Talk:Gavin Newsom

Archives
2005 - present

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 - [[1]] —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)

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)

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)

"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)