom" at http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Gavin_Newsom Wjhonson (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An article in The New Yorker claims Gavin Newsom and Joanna Newsom are distant cousins. See String Theory by Sasha Frere-Jones December 4, 2006 - [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.46.213 (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

• Mayors Against Illegal Guns homepage
• From Modest Beginnings, Newsom Finds Connections for Business, Political Success – a portrait of Newsom in the December 7, 2003 San Francisco Chronicle.
• William Newsom's connections to the Getty fortune – Peter Byrne, SF Weekly, April 2, 2003
• June 27, 2006 County to study universal health care
• "Gavin Newsom: The First Year" – from the San Francisco Chronicle, January 2, 2005
• Newsom reflects on 4 years of ups and downs as election approaches
• NEWSOM'S PORTFOLIO Mayoral hopeful has parlayed Getty money, family ties and political connections into local prominence
• SAN FRANCISCO Former Parking Chief Finds He's Been Towed

The above links should be converted to refs or simply archived for reference but WP:EL is pretty clear that besides official links, external links should only be there to add to the reader's understanding of the subject if the article was written to FA status with few exceptions. Some of these seem more appropriate to cite in the article anyway. Benjiboi 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We just need someone to go through all the work to do that.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Without Dealing with Newsom's practice of running the city as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, this article is simply a whitewash.

As the article now stands, it simply ignores many of the controversial issues of his tenure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Catholic v Roman Catholic

Re: this edit summary; The connection is that he attended mass at a Roman Catholic church. Not an Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican, Old Catholic Church, Polish National Catholic Church, the Independent Catholic, Ancient Catholic, Liberal Catholic Church, Lutherans, High Church Anglican, Neo-Lutheran, or High Church Lutheran, the other denominations mentioned at Catholic. I think's it's apparent from the extended discussion above that you don't feel Newsom to be Roman Catholic; that's your right. But the article needs to be based on reliable sources, and all sources indicate that he is Roman Catholic. Pairadox (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Attending mass at a Roman Catholic church is not indicative of one's being Roman Catholic. Sources (see refs) state he is "Irish Catholic or "Catholic." Finally, please remember to remain civil and WP:AGF. Thank you, IgorBlucher (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish Catholics are Roman Catholic — this fact should be obvious, but here's a source which explicitly states that he "is of Irish Roman Catholic descent". Here's yet another reference which states "This isn't the first time Newsom, a practicing Roman Catholic, has gone up against the church." Or perhaps this source, which states "Newsom, a practicing Roman Catholic". It's simply false to state that he's not a Roman Catholic. --Haemo (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the refs, Haemo. I've replaced one of the previous ones with one you provided so there can be no doubt any more. Pairadox (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing sources, we want to be as accurate as possible. As I mentioned, the previous ones reflect "Irish Catholic" or "Catholic". Also, the links you've presented will be useful for the controversy section.

I'm afraid you are misinformed, "Irish Catholic" does not necessarily indicate "Roman Catholic." In a rich and detailed history, certain Irish and Irish-American Catholics deliberately diverged from the Church of Rome. You may find this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Catholic, and this, http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-99817/Catholic-Emancipation, a helpful start. As for Mr. Newsom being "Roman Catholic," many refer to Mr. Newsom as a "self-proclaimed Catholic." It is a subject of debate.

I hope you both will remember to remain civil and AGF in the future. Thank you, IgorBlucher (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The references I've just posted clearly state that he is a Roman Catholic. The articles you've linked state "Irish Catholics [are] people of Roman Catholic background" — for instance, the newspaper "The Irish Catholic" is a Roman Catholic newspaper. There are wide variety of academic sources which explain that Irish Catholics are Roman Catholics — for instance:

• The Politicization of the Irish Catholic Bishops, 1800-1850, Oliver MacDonagh, The Historical Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1. (Mar., 1975), pp. 37-53.
• Recent Characteristics of Roman Catholic Fertility in Northern and Southern Ireland, John Coward, Population Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1. (Mar., 1980), pp. 31-44.
• Socialism and Catholicism in Ireland, Emmet Larkin, Church History, Vol. 33, No. 4. (Dec., 1964), pp. 462-483.

You have not demonstrated that it is a source of debate at all, or that when the writers of those stories used the terms "Irish Catholic" or "Catholic" that they mean anything other than Roman Catholic. Also, I have been perfectly civil throughout this entire discussion — I would prefer it if you didn't remind me to "remember" to do something which I have already been doing. --Haemo (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the story writers' meanings. I responded to your post, "Irish Catholics are Roman Catholic; this fact should be obvious." The links I've posted support that your statement is incorrect. Personally I found "this fact should be obvious" a bit condescending- which I find uncivil- and inappropriately so, in light of the fact that you are mistaken. I'm happy to hear that being uncivil is not your intention. And from your post, ""This isn't the first time Newsom, a practicing Roman Catholic, has gone up against the church," I believe many would refer to someone going "up against the church" as controversial, which, by definition, means "dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. Thank you, IgorBlucher (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Brittanie Mountz

There appears to be some dispute about whether Newsom's relationship with Mountz should be mentioned in this article. This was discussed previously with no clear consensus. I do agree that it could be reworded to avoid infringing on WP:BLP, but it should still be mentioned in the article. It was a source of significant controversy both locally and nationally. - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As the original editor who added the information concerning the relationship with Mountz, I believe the information should remain in the article. The SF Chronicle is an established major media source. The story attained national attention. The well sourced allegation that he might have provided her with alcohol is a fact that should also be included. There is a possibility that this allegation could resurface in future political campaigns. Well sourced gossip should be included in Wikipedia.User:calbear22 (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It should not be included as written. Nothing in the source indicates that he provided her with wine, only that she was holding a wine glass in his presence. And Matier and Ross are as much gossip as political reporters, more akin to Herb Caen than Walter Cronkite. Pairadox (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should remain, citing the Chronicle article. We cannot micro-analyze reporters, that would be a never-ending debate. The Chronicle is a reliable source, even when they lie. Truth is not the basis of Wikipedia, verifiability is. And this passes.Wjhonson (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

True about verifiability, it was more to get Herb Caen's name mentioned. :) But I hope you'll agree that the line "promoting speculation that he had provided alcohol to Mountz" is not supported by either of the sources listed here. Pairadox (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I trust you'll find a moderate way of addressing that instead of simply removing the entire section :) I know how moderate you can be if you want to....Wjhonson (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a spurious allegation and I demand that you provide diffs to back it up. Seriously, what about just ending it at "where she appeared to be holding a wine glass." The only other way to correct it is to move "that he had provided alcohol to Mountz" to the denial from Newsom's people, although I think that gives too much weight to the whole affair (whoops, not the best choice of wording for anything related to Newsom). Pairadox (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I should never have stated that you could be moderate. I deserve a severe trout-whacking. Why not simply quote the newspaper article? That would probably be sufficient to guarentee both that we're repeating it as they said it, and that we're only re-stating what they stated.Wjhonson (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess that would be the second option I outlined. Making the changes now... Pairadox (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I wasn't trying to be biased with the wording. The quote allows readers to read between the lines of the quote if they like.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me as well. Of course, if anyone has any other suggested wordings, feel free to be bold and give it a go. - Maximusveritas (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I think this article might be worthy of elevating to good article status. If there is anything anyone can do to improve the article, please do it or leave the suggestion. I would like to nominate the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To the reviewer: unless the flaws are large, please put the article on hold. I'll address your concerns.User:calbear22 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm don't think this is technically within the GA criteria, but the inline citations could use a lot of work. Citations to newspaper articles that consist merely of the headline and a link, in my view, are not sufficient. I generally use templates like {{cite news}}, which is of course not required; but getting the reporter's name, the name of the publication, and the publication date in there are, in my view, the minimum elements to a complete citation. Keep in mind that articles may, and often do, disappear from the web; enough information that allows someone to look up an article in a library or other print archive is therefore pretty critical. I can help with some of this, but there's a whole lot to do. -Pete (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: I'm not familiar with Newsom, but it would seem from the body of the article that his personal life has received a fair amount of media coverage: the "New Kennedys" thing, divorce from a high-profile wife, dating young models, etc. Seems worthy of a passing mention of the article lead, which presently covers only his political career. -Pete (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Better citations would be a nice improvement. We don't need to worry about the sfgate articles, most of the pages sources, going any where because the links never go bad.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken, WP:CITE is actually part of the GA criteria. As to whether the links go bad, it's great to know that they don't currently have a policy of expiring articles, but we can't know whether that will hold in the future. A private organization can change its policy at any time. I see that you would prefer to fix problems rather than have the article failed, so I'll leave it at that for now; but this is something that would need to be fixed before the article gets to GA. -Pete (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation issues have been addressed.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination? Ha! This article is an almost completely one-sided wet-kiss of a highly controversial public/political figure. How about a little more meat to the criticism section, specifically about this screw-ups much despised "sanctuary city" policies in San Francisco and the citizens outraged by his shielding of murderers and gangbangers from federal prosecution, widow/activist Danielle Bologna, for one. Not everyone loved Gavin, and you'd never know it from this article.

-TROY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.175.249 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are frowned upon per WP:STRUCTURE. WP:NPOV dictates that criticism should be included in the most relevant subheading. Any such criticism must conform with WP:NPOV and have reference to show verifiability. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor dispute over relation to Pelosi

The line: "Newsom is a relative, by marriage, of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi" from | title=S.F.'s New Supervisor -- Bold, Young Entrepreneur was removed because Nunh-huh said it was vague. I had deleted a footnote explaining the relation by marriage because the footnote was not sourced. I contend that the current sentence is not too vague and should be readded. Any one have suggestions or solutions to this minor dispute?User:calbear22 (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's too vague. The actual situation, explained in the footnote, is that Newsom's aunt (his father's sister), Barbara Newsom, married (and divorced) Ronald Pelosi, brother of Nancy (d'Alesandro) Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi. That's a far different idea than anyone would imagine for "relative by marriage". Most people reading "relative by marriage" would imagine a much less tenuous, less complex, and less distant relationship (like brother-in-law). Either the full explanation should be given, or the misleading gloss of the facts should be left out. I'll add the actual facts back. - Nunh-huh 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including the information in a footnote, but the information needs to be sourced, and it currently is not sourced. You sourced the information with a source that doesn't claim what you saying. You need a citation to back it up. Adding quote marks violated WP:NPOV because you are passing judgement on the closeness of their relationship in the text.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Where I come from, quote marks indicate that you're quoting someone. And no, I didn't source the information with a source, so don't claim I used a false citation where I used none. I'll now revise again. - Nunh-huh 00:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am okay with it now. I'm a little concerned about the article placement now considering it is a detailed account of a trivial matter that was briefly listed before. I'll probably move the detail to the early life section later and expand the final paragraph in the introduction with other details. Don't be alarmed if the sentence is moved later.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Try not to replace specifics with an inaccurate and misleading summary. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of your comments aren't in the spirit of WP:Civil. Your edits, prior to finding a source, where not WP:NPOV or WP:Verifiable. The inaccurate and misleading summary you speak of was not inaccurate or misleading because they were sourced, direct wording from S.F.'s New Supervisor -- Bold, Young Entrepreneur. The only reason why I have agreed to leave the sentence as is, instead of putting what was originally there and moving the added detail to a note or another section, is to appease you. On the facts of the matter and Wikipedia policy, there is no reason to question the validity of the SF Chronicle article which claims they are "relatives by marriage."User:calbear22 (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

People who lobby to retain inaccurate summaries instead of accurate facts are not working to improve the article. There is no system of kinship in which "my aunt married and divorced your brother-in-law" confers kinship. A cited inaccurate statement is still inaccurate. "Newsom is related by marriage to Pelosi" is a factoid, not a fact, and has no place in the article. - Nunh-huh 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Light bulb! The aunt and the brother in law mostly likely divorced in the years between the two sources. We can't make that claim for sure because that would constitute a WP:Original research. The sourced statement of "relatives by marriage" had to stand until you found a source that contradicted it. Seeing that the one you found is more recent, it is probably more accurate. We'll just go with the more recent source and forget that they were relatives by marriage.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary GA review

1. Is there a better way to reorganize/incorporate the two separate sections on his term as Mayor? Could the two be merged into an umbrella section? After all, the first section is much longer than the second, and the second section only has a few sentences worth of new info.
2. External links violate MOS: the last two do not give information that could not be found or incorporated within the wikipedia article itself. The link to Newsom's campaign is of doubtful POV.
3. Should there be more treatment of his involvement in the Clinton campaign and/or of his own gubernatorial aspirations? On the other hand, since these two events are ongoing news events, this would disrupt the stability of the article...

--Malachirality (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Early Life

This prose in this section is often short and choppy, and on occasion includes seemingly out-of-place factoids (ex. "Newsom has been spotted at Giants games"). Most importantly, however, the section is completely illogical--why does grade school come after high school? I think this section could use some subsections: childhood, UC Santa Clara, entrepreneuship (which could even be a separate section). Also, parts of this section seem weak, and may need further development (especially college and post-college, which are often important in political development). Of special note is the pre-political entrepreneurship section (occupations/careers before politics are usually important enough to merit a separate section).

---

More details on mayoral section:

having taken a look at the pages of other politicians, notably John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, I would suggest fixing some stuff.

1. Combine both mayor sections in one titled "Mayor of San Francisco", in which you describe the notable actions, events, and characteristics that define his mayoralty. All subsections on policy positions should be moved to a separate section titled "Political positions". The same-sex marriage thing should, as it is, be a major subsection of the Mayor section.
2. Move the subsection on the 2003 election out of "early political career" and either into an independent section, or into a subsection of the Mayor SF section. The 2003 run is not "early politics", it is part of his main political career. Then you will also not have to use subsections for the "Early political career" section.

--Malachirality (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on merging the first and second terms together. I disagree with you in thinking the second term section doesn't have any new information, but I will rename it something else. I was concerned about that issue too before the review. The external link policy states before listing those links to be avoided: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject." Non of the external links violate that policy. See WP:External links. I took care of many of your concerns with the early life section, but dividing that section into subsections would violate Wikipedia's guidelines, WP:Layout, which doesn't approve of short sections. It might be worth developing the entrepreneurship info further, but much of the information that would be added would only be details to what is already there, maybe something to push the article towards featured article status but not enough to prevent it from becoming a good article (in my view). The involvement with the Clinton campaign hasn't made any headlines beyond what is mentioned in this article. He was present at the California Presidential Debate, but that's not really that important. His potential run for Governor is only in the early talking to advisors stage, as was mentioned in the lead. As more information is made available, it will have its own section. As for a policy position section, almost all of what is listed in the article under the Mayorship category is action and events. If Newsom goes on to become Governor or Senator, then this section will perhaps need to be reconsidered, perhaps another page concerning the positions will need to created. Until then, I think the current format works from my view of things. I would be interested in getting a second opinion on the format of the Mayor section as I'm haven't dealt with this issue very often. Thank you for taking a look at the article. I appreciate your comments.User:calbear22 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a really big article on his business career and I'm working on adding its content to the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll put the article on hold, and we'll see where we are in a week. And I'll concede the points above to you. --Malachirality (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

An overall excellent article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some of the prose IMO would need tweaking for FAC, particularly a section in the second paragraph of "early life" where a spate of simple sentences becomes a little monotonous.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Remember that captions which are not complete sentences should not end in periods.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations on all of your work and on writing an excellent article. It was a pleasure to read and review.

--Malachirality (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

How did this attain Good Article status?

This article is in no way NPOV. The entire thing is a list of accomplishments with an overtone of praise, and the criticisms section is a joke, ignoring half of the serious criticisms that have been levied against the man. Furthermore, including the part about the COLT Studio Group makes it seem as though the whole section is there for the sole purpose of giving the impression that there isn't any serious criticism against him outside of standard partisan name-calling.

There are numerous attempts to subtly credit him for things he couldn't have accomplished, despite obvious violation of Correlation does not imply causation.

Why is this allowed to persist? Verifiability is great, but who decided wikipedia should be a forum for any political viewpoint? As I recall the object is neutrality above all. Marshaul (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved this section to the bottom to follow typical time order of talk page discussion. The criticism section is not the only section where questionable things about Newsom are listed. Wikipedia frowns on criticism sections, so the information concerning counter evidence is listed throughout the article. Some questionable things such as (but not limited to) disputed economic growth, homicide increases, expensive staff hiring, and his affair are listed. Wikipedia is suppose to be a listing of the facts without viewpoint. The majority of this article is a listing of facts without viewpoint.User:calbear22 (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In truth, I think the NPOV issue isn't as serious as the multiple minor errors scattered everywhere. There is this location which has a double space instead of singe, a sentence missing a subject, a ref tag in an inappropriate location...its horrible. Those minor errors need to be fixed.

On the other hand, this article isn't praising him in any way. It depends on how you look at it: the SF public praised him for initiating Gay rights, etc, while the conservatives did not. Same with harboring illegal immigrants. The article in no way implies that it supports his methods, but merely saying that he did them. Everything is perfectly cited, and there is a lengthy section about controversy and criticism, which is especially harsh. I read the entire "Mayoralty" section and found absolutely nothing wrong. --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a glowing tone throughout the article (hint: "gained attention" is not actually a neutral way of saying he did something controversial), and very few critical comments have survived the deletion of the "Criticism" section (I love these made up rules "wikipidia frowns on criticism sections"). How did this get a "Good Article" rating? Answer: political flacks cared more about manipulating it than liberal activists cared about correcting it. One is paid for their time, the other volunteers... and as far as we're concerned here in SF, Newsom is termed out, so why bother with him? -- Doom (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Front group"

The whole Church of Scientology is a front group is a debatable point. Personally, I completely agree that the Commission on Human Rights is a front group for the Church of Scientology, but we can't take a side on the issue. Even the Commission on Human Rights page states that degree of link between the two groups is debatable. There were several other problems with the edit which stated that the Commission on Human Rights is a front group. First, the source was a blog, which does not qualify as a reliable source on wikipedia. Secondly, even if we take the letters at face value as primary documents (which we can't do), our analysis that those letters mean the Commission is a front group would constitute an original argument which wikipedia also frowns on. Thirdly, the wording "front group" is very non-neutral, violating WP:NPOV. When one calls something a "front group" the connotation is very negative. Wikipedia has many complicated rules and it's always hard to meet all of them. No harm, no foul. Please continue editing and if anyone has any questions, just message my talk page. Best wishes.User:calbear22 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "link," because the CCHR IS Scientology. It is not a separate group. It is staffed by full-time Scientologists, run out of Scientology buildings, and gets its tax exemption under the Scientology umbrella (see Scientology/IRS agreement, where iut is spelled out). Further, the link contained verifiable information, so its "blog" status (technically a news/gossip site with multiple authors, not a blog) is irrelevant. There are numerous other sources, including the WSJ; this was linkable, permanent, etc. The wiki of CCHR concurs with this assessment, and CCHR's own materials state its main goal is the furtherance of Scientology and the "teachings" of L Ron Hubbard. Aside from stalking Pyschiatrists, they do no other work or campaigning; their 'outreach' consists of promoting Hubbard in schools and at public events.

Further, I have been writing and editing here for years, I just don't feel any need for a wiki identity when it isn't necessary, and your patronizing remarks are insulting and borderline rude. 24.130.199.233 (talk)

We can ask for a second opinion if you like. My view on the matter hasn't changed. Your comments concerning my remarks do not follow WP:Assume good faith. It has not been my intent to disrespect you.User:calbear22 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholism

There is currently no mention of his highly publicized decision to enter into a rehabilitation program for alcohol abuse in 2007. 69.181.55.239 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Early Life"

In the "Early Life" section, I would say that 9 out of every 10 sentences begin with either "Newsom" or "He", largely the former. Now, I understand this is an article about him and is somewhat difficult to write without beginning each sentence with his name, but come on. This is a "good article" rated page. I died a little inside when I saw that. Killiondude (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Why is there no mention of a controversy section at all? there was plenty of controversy when an illegeal immigrant murdered two people, and Newsom supported illegal immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.193.154 (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Enthusastic young adult

That picture is incredibly stupid. Why anyone would want to Myspace pose with the Mayor of San Francisco like that is beyond me. That enthusiastic young adult may very well be deep and may go places in life, but in the meantime that image is unnecessary and embarrassing. Remove? Thoughts? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If the enthusiastic young adult was gay we could put it in the mayoralty section to illustrate that he was a strenuous campaigner for gay rights and had a large gay following during that period of his life. —the Homosexualist (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Thereyago!! I second that. Maybe we can give him a certain amount of time to respond. Because right now it looks like just any picture that was glued to the middle of the page just 'cause. Thanks, bro. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Seven days is fair, right guys? Deleted it. You're welcome, Mayor. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What picture are we talking about here?? South Bay (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This one. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Gavin_Newsom_and_an_enthusiastic_young_adult.JPG

Weight of the Rippey-Tourk affair

From the APA Style#headings: "Topics within a paper that have equal importance will have the same level of headings throughout the paper."

Kaihoku, the quote from above illustrates my rationale for moving the rippey-tourk affair under a section entitled "Relationships". I agree that the relationship wasn't celebrated in the public eye and was hidden, that is exactly why it doesn't deserve equal footing with both marriages. If not less than at least it is equal, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be blown up to have a its own subheading under personal. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abie, thanks for the message. I totally agree with you that it's not as important as a marriage--but putting where you have it DOES give it equal footing, right? It's also a totally different subject, as it's distinctly different from a marriage or committed relationship. It's like oranges and lemons... somewhat related, but not at all the same thing. As my little nephew would say, "One of these things is not like the other!"

And creating a section called "Controversy" brings even more attention to it, which again, I agree with you, is not warranted. That's why I believe the best solution is to give it a small section, at the bottom of the Personal section... and call it what it is: Rippey-Tourk affair.  :) Sound good? Kaihoku (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the font gets larger if you move it where you had it. But if it is sandwiched between the two marriages, I think it accurately parallels the reality of the situation: he was between marriages and slipped up by sleeping with his friend/manager's wife. This way we're not making it a whole separate thing. It's an over and done with thing of the past. No?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the happy medium would be to take out the "& Controversy" part of the "Rippey-Tourk Affair & Controversy". Considering that the City Attorney cleared everyone involved of wrongdoing, I don't even think there is a controversy.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's do that. Kaihoku (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had a brainstorm. Why not move it to the article Mayoralty of Gavin Newsom? I think that since it was also a political issue, it's better there anyhow. Check it out and see what you think! Kaihoku (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Kaihoku. I think it's both a personal and a political issue. And it should be represented here as well as on the Mayoralty page. Nice try, but we have to be fair. :-) --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Youngest mayor in "100 years" or youngest mayor "in San Francisco history?"

I've heard that Newsom when elected was the youngest SF mayor "in 100 years" (as cited in the opening paragraph,) but then the second paragraph alleges he became "the youngest mayor in San Francisco history." Which statement is correct? (SF had its first mayor after California gained its statehood in 1850.)

Also, in the Mayoral Races (2003) section of this article, the last sentence has some quotation issues. It reads as follows: Newsom said he was "a different kind of leader who "isn't afraid to solve even the toughest problems." Thanks114.146.107.128 (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversises

How is it there isn't a section touching on this based on the tumoultuous times in SF, from the endless laws (both him and the Supervisors) for plastic bags, outlawing bottles, and now pet shops??

Also, the affair, the incidental drug rehab immediately following, and the illegal issuance of gay marriage licenses, which ended up voided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfnativesfortruuth (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's all covered in the article already, and you're clear biases regarding your views of Mayor Newsom are affecting your edits. If you restore the text again, you may be reported as violating WP:3RR. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is an objection, I will preplace the controversies section, perhaps with neutral terms? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfnativesfortruuth (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Either you are selectively reading, or you just don't understand. There is clear objection to your edits, as the above post by a user demonstrates. Do not restore it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, I can see how the first paragraph in the "Mayoralty" section is a little too pro-Newsom, as it says the 2004 gay marriages solidified his position within the LGBT community, but doesn't mention any of the backlash. A sourced addition to the end of the sentence could be appropriate. The backlash is already covered pretty well at Mayoralty of Gavin Newsom and San Francisco 2004 same-sex weddings, though. As for the affair, it's already fully covered in the section on his marriages. We do not require a separate "Controversies" section in this article. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is continually edited to voice support and praise for Newsom. The two largest controversies: his affair and his actions in relation to gay marriage are continually deleted. This articles lacks neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.152.214 (talk • contribs)

They are mentioned. We're deleting repeated mentions of it. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

48th or 49th

Jeepers, what is it with the Newsom guy. First he refuses to take the LtG oath on January 3, 2011. Now he's claiming to be the 49th LtGov, despite his immediate predecessor being the 47th LtGov. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

When ABC News and the website say he's 49th, perhaps we should consider that the Wiki page is wrong - it's not a reliable source. Perhaps someone acting was counted or whatnot? Hekerui (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the President pro Tempore of the California Senate says 48th. Hekerui (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain that nobody served between Maldonado & Newsom. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant in the past, but there were several acting apparently that were counted. I had originally seen this in the Bay News here. Perhaps they all checked the official site. Hekerui (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Newsom's LtG official website, continues to style him as the 49th Lieutenant Governor of California. Can anybody get in contact with the State Government & find out why? GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved (see my talkpage). Mona Pasquil was Acting Lt.G from 2009 to 2010 (between Garamendi & Maldonado). California numbers its Acting Lieutenant Governors with the Lieutenant Governors. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Lt. Gov start date

Although the transfer of power in California is scheduled for 3 Jan 2011, it appears from current reliable sources that Newsom is delaying his own swearing in until 10 Jan 2011 to finish up business in San Francisco. See Newsom Plans to Delay His Swearing In and Mayor extends term to tie up loose ends.  Frank  |  talk  13:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the State Constituion, his term as LtGov began today. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a tricky one, as I'm sure you know, since it's a primary source. The U.S. Constitution had a few things in it originally that have been superseded; the examples I can think of are by actual amendments to the document itself so they are fairly easy to find, but if you look at the original and quote it as a source, you'll make a few significant errors in current U.S. law. I'm not saying he is or isn't Lt. Gov (or will or won't be at 11 am local time)...I'm saying the reliable sources are saying he'll be sworn in at a later date (reportedly 10 Jan at this point).  Frank  |  talk  17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the California Supreme Court will step in on this situation, since it's only gonna be a delay of 1-week. I'm guessing the California Constitution is less stricked about such things. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting there will be any stepping in by any court. I'm just saying that the constitution is a primary source and not really appropriate for this. I am reasonably confident we'll get clarity on this issue in the next 24 hours or so; someone will be asking (and answering) whether or not he is actually the Lt. Gov of CA in pretty short order. It's not for us to interpret.  Frank  |  talk  19:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We're certain though, that Maldonado is no longer Lieutenant Governor. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not according to this blog, which states that Maldonado remains. I really don't know; the Lt. Governor template was changed to list the secretary of state (apparently incorrectly her as attorney general in the process).  Frank  |  talk  20:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And this one, from a staffer on the same newspaper.  Frank  |  talk  20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There is apparently some debate on the point; see [4] (already linked above), [5], [6], and [7]. Now, there is of course some question as to whether delaying "swearing in" changes whether or not he is the lt. governor, but...that's sort of why I'm thinking we need to wait for reliable sources to tell us.  Frank  |  talk  19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps most telling is that http://gov.ca.gov points to Jerry Brown, but http://ltg.ca.gov still points to Abel Maldonado.  Frank  |  talk  20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That source can't be reliable as it contradicts the State Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Abel Maldonado.  Frank  |  talk  22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside counsel to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors advised them that Newsom is not the lieutenant governor until he qualifies for office by taking the oath. That his term has begun does not automatically mean he is the lieutenant governor, however counterintuitive that may seem. Until a higher legal authority than the counsel retained by the body charged with appointing Newsom's successor weighs in to the contrary, Newsom is mayor until he resigns or takes the lieutenant governor's oath of office. Circumspect (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, there is there is nothing about 11:00 AM whatsoever in the California Constitution.^{http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_5} Indeed, this is why Ronald Reagan was sworn in as Governor a few minutes after midnight, as his predecessor, Pat Brown, remained Governor until his successor (Reagan) took office.^{See bottom of page 172 to top of page 173 of Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power by Lou Cannon.} OCNative (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gubernatorial Campaign

Currently I see no mention of the fact that Gavin Newsom was a prominent candidate for the 2010 Democratic nomination for Governor of California. He dropped out early when he realized he could not win. This is quite a bit more important than the fact that he was voted most social mayor. 71.193.182.32 (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

nvm 71.193.182.32 (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gavin Newsom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081209000025/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/10/state/n000208D48.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/10/state/n000208D48.DTL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090630054147/http://www.leadershipforhealthycommunities.org:80/content/view/284/58/ to http://www.leadershipforhealthycommunities.org/content/view/284/58/

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

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).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gavin Newsom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211015140/http://www.sacbee.com:80/295/story/1470639.html to http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1470639.html

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

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).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gavin Newsom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080220060224/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/02/23/MN245262.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/02/23/MN245262.DTL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201080635/http://washblade.com:80/2008/11-28/news/national/13649.cfm? to http://washblade.com/2008/11-28/news/national/13649.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100104074643/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/california/election_2010_california_governor_election to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/california/election_2010_california_governor_election

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

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).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gavin Newsom. 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/20071123223712/http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=22014 to http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=22014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615025244/http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29277 to http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29277

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gavin Newsom. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2003%2F02%2F23%2FMN245262.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2007%2F08%2F10%2Fstate%2Fn000208D48.DTL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207050153/http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=82219 to http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_index.asp?id=82219
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=49142

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gavin Newsom. 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/20130710015435/http://sfist.com/2013/07/05/third_newsom_offspring_birthed_on_w.php to http://sfist.com/2013/07/05/third_newsom_offspring_birthed_on_w.php

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gavin Newsom. 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/20080724035849/http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/12/09/newsom/ to http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/12/09/newsom/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://johnnycalifornia.com/2008/11/12/governor-2010-new-field-poll-things-look-bad-for-newsom-not-so-bad-for-feinsteinvillaraigosa

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom was granted his B.A. degree only after petitioning his university for it -- why was this taken out?

I specifically recall reading a few years back that Gavin Newsom tried again and again to take one final math class at his university in order to complete his BA degree, and failed it something like three times thus not receiving his degree. This wikipedia page does mention his severe "dyslexia," as well as his difficulty in schools throughout his young life, but it appears that his inability to attain his BA degree was taken out. The page used to state that he finally petitioned his school and only then did he receive his degree. The wikipedia page no longer states that he received his degree ONLY after being given a waiver for the math class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.172.217 (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

A campaign biography for a candidate.

What's the point in even arguing? Getty Oil's man somehow grew up poor. He created a plan which permanently reduced homelessness in SF. The only thing he's remembered for here in SF is the sex scandal-- not a word about it appears, which is like a history of the Clinton Administration without Monica Lewinsky. Okay, Getty Oil tell some flunky to revert this post. I won't be coming back to look. He's running for governor in a one party state, so what's the difference?Profhum (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Is "Newsom has been involved in controversial and high-profile relationships" really appropriate for the lede?

This seems out of place and has potential WP:NPOV issues. Obviously the infidelity scandal caused controversy, but the wording also implies that his former marriage was controversial as well.

Both are currently mentioned in the Personal life section. I don't think either item is notable enough to mention in the lede, but I think it could be argued that the affair could be moved into a "Controversy" section. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

He also dated a 19 year old while he was 39 that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere and could be to what "controversial" is referring https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2581600&page=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.43.144 (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait for final results

A friendly reminder. Final results are not in yet. Projected to win means nothing until final results are in. WP:MOS requires a reliable source. In addition, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. He is not elected until final results are in and has determined that he won. — Lbtocth^talk 06:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You're being too literal on this, but oh well. GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

"Projected to win" is NOT the same as "has won". See WP:BLP. No WP:ORIGINAL. — Lbtocth^talk 06:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well then, you best check through all the other projected winner bios, as they've all been updated. GoodDay (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

During election time, many editors tend to "jump the gun". WP:DJTG — Lbtocth^talk 07:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Last night, it was less than 50% reporting which as less than half. It would be a different story if was more than 50% reporting. — Lbtocth^talk 16:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to delete or 'hide' the Governor-elect stuff from the infobox, that's your choice. I've no intentions of trying to restore it. Just pointing out, it's likely that others editors or ips, will likely restore it. In a matter of days, it'll all be moot anyway. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Title of the Governor's wife

There is dispute whether Newsom's wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, should be referred to as First Lady or First Partner. I invite editors to come review the relevant information and build a consensus here. CookieMonster755✉ 19:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello Wikipedians of Gavin Newsom's Article "Talk" Section,

I have looked over some of the key aspects in a quintessential Wikipedia article, and I am impressed with the level of efficiency in this article.

With 110 reference sources listed to date, there appears to be a credible source for every objectively framed statement made in regards to information about Gavin Newsom. Of the 10 citations I visited, they all functioned properly in linking me to the sources, and the cited information was different enough in syntax and diction to not be close to simple paraphrasing or plagiarism.

All of the sections and information in them about Newsom are appropriately relevant. There was a discrepancy here in the "Talk" section of the article about the removal of a section specifically titled "Newsom has been involved in controversial and high-profile relationships" when such information was already included in the Personal life, and it was suggested the article should perhaps have a Controversy section instead. If there are credible sources to back the several allegations about Newsom's personal life, then perhaps there should be a "Controversy" section that, again, objectively iterates the information without being worded in a way to convey a biased opinion.

However, since his inauguration and budget proposal, there has not been an update on what actions Newsom plans on and/or is taking for the sake of policy advocacy as governor (with the exception of his stance against NIMBYism), such as his aims to provide medical insurance for undocumented immigrants that are 25 years old or younger aligning with the age parameters set by the federal insurance mandate (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-healthcare-proposal-20190107-story.html) and instate a tax on water sold for the purpose of consumption (https://www.10news.com/news/politics/gov-newsom-proposed-tax-on-drinking-water). Josemgonz95 (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar "Preceded by" is not correct

Kevin Shelley did not "precede" Newsom as Supervisor from the 2nd district, because the 2nd district and all the other districts were established while Newsom was already Supervisor at large, in which Shelley did precede Newsom. 157.131.198.221 (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Relatives?

• Samuel and Joseph Cather Newsom, builder-architects of the Carson Mansion.
• Ted Newsom

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing, gossip

OK, some people seem to want this: "Newsom's affair with Rippey-Tourk impacted his popularity with male voters, who viewed the adultery as a betrayal of a close friend and ally." We need to attribute this, at the very least, since it's just the opinion of a columnist -- this isn't news analysis, voter research, polling, or anything like this; rather, it's based on people who called into C. W. Nevius's office with their opinion. So, we'd need to say, "According to feature writer C.W. Nevius, men that called in to give their opinions of Newsom's affair disapproved, two of them calling it a "betrayal", while women were less concerned." Then of course the question arises, how much weight do we give to random callers to a columnist? Me, I'd say "zero". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It has no meaningful weight. Should be striken absent actual polling data. Anastrophe (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Struck. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

follow the money

This entire section on Gavin is suspect. His dad in an attorney for an oil tycoon, he attends an expensive private school (baseball scholarships are very minimal or really don't exist for D3), studies abroad, the oil tycoon funds in new business venture and he grew up poor? I don't think so. The math skills do correlate with the lack of an ability to understand statistics so that is probably ok.

You guys might want to follow the money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:C100:9D80:E4F1:26D7:6570:463D (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

He attended high school with some of the richest young men in the city, and thus had fewer financial resources than his peers. It does look like spin if you examine news coverage of his activities over the years in reliable sources. We must go with the spin per WP:VNT--Quisqualis (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Too many pictures

Why are there two pictures of his face from 1999? This is not a Myspace page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B02E:ADBE:9CF5:D973:B9E3:F9F5 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Plumpjack

Is there any mention of this in the article?

Newsom's companies got $3 million in federal relief loans

https://www.ktvu.com/news/newsoms-companies-got-3-million-in-federal-relief-loans?fbclid=IwAR0M47AwwFkBnkxHVxacHgRch3-Z3Gfh8UUmSaOKnHeaQawJgQb2uNXJIRA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4260:35D0:810A:4695:A91A:684C (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I had added this to the article but it was removed because I lumped too many negative stories together. I would look at my edits before you add anything. The same applies to the recall story. -Hemingways pipe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemingways pipe (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is it even in the news? The cited article itself can barely even criticize the optics of it, and says at the top that the Governor would not have participated in the decision to pursue the loans. "I'm not sure...", "I hope..." says the strongest possible critic, but that "Newsom runs the risk of encountering public perception problems". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed this has no relevance to Newsom. Newsom put his business interests in a blind trust so that he has no conflicts of interest, such as this one, during his governorship. It would be relevant for the Plumpjack page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If recall is significant enough to be in the article, it could read: "...image and credibility amidst the public crisis, drawing renewed attention to what had been a long-shot conservative recall effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemingways pipe (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Recall

There is no mention of the 2020 Recall for Gavin Newsom. There is a serious recall underway that started in about May/June of 2020. It has more than half the signatures needed to recall the governor. https://recallgavin2020.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4260:35D0:810A:4695:A91A:684C (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

why is there not an entire article on this; it already has 1 million signatures and it looks like they’re going to reach the goal SRD625 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

OLD VERSION: In January 2021, the number of signatures for the recall campaign reached one million. It needs 1,495,709 valid signatures before March 17, 2021 to be on the ballot. The proponents' goal is to get 2 million signatures.[181][182] By February 2021, the recall campaign reported having more then 1.4 million signatures, including about 300,000 from registered Democrats.[183][184] High-profile Republicans like former San Diego mayor Kevin Faulconer and 2018 Republican nominee John H. Cox, who lost to Newsom, have announced their intentions to participate in the recall election as candidates.[183][185]

New Version: In January 2021, the number of signatures for the recall campaign reached one million. It needs 1,495,709 valid signatures before March 17, 2021 to be on the ballot. The proponents' goal is to get 2 million signatures.[181][182] By February 2021, the recall campaign reported having more then 1.4 million signatures, including about 300,000 from registered Democrats.[183][184] High-profile Republicans like former San Diego mayor Kevin Faulconer and 2018 Republican nominee John H. Cox, who lost to Newsom, have announced their intentions to participate in the recall election as candidates.[183][185]. On 2/11/2021, the petition reached the required amount of votes to begin recall proceedings.

Source is: https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/recall-newsom-leader-says-petition-has-signatures-for-vote/ 73.35.150.208 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

According to [8] the recall organizers claim to have collected 1.7M signatures and submitted 1.3M to the election board. Election officials confirm getting 1.1M and it sounds like some more were submitted that aren't yet counted. There are some other figures in the article: I'll leave using them up to editors here. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:C942 (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

We should really draft a new article based around the upcoming recall election; it’s going to happen SRD625 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

Can some change "Newsom was asked whether he'd appoint a Black women to replace Dianne Feinstein" to "Newsom was asked whether he'd appoint a Black woman to replace Dianne Feinstein"? The term "Black women" is plural while the term "Black woman" is singular. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done But I might delete that sentence as it's not that important how he responded to that question in an interview. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You made a good point about you thinking about deleting the sentence since he was given a loaded question which was setting him up for a "fail" regardless on how he had answered and the section does not really contribute much to the overall article. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Lower casing in infobox

A discussion at WP:AN which may affect this article's subject & it's predecessors, is being held. Input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

Change “ Newsom prevailed in the 2021 recall election, becoming the second incumbent U.S. governor to survive a recall election.” to “ Newsom prevailed in the 2021 recall election, becoming the second incumbent U.S. governor to survive a recall election, with the other governor being Scott Walker.” 68.53.219.198 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Curious to see what other editors think

Nothing in Newsoms article about Rose McGowan allegations about his wife, dealing with covering up the Harvey Weinstein scandal? Seems pretty notable. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, since she was just campaigning with Elder on Sunday. Plus isn't her allegation against Newsom's wife, not Newsom? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a section about Newsom's wife's nonprofit on this page, but it's hard to see how McGowan's allegations are similarly tied to Newsom and his political power as governor, which is the rationale for including the nonprofit bit. It's 100% fair game for the wife's page, though, in my opinion, since they seem to be very credible. McGowan didn't seem to have much to lose nor gain in telling her story, and she was pretty central in the Weinstein scandal, which seems to bolster her credibility. We have Datig's allegations on Elder's page...which are apparently neither undue nor recent? It belongs on Siebel Newsom's page, not this one though, even if Siebel Newsom is some sort of spousal-svengali-maxwell type. Who knows if they're true? They're just widely published allegations. Totally fair game to include, right? 2600:1012:B026:A316:BC49:97EF:5287:D18B (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

New Vaccination Ruling

We should add in the new k-12 vaccine mandate, I'm surprised it has not been added already. HumanHistory1 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't trust myself to write a NPOV sentence on this. Here's a source for him fighting for prison guards, who donated to his recall. I think he's received heat from both sides for this. Since the vaccine mandate for minors has a deadline in July 2022, I think it's premature to include it, and I think it's gotten undue attention from his opponents. There is currently no mandate for K-12 as far as I know, and there has to be ongoing litigation. Here's a source for the prison guard mandate:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-04/newsom-guards-challenge-vaccine-mandates-at-prisons 2600:1012:B02D:3AF7:54BF:2BAC:6D2A:474C (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Josemgonz95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Newsom mask debacle 2.0

At Sofi Stadium last weekend, Newsom (and local pols Breed and Garcetti) were photographed violating LA County's indoor mask mandate. Newsom was photographed and was captured on video fraternizing with Magic Johnson, who has human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In another high-res photo "fan cam", Newsom was seen without a mask. In fact, there have been no photos showing him actually wearing a mask as far as I know. This made the rounds far beyond right-leaning media, but it seems like it could violate WP:NOTNEWS. It got quite a negative reaction, because California is still under a statewide mask mandate until February 15th and he was blatantly violating LA County's stadium mask requirements, and Newsom had this issue before at the French Laundry that led to a recall (where he gave a full-throated apology and promised to do better). It would probably fit under the pandemic section, but before I add it, I wanted to be sure it wasn't "NOTNEWS". 2600:1012:B025:4EAF:84C2:37CB:D37A:94CD (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTNEWS applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed addition of fossil fuel permitting policy/controversy

I think Newsom's administration's fossil fuel permit policy is sufficiently notable to go in the Environment subsection. @Muboshgu suggested I seek consensus. I think it has received significant coverage, is consequential environmental policy, and is an important part of Newsom's administration. A revision that includes some relevant content is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_Newsom&oldid=1087390272

In addition to the articles in the revision, coverage includes:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-21/environmentalists-lawsuit-gavin-newsom-over-oil-and-gas-drilling-permits

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article254752757.html

https://apnews.com/article/d04910d29539d39e24eaa725bcf4545f Zaelzo (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The example is copying the newspapers' sensationalist style by making it a controversy. The first sentence needs to be reversed without the word "although." After stating his policy and actions, appropriate reactions can be included. Every action and policy is opposed by someone so it is trite to label most content a controversy. If it can be written in an encyclopedic style without undue emphasis (length), it could be a good addition. Fettlemap (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input @Fettlemap. I realized that there's some overlap with the hydraulic fracturing subsection and I think that should be merged with this in an "Oil and gas leases" subpart of the environment subsection, so I think it could be appropriate for the length of the environment section to increase. I can probably make a draft later today. Zaelzo (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's a version with full citations omitted for now (most of the sources are articles I previously linked to but I added a few more at the bottom). Let me know how you think it can be improved!

==============

Oil and gas leases

Newsom pledged during his 2018 campaign to tighten state oversight of fracking and oil extraction.[187] Early in his governorship, Newsom's administration approved oil and gas leases on public lands at twice the rate of the prior year. Newsom claimed to be unaware of the rate of approvals and later fired the head of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. In November 2019, he announced a moratorium on approval of new hydraulic fracturing and steam-injected oil drilling in the state until those projects could be reviewed by an independent panel of scientists.[188] State agencies resumed issuing new hydraulic fracturing permits in April 2020. In February 2021, The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Newsom administration over the continued sale of these leases. In April 2021, Newsom committed to ending the sale of gas leases by 2024 and ending oil extraction by 2045. In April 2022, the San Diego City Council passed a resolution calling on Newsom to stop issuing fossil fuel permits.

==============

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-18/under-newsom-oil-well-approvals-are-going-up

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/23/us/politics/gavin-newsom-california-fracking.html

https://www.ecowatch.com/newsom-california-lawsuit-oil-gas-2650797501.html

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/apr/04/california-issues-first-new-fracking-permits-july/

Zaelzo (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If people don't have any revision suggestions, I might move this to the main page in the next few days. Zaelzo (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I moved it, feel free to share suggestions here Zaelzo (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Vetoes

Hi. I came here to read about Newsom's vetos, and found nothing. He vetoed 8% of the bills that reached his desk. I will try to find time to add a section. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

In case anyone else has time, here are two sources for starters. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this could be a new section in the "Governor of California (2019–present)" part, although perhaps it should be along the lines of "Use of executive authority" or "Governing strategies" so that it could also discuss his use of executive orders. Voting in particular could also be a section. Zaelzo (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I added a discussion of this, feel free to share suggestions here Zaelzo (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

References

For the love of God use a different picture

The article should use his official portrait as the current one is clearly meant to make him look bad. 84.212.10.169 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't Tinder. Speaking as a straight man, I think he looks great. Kkabbfkk538 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the guy above. The current Newsom picture looks great, in my book. I assume you are talking about his portrait as Lieutenant Governor of California, because I couldn't find an official portrait for him as the Governor, and I think that looks even worse. Shit looks horrifying to me TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of no-bid contract section

My addition was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_Newsom&type=revision&diff=1097437386&oldid=1097436965

I'm having trouble comprehending why this would be a "nothingburger", when an NPR station thought it was worthwhile to regularly document the ethical concerns with how Newsom awarded contracts.

The section about donations to his spouse's organization might as well also be deemed "unfounded speculation" as well. This pattern of shutting down discussion of a pattern of valid ethical concerns is a way of life in some countries, countries that we deem "banana republics". Those places suck. Kkabbfkk538 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

NPR is a news organization. We are an encyclopedia. We operate differently. NPR saying "it could raise red flags" is a nothingburger. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok I can see your issue with the first sentence. The second one, though, does address a concrete issue--that his administration definitely failed to avoid the appearance of an ethics issue, which is itself an ethical concern, which is the title of the section. I'd be willing to agree that this is a "nothingburger" since it was a legit pandemic emergency, and some of those donors were the biggest/only game in town (except the BYD mask deal, I think that was super sketchy)...but the state of emergency is ongoing, for over two years. So I still think it merits inclusion. He can still give these no-bid contracts out, today, tomorrow, etc. Kkabbfkk538 (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Photo

The photo of Gavin Newsom is actually a photo of Donald Trump. 2600:6C5A:1A3F:F22F:28DC:E09D:D348:1FE0 (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)