Jump to content

Talk:Matt Gaetz

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Springee (talk | contribs) at 13:56, 28 November 2024 (→Polling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criminal allegations in the lede

I think it made sense for a while to have the sex trafficking allegations in the lede, as it was the most mentioned thing in relation to Matt Gaetz. I think that time has passed - there doesn't appear to be any progress or new stories about the investigation, and media mentions of Gaetz increasingly don't concern or raise it. I think having it in the lede is therefore Wikipedia:UNDUE, and it would make more sense to continue the lede by focussing on his positions and profile in the House (i.e. Trumpist, provocateur, anti-election certification etc.) which are more central and relevant parts of his profile (obviously this would change if charges are brought in the criminal allegations, and certainly if he's convicted). --Samuelshraga (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article as a whole needs a rework. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. As of this month the DOJ concluded its investigation and no charges were brought. Keeping this in the lede centers an issue that's failed to be substantiated, in a way that takes up nearly half of Gaetz's intro no less. The topic is still covered in the Legal Issues section. Why don't we just delete it from the lede? Joeparsec (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late to the discussion, but the House Ethics Committee had reopened the probe into Gaetz in July 2023. I've update it at the bottom of the Federal Investigation section for chronology since its related because the reports says the probe was paused then re-opened to not overlap with the DOJ investigation. Not sure if that still justifies an inclusion in the lede, or if the "Federal Investigation" heading should be updated - is the HEC considered a federal agency? ----Zhanzhao (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a lot of news about it and an ongoing House Ethics Committee investigation concerning it. See [1] and [2] which came up for me on a search of his name alone. TarnishedPathtalk 07:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the criminal investigation was closed and there appears to be no charges imminent, keeping such allegations in the lead is inappropriate and undue. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that the future attorney general of the most powerful nation in the world has been investigated for sex trafficking at one point is notable enough for the lede. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he were convicted, arrested, or charged in any official capacity I could see validity to that argument, but it appears the investigation and accusations were nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. The ongoing house investigation is likely going to evaporate early next year. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's gonna evaporate. It's the definition of "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing". LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to wait. The committee won't release the report as he has resigned, but the report could come out in the confirmation hearing. If there is one. Too much is uncertain here to know what the situation will look like in three months. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the idea that this should be removed from the lead in its entirety. Kcmastrpc argues that it gives undue weight to the investigation because it did not result in a conviction. Neither you nor I can say with undeniable certainty whether these allegations are true. As editors, we are held to the standards of validity and verifiability, but we cannot pass judgment on whether an accusation is factually true or false.
An investigation abruptly ending due to powers of jurisdiction does not qualify it as a "partisan witch hunt". It's similar to a man being found "not guilty" of murder or a world leader not being charged for allegedly colluding with a foreign power (Both men accused have mentions of this in their articles' leads.). This article contains swaths of prose and reliable sources relating to the allegations to constitute their mention in the lead. While I cannot say the allegations are true, I can say that they are verifiable and have significant prose backed up by reliable sources in the article's body. — Paper Luigi T • C 04:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% agreed. The standard we out to go by here is WP:BLPPUBLIC. Given that this is all well documented in media reporting I would expect at least some coverage of the allegations and resulting investigations in the lead, even if we don't have a position about the veracity of the allegations. TarnishedPathtalk 06:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material should be removed from the lead. The accusations were made in 2020. If nothing has happened since then this needs to be moved out of the lead as a BLP issue. Springee (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely some controversy here now, as the House report may actually never be released. see CNN. I believe there might be some mention DUE, but keeping all the specifics in the lead is incredibly UNDUE, given the allegations never actually materialized into consequences that can be correlated to the investigation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of coverage to date and the fact that the House Ethics Committee report will likely be brought up during presumed confirmation hearings, where there would likely be a bucketload of coverage in RS, I'd think that per WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:WEIGHT it well and truly belongs to stay in the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 10:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've referenced this discussion from BLP/N, please see: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matt_Gaetz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmastrpc (talk • contribs) 14:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Baby gaetz" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Baby gaetz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13 § Baby gaetz until a consensus is reached. Xeroctic (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the next Attorney General is "far-right"?

In the opening paragraph for Matt Gaetz right now it tries to associate him with being far-right. X doubt. Alexysun (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "X doubt" mean? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the original poster have any sources describing Gaetz to the contrary? The article cites a number of sources that describe him as "far-right". — Paper Luigi T • C 06:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae it's from a meme. A quite dated meme which was based of Fallout 3, a computer game. TarnishedPathtalk 06:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually from L.A. Noire, but po-tay-to po-tah-to. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources refer to Gaetz as being far-right. See this article from The Age as an example. The age is listed by WP:RSP as being WP:GREL. TarnishedPathtalk 06:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Realiable sources for an opinion? 2600:6C40:0:204E:57BC:65B7:D91D:DC28 (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an opinion if enough reliable sources state it as a fact. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not going to be a conversation that leads anywhere that is illuminating. TarnishedPathtalk 08:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could accept this reasoning if there were maybe what, one source making the claim? But there are six in the lead section of the article alone, and there's probably more in the article itself. Also, why is it that facts presented in reliable sources are always dismissed as "opinions"? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason we don‘t call Donald Trump far-right in his lead. It’s contentious and MOS:LABEL suggests it becomes undue unless the vast majority of sources describe Gaetz as such. Just like any other popular politician, a handful of highly partisan opeds just isn’t going to cut it. Thus far, I don’t see arguments supporting describing him as far-right in the opening sentence. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to write stock standard secondary sources off as opeds is a non-starter. You're not going to get anywhere with those sorts of alternative facts. TarnishedPathtalk 10:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep a tone of AGF. The way the lead is currently written seems to dance around doesn't violate LABEL since it factually states sources have used the term with Gaetz. It is factual and doesn't put the term in Wiki voice so I feel LABEL is satisfied. However, the need to put such sentences in article leads in general perhaps says as much about the political leanings of Wiki editors on these subjects as it does about the BLP subject themselves.
While I understand your comment about OpEd vs regular reporting, we do need to understand that there is a strong political leanbias in the media with only 3.4% of journalist identifying as Republican [3]. When labels like these are thrown out we do need to ask if they are supported by the article body or are they the opinion of the author mixed with other factual reporting. Finally, I don't think this would be so contentious if our far-right article didn't make an immediate visual association with things like a Nazi flag. I think almost any political observer would agree that Gaetz is on the far-right of mainstream US politics. I doubt any objective observer would associate him with Nazism or Neo-Nazism any more than Bernie Sanders's far-left politics would be associated with the Khmer Rouge. I think the article would be better without the "far-right" sentence in the lead but I don't see gaining consensus for that change as likely. Perhaps if we do a survey of just how many current sources describe him as such and if the ratio is say less than 5% or so it would be UNDUE for the lead. I will leave it to others to propose such a change. Springee (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC) edited Springee (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This same issue has been discussed ad nauseum across so many articles[4][5][6]. I don't see a reason to really retread the same discussion here. One of the issues, which you pointed out @Springee, is that the sources Wikipedia considers reliable are objectively left-leaning. Even if we were to say in wikivoice that, "media outlets describe Gaetz as far-right", that's only a half-truth because not all news media outlets describe him that way (just several of the ones that Wikipedians may aggregate). Perhaps a compromise would be to move it out of the opening paragraph and make it clear that his views have been described by partisan sources as far-right (and without the blue). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm Kcmastrpc it's going to be hard to compromise with someone who manages, in one single paragraph, to slip from "objectively left-leaning" (the opinion of another editor, hardly a fact) to "partisan sources". If you disagree with the conclusions reached via consensus for WP:RS, you can perhaps go elsewhere to spend your time? Drmies (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to, it's widely understood that news sources are partisan and biased, and just because they're considered reliable doesn't magically negate such truths. see WP:PARTISAN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies is correct that my choice of "bias" isn't ideal here. The radio of Republican to Democrat identifying journalists isn't proof of bias but it is concerning when we write about political topics. A die hard Red Sox fan can be objective about the NY Yankees playoff record but it won't change their objective view that the Yankees suck. Springee (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with the assertion that the sources Wikipedia considers reliable are objectively left-leaning - however I also think we tend to lean too hard on newsmedia for these sorts of assertions. Unfortunately there is effectively no academic literature about Gaetz. As a prospective attorney general, however, he is almost certainly notable. As a result this is a circumstance where the use of newsmedia may be necessary.
Gaetz is called far-right by the following outlets:
  1. Democracy now calls him far-right unambiguously.
  2. The Guardian calls him a "far-right Republican congressman"
  3. The Guardian calls him far-right here too.
  4. Al Jazeera says of Gaetz that he "is widely regarded as a far-right ideologist."
  5. Financial Times calls Gaetz a radical and says, "During Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, Gaetz also showed up and declared he was “standing back, and standing by” — echoing language adopted by the far-right Proud Boys."
  6. First Post calls Gaetz "far-right."
  7. LA Times says, "Gaetz has been on the far-right fringe of the Republican Party in Congress"
  8. Axios calls him a "scandal-prone right-winger".
  9. Politico, talking about Gaetz's involvement with Jan 6, says "the Florida Republican cited a false news report to suggest that the people who fomented the riot might have been anti-Trump agitators “masquerading as Trump supporters.”
That claim, which Gaetz acknowledged might be false, helped mainstream a lie that has taken root in some circles on the far right."
There are likely many more sources - these were what popped up in the news tab at the top of the last month basically. I don't love using media sources but The Guardian, AJ and FT are all about as reliable as news sources get. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very convincing list to be honest. Going down the list, Democracy Now is hardly an objective source and itself is very far left (Adfonts has Breitbart as more centrist than DNow). The Guardian is rather left as well but we can call those acceptable. Al Jazeera is somewhat borderline and may be motivated by the AIP conflicts (Gaetz is almost certainly going to be strongly supportive of Israel). Also, they aren't putting the statement in their own voice. If they aren't putting it in their own voice that makes it a weak source for the lead. FT says he echoes language used by the Proud Boys. That's not saying Gaetz is far right. At least not to the level we would need to put it in Wiki voice or elevate it to the lead/opening paragraph. FP, this is an Indian paper. Is that where we should be turning for characterizations of US politicians? LAT, they say his is on the far right of Republicans in congress. That is hardly the same as saying he is far-right with the Neo Nazis. The Axios article is not so much an article as a list of bullet points. It doesn't say he is far-right, rather he is a right winger... likely with 1/2 of the other Republicans as opposed to the ~1/2 of the Democrats who are left wingers. None of that says "far-right" nor supports Wikipedia linking him to Neo-Nazis in the lead. Finally, Politico also doesn't call him "far-right". It, reasonably, argues that those who fomented the Jan 6 riots weren't anti-Trump agitators but that doesn't = Gaetz is "far-right". Personally, I think it's very poor writing form on the part of Wikipedia to try to put such things in the lead. It makes our articles on such people look like we collectively want to emphasize bias we find in media rather than providing impartial text and allowing readers to reach their own conclusions. I think some of the suggested alternatives to this content in the lead are improvements. Springee (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable sources. Bias is not what determines if a source is reliable or not and calling a source "biased" doesn't make it unreliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also calling Democracy Now far-left suggests an hillariously skewed political compass. I mean, yeah, they're the weakest ref on the list I gave but they're all but an official mouthpiece of the DNC - they ain't Pravda. Simonm223 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted, Democracy Now is further left than Breitbart is right per Adfonts. It certainly isn't a good source for a claim that anyone is far-right (correct or not). Springee (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ADFONTES. TarnishedPathtalk 02:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was not talking about adding material to the article space a RSP entry means nothing. Springee (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mean nothing. If a consensus of editors have found it generally unreliable for use in Wikipedia articles it follows that using it to make statements of fact about political positions is going to be taken with a large grain of salt. TarnishedPathtalk 03:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. The consensus of editors isn't that the material is bad information, rather it's that the way the material is collected can't be used in our articles as a RS. Part of the issue was editors in the past would want to include the ratings of Adfonts and similar sites in articles, "Axios is rated as X bias and Y reliability by <cite>". That is why RSP entries were created. All of those sources are fine when used as part of a talk page discussion. Regardless, the problem remains, per RSP DNow is considered a biased/partisan source thus is a poor source for a subjective characterization. While Simonm223 might not agree with how far left the source is, they do agree it's a weak source for the claim. Springee (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DNow isn't the only source listed. TarnishedPathtalk 06:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was clear given my edit to note that many of the cited sources don't support "far-right". Springee (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there's more than enough to support the current wording in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 11:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get caught up on Democracy Now. There's no questioning that Wikipedia treats The Guardian as a reliable source for contemporary politics. And AG. And FT. And LA Times. And Axios. And even Politico sometimes. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, despite it's left lean we treat The Guardian as a generally RS. But this is more a weight issue when we elevate a single claim, above so many others and above other summaries, to the article lead. I think it would be easier if the lead followed the LAT example, " far-right fringe of the Republican Party in Congress" as that doesn't link to a wiki article associating him with Neo-Nazis. Saying that he is at the right of most GOP representatives wouldn't be the BLP LABEL concern that far-right presents. Also, based on the sources you proved, FT, Axios and LAT don't support the current article sentence. Springee (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he didn't want to end up linked to an article that would "associate him with Neo-Nazis" perhaps he should have thought twice before enthusiastically promoting the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. I am sensitive to WP:BLP concerns but Gaetz is a public person and his extreme right-wing politics including support of racist conspiracy theories are matters of record. This is simply an accurate reflection of his politics. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nonsense argument. You are claiming 1 tweet is the total justification for tying him to Neo-Nazis? Keep in mind that Carlson didn't push any of the racist aspects and neither did Gaetz. That Democrats have seen immigration (including legalizing undocumented immigrants) as a way to bolster their base [7]. It seems Gaetz was agreeing with Politico. Springee (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, my argument remains that the preponderance of reliable sources call him far-right with very few to no reliable sources indicating he is not far-right. I never said anything about Twitter. Please also remain civil. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have evidence that a "preponderance of reliable sources call him far-right"? Of your examples thus far less than half actually call him far right and most that do are lower quality in this context. If I take the first 10 hits from a Google News search of "Matt Gaetz" I don't see any that describe him as "far-right". Did we fine our list by keyword searching? You didn't say Twitter but you did claim Gaetz supports the replacement conspiracy theory. The evidence for that claim is news articles based on a tweet. This is a CIVIL discussion. Springee (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided evidence already even if you'd prefer not to see it that way. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the links you provided with regards to putting the far-right in the lead. I'm not sure what other evidence you have provided regarding, " perhaps he should have thought twice before enthusiastically promoting the Great Replacement conspiracy theory." I see a few articles that note made a single tweet. Springee (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, it's not a question of reliable, it's a question of subjective characterizations from sources that are politically on the other side of the fence. I will note that more of my concerns related to the fact that most of the sources didn't characterize Gaetz as "far-right" while they are being presented as doing so. Springee (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, it seems your biggest problem is with the far-right article. If there are improvements that you think can made there then it would probably be best to discuss those there. Your argument that only a small percentage of journalists identify as Republican isn't one that holds much weight. WP:DUE demands that we represent reliable sources in proportion to the prominence. Whether a majority of the hyper-politicised punters in the US would agree in irrelevant. We simply go where the sources take us. On a final note, Gaetz in on record as endorsing the Great Replacement conspiracy theory which is literally a white nationalist, far-right conspiracy theory. TarnishedPathtalk 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is truth to what you are saying. Part of the issue is "far-right" isn't a well defined term thus what a political writer says when using the term and what wiki editors choose to emphasize when writing our article on the topic may not be well aligned. We specifically caution editor about this when putting hyperlinks within quotes. We are told to be careful because the speaker's intent may not align with the article at the other end of the hyperlink. To some extent that is the issue here as "far-right" isn't a clearly defined term in all context. So in that context it is an problem for this article vs for the far-right article. Also, the political alignment of reporters when covering political topics is something we should be aware of. Editors of this article have chosen to emphasize a label applied by some sources. That is a choice on the part of Wiki editors, not something about the sources themselves. We can still maintain NPOV without that sentence in the lead. Also, RS says we can use biased sources but we should use them with care. When there is such a clear alignment among the media and in a way that clearly doesn't reflect the US electorate, we should be cautious. That doesn't mean we ignore the material, but we should be extra vigilant to avoid treating subjective labels etc as fact. Springee (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that far-right is no less defined than right-wing. The fact that editors are able to write articles about them that aren't messes of original research speaks to that. TarnishedPathtalk 01:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed wholeheartedly, if Trump doesn't have far-right in the lead, there is no way Gaetz should have it. Period. End of story. 170.55.61.26 (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Age is a tabloid, and we should trim Tabloids wherever possible. I think a lot of editors on Wikipedia have too low a threshold for evidence and sources. Secondly, this is kind of a conclusion, and Wikipedia shouldn't repeat subjective conclusions like this and present them as facts. You could debate endlessly where exactly Gaetz would be best described as right or far-right with no consensus. If it's just cited to The Age, then that is rather way too low quality and thus WP:UNDUE. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Age isn't even cited in the article, so its moot. The sources in the articles that call him "far right" are the BBC and Reuters. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As David most correctly points out The Age isn't used in the article. I found the source myself when doing a search to find out how many sources refer to him as far-right (my search led me to believe it's quite a lot). Further than that, The Age is most certainly not tabloid journalism, being listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable. If you want to challange that, I'd suggest you start a discussion at WP:RS/N but I'd rate your chances of getting consensus to your position as between nil and nothing. TarnishedPathtalk 05:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue isn't so much about the minutiae of partisanship in sourcing but the sentence itself. The lead states that Gaetz "is widely regarded as a staunch proponent of far-right politics", but Gaetz is on record denying the far-right label and describing himself as a libertarian populist. Omitting his self-described ideology from the lead and writing instead that he is a "staunch proponent" of it is misleading and unbalanced. Emo band My Chemical Romance has told people for years that they aren't an emo band. Its lead describes them as "a major act in the pop-punk and emo genres, despite the band rejecting the latter label." A sentence with a balanced viewpoint like that is preferable to the "staunch proponent" sentence in the article now. — Paper Luigi T • C 16:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a reasonable approach and would certainly help the lead. Springee (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at this, I won't be surprised if it gets reverted (along with my other changes). Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kcmastrpc, the edit you made included more balanced wording that supported my argument, which is to include Gaetz's stated ideology alongside the "far-right" label that multiple credible sources have applied to his politics. I stand in support of this one change, but that was only a part of your contribution. I believe this edit was reverted because your revision made substantial, unrelated changes that have been contested on this talk page or that removed references to reliable sources. That just isn't something that can be packaged into a larger edit like the U.S. House tacks unrelated legislation onto a spending bill. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is one problem with using WP:ABOUTSELF for political ideology in this case and that is that far-right figures are generally more likely than basically anyone else to occlude their political ideology. The whole idea of "hiding one's power level" applies here. This is a well-known feature of far-right ideologues going as far back as writings about the far-right from 1944 and it really hasn't changed much in the intervening 80 years. As such we should exercise extreme care to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE in identifying far-right figures as such when they are the principal source of denials. As mentioned above (by myself and others) there is a diversity of reliable sources that identify Gaetz as far-right or as extreme, even by standards of the Republican party. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an appropriate use of ABOUTSELF since it would be prefaced with external views of his politics. Springee (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is no way "far-right" should be included in the lead paragraph if "far-left" is not included in the antifa page.. Also the phonetic spelling of his name should be GATES not GAYTS... 2601:580:4580:9F30:C147:966E:51E8:2377 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources which indicate that the phonetic spelling is GATES? TarnishedPathtalk 10:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search Labs | AI Overview -
The phonetic spelling of the word "gates" is "geyts".
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gates 2601:589:4101:341A:78E1:D489:6031:B05A (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cant believe im reading this debate on wikipedia. Its easy, Just be objective and state what he is without your bias. Say hes a republican because its what he factually is. The first 2 paragraphs on the Matt Gaetz page are what a lede should be. Leave those and someone should not have put paragraph 3 and 4 where they are and they should be in the legal issues and controversies section and you know it. ZOMGLAZRZPEWPEW (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately if you haven't realized it, wikipedia is very biased towards far-left - the fact they allow far-right in the lead for this bio is obscene when they don't allow far-left in the lead for Antifa. Its clear that if Trump doesn't have far-right in his lead, why is it fair to add far-right to Gaetz? 170.55.61.26 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Trump is far too big figure to add far-right into the lead. While if you add one to Gaetz, not much people notice it.213.230.93.169 (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
eggxactly! .. they will try to sneak in their far left bias and pov whenever they get the opportunity. Stossel exposes it and it's really eye opening and sad. 96.92.27.137 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM. Please discuss improving this article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's not a description. It's designed as a pejorative insult by hateful people who wish to stretch the Overton window for political gain towards their preference. The intent is to allow undefined pejoratives such as this to be loosely thrown around by a half-dozen political pundits who are opponents and hope to then use otherwise legitimate sites such as Wikipedia to then link to "far-right" and put a Nazi picture. The good news is that these people are why Donald Trump was elected and why the Democrats are losing in every state. They believe that lies like this belong in Wikipedia separating a legitimate and mainstream politician from "is Nazi" by only one-click justified by OpEd pieces from political rivals. There's no room for legitimacy (such as on Wikipedia) when there are left-wing politics to force-feed to Wikipedia customers. This tactic is old and spent and being rejected nationwide. I can link multiple articles from equally reliable sources that show anyone using this tactic is left-wing extremist, but they would reject that notion because they don't feel it fits them. The double standard is obvious and available for everyone to see here. Just remember to thank politically motivated people such as this for the destruction of their party and the resounding election of Donald Trump.
Instead of using the obvious logical conclusion that in one of the biggest land slide elections of most folks' lifetimes choosing this administration means it cannot be "far right" because is the middle of the right by any bell curve distribution, they are effectively defining most of the country as far-right... an insult that keeps them losing. Keep losing. Keep using Wikipedia to further your losing political perspective and keep growing the GOP. 2605:59C8:791:FE00:D86A:DB36:83C6:5742 (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go with what the reliable sources say around here, but keep typing paragraphs if you want. TarnishedPathtalk 10:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your comment is too "far right" and will be deleted by a morally superior "administrator".
Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a leftist propaganda mouthpiece. All the reasons you cited and many more are not enough to make the "editors" and "administrators" refrain from pushing a political viewpoint. Good look and don't trust wikipedia. Do your own research. 2A02:8084:901:2580:CC18:5E80:FF4E:86F0 (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just for the record, I totally agree with the above hidden comments 2601:580:4580:9F30:C147:966E:51E8:2377 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've referenced this discussion from BLP/N, please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matt_Gaetz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmastrpc (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link to the BLP/N 2601:580:4580:9F30:C147:966E:51E8:2377 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just for the record, I totally agree with the above collapsed hidden comments 2601:589:4101:341A:78E1:D489:6031:B05A (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Nationalist theory in lead

This was just added. I removed it per BRD. This is undue and out of place for the lead as written. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gaetz's endorsement of Great Replacement Theory

Should Matt Gaetz's endorsement of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory be mentioned in the lead. I think it should given that it is significant that a mainstream politician would endorse a that particular conspiracy theory. For reference it was removed from the lead most recently at Special:Diff/1257503594.
Pinging @MisterWat3rm3l0n, @Malerooster and @OntologicalTree as editors who have edited over the content. TarnishedPathtalk 08:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be in the lead. This is a specific detail and isn't a high level summary fact. Springee (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's significant fact that speaks to his entire world view. TarnishedPathtalk 11:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sound bite for partisan talking points is barely DUE in the article body, let alone the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your repeated claims of bias, partisan talking points, opeds, etc rings hollow. TarnishedPathtalk 12:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just retort that your repeated attempts to elevate the same media outlets whom we can all depend on to parrot the same outrage churnalism as some sort of scholarly source is equally tiring. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion as a brief mention in the lead. The version that was removed was probably UNDUE, but such a position should certainly have at least some mention as an instance of the far-right politics of this subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have just 2 sources, the NYT (a significant source) and The Jewish Telegraph (not significant in context of US political coverage). Additionally, the lead is meant to summarize the body. The content in the body is basically the same as what is put in the lead. If a specific fact like this is going to be in the lead it needs to be at least something like a subtopic or major portion of a subtopic. This is not. Springee (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an argument to expand the content in the body, not exclude from the lead.
Besides the two sources already in the article there is significant coverage:
I could keep going if I wanted to. This is significant coverage and WP:WEIGHT would suggest it is in the lead, even if a sentence. We should reach a compromise on this before it ends up at an RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 10:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not significant coverage because there is no depth here. Expanding the body to justify putting someone in the lead is also a poor way to write an article. The lead follows the body, not the other way around. Springee (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give an example from your list, The Times of Israel mentions it but only in context of a wider story about Gaetz being antiemetic or such. That is the sort of content that can go in the body but isn't due for the lead. The lead does say he is controversial (probably better to say his terms have been associated with controversy due to LABEL concerns). The details of why, and this is one, would be in the body. Elevating one supporting fact to the lead is poor writing style and reads like a partisan vs impartial article on the person. Springee (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument summarizes the Times of Israel article briefly as mentioning the replacement theory "only in context of a wider story about Gaetz being antisemitic or such", but this statement glosses over the implications of that article if one were to read it through. For context, it is a republished version of a piece by the news agency Jewish Telegraphic Agency in which Gaetz is criticized for inviting Charles C. Johnson, a Holocaust denier, as his guest at the State of the Union Address and for Gaetz's denial that Johnson was a Holocaust denier. Gaetz later wrote that Tucker Carlson was "CORRECT about Replacement Theory as he explains what is happening to America." Tweeting support about the replacement theory isn't something that Gaetz had to do. It would've taken less effort to not tweet that out.
Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I'm going to address the part of your reply where you said that this type of content can go in the body but not the lead. This actually doesn't have much coverage in the body that I could find. Its only inclusion is in a single paragraph under the Immigration heading. Considering that much, I'll have to give it to you on this one. The replacement theory should not be included in the lead with such little mention in the body, in my opinion. — Paper Luigi T • C 08:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of sources I easily found (I stopped after only two screenfuls of result picking out what was relevant) I'd say that's an argument both for expansion of the material in the body and inclusion in the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it’s not the number of sources that matter, it’s the depth of coverage and the significance of those viewpoints in relation to himself or others. Gaetz holds fringe viewpoints. So what? What impact has this particular view had on his or other peoples life? Just because multiple news sources have reported that he believes in some theory just doesn’t seem like a compelling enough reason as to why we should include it in our introduction to him. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not include it in the lead as the article is currently written. --Malerooster (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I believe that the lead should be a summary of the body, but the current revision doesn't reflect that. Consider the article's two largest sections: the legal issues and controversies section is well-represented in a paragraph in the lead, but the political positions section is only represented by the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph. Including his endorsement of a racist conspiracy theory in the lead without any mention of his other political views would put undue weight to it. I think there could be a place for it in the lead if more of his political stances were also included. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment allegations in "Personal Life"?

Former aide Cassidy Hutchinson's allegations of sexual harassment have been moved to the Personal Life section. Given that these allegations concerned the workplace, are potentially criminal in nature, and that other allegations of misconduct have been given their own subsections, shouldn't this passage be returned to its original subsection? ChthonicSweetie (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What section were these allegations moved from? — Paper Luigi T • C 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was under "Child sex trafficking and other legal controversies," with the subheading "Allegations of sexual harassment." ChthonicSweetie (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't a "legal controversy", so it's definitely misplaced there FMSky (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't count as a legal matter since no case was brought about. These are merely allegations Hutchinson detailed in her book. Yes, it could possibly become a legal issue, but that future isn't for us to decide. We are here to report the verifiable facts and present them in a way that's fair, even if we have political disagreements with the person the article is about (Despite my defense of Gaetz, I do not like him one bit.). As Hutchinson hasn't attempted to prosecute Gaetz in court, this bit would not fall into the legal controversies section. — Paper Luigi T • C 07:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this response, it is helpful for me. I still wonder if Personal Life is the best place for these allegations, given that the alleged events took place in a professional setting during his tenure as a federal employee. ChthonicSweetie (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the personal life section isn't the best place to put this. Since the other section has been renamed to a broader title, I've moved it under the main heading for legal issues and controversies. — Paper Luigi T • C 05:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "II" at the end of his name

Usually when a man has "II" at the end of his name it is because his name is otherwise the same as his father's. That's not the case for Matt. Is there a reliable source that explains why Matthew Louis Gaetz II has the "II"? Nurg (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Jr." usually indicates that a man is named after his father; "II" usually indicates he's named after someone else. We have reliable sources for what his name is. Why that is his name is trivia, but if you're interested, google "Matt Gaetz" and "namesake". -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Nurg (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My father was not Jr as his father died before he was born. He was Arthur Douglas Weller II, I was born Arthur Douglas Weller III although my official name is now Douglas Weller. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Gaetz

This article can be improved by presenting non-misleading information without attempting to discredit Matt Gaetz (or anyone). Wikipedia could be a more trusted source if articles were not written with an underlying political agenda. I am a Florida resident. Matt Gaetz has done an excellent job in his office. He has been re-elected for a reason! The information in this article is twisted to support a political agenda and has no place in a space that should be neutral in order to promote critical thinking. MsRella (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Would you like to point out specific portions of the article that you believe are misleading, twisted, or favoring a political agenda? — Paper Luigi T • C 05:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OntologicalTree, who has edited this article, is blocked as a sockpuppe

w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax Doug Weller talk 09:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too long and full of non-encyclopaedic material

This article needs cleanup. It is too long with too many details, and contains non-encyclopedic material. It appears that political activists have added content to either make the subject appear more favorable or more unfavorable. This is true for many living-persons' articles, but this article is an extreme. Topjur01 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Legal issues and controversies" is 4,717 words long. I recommend shortening it to 2,000 words max. Topjur01 (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened three paragraphs (about a Cuban relative, DUI, House investigation) to about half of the original length, and kept all sources. I kindly invite other editors to review, and decide whether we should shorten other too-detailed paragraphs. I will not shorten other paragraphs until others review. Topjur01 (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cut the suggestion that Gaetz got preferential treatment from Florida prosecutors. That's relevant information and reliably sourced and should not have been cut in the name of "shortening" Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cut "suggestions" and arguments both ways. Some in favor of him, and some against him. I left the original accusation and the outcome. If we leave too many "suggestions" and arguments, the article is not an encyclopaedic any more. Encyclopaedia should be concise. Topjur01 (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fork?

Time to fork out Political positions of Matt Gaetz? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Maybe trim back to the political positions that have encyclopedic relevance - we are not a news aggregator. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special election?

Wouldn't Gaetz become a House member again, when his next term begins on January 3, 2025? After all, he resigned during his current (2023-25) term. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Matt Gaetz is not guaranteed to get his House seat back after withdrawing his nomination Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not certain that his resignation, cancels his re-election. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has said he won't take the oath of office, so another special election will be held.
[8] David O. Johnson (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article states:

Gaetz is eligible to re-enter the House upon the start of the 119th United States Congress, having won reelection, but he has said that he does not intend to do so.[1]

It's possible the reference article has changed since this ref was added, but I don't think that claim is backed up by the source, at least not to my reading. Darkage7[Talk] 00:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this is an explanation based on subtle angles, he only said that he would not take over as Attorney General. Cbls1911 (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The next sentence in the AP ref is pretty clear cut: "There are plans for a special election in Florida for his seat." David O. Johnson (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad I checked in here before editing what's there, I personally think that saying he 'was eligible' based on news sources only is questionable. I have seen articles strongly supporting both views, my own guess is that he probably would ultimately have been found eligible but that it was an open question -- there could have ended up being lawsuits over this in any case except the one that came to pass (him keeping to his statement that he would not resume the office in the new term). Anyhow, I'll leave the text as is and leave it to wiser minds but just adding my 2 cents. Qalnor (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Daily Mail interview with him where he said he has no plans to return to Congress. [9].
Of course, we can't use that in the article, as The Daily Mail is deprecated. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today reports that the date of the special election is set for april 1st.[2]

References

  1. ^ Tucker, Eric; Durkin Richer, Alanna (November 21, 2024). "Gaetz withdraws as Trump's pick for attorney general, averting confirmation battle in the Senate". Associated Press. Retrieved November 21, 2024.
  2. ^ "Special election to replace Matt Gaetz set for April Fools' Day". USA Today.

LEAD weight

The weight given to the dropped sexual assault allegations is WP:UNDUE and quite a flagrant WP:BLP violation. This is covered by WP:BLPCRIME. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting WP:BLPCRIME as Gaetz is definitely a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, some small weight to this topic (a sentence or two) might be WP:DUE. But half the lead in terms of characters is fundamentally defamatory and a major violation of policy. WP:BLPRESTORE applies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with your interpretation I think the best thing to do would be to hash this out here prior to restoring it for precisely that reason. But I'd say, considering his checkered history is why he backed out of the AG nom, that his fraught legal history is part of what makes Gaetz significant as a politician. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, he is a controversial figure and that is worthy of some weight in the LEAD. But there is plenty of precedent against us using inflammatory terms such as "sexual" in the lead, the following polices apply WP:DUE, MOS:CRIMINAL, MOS:LEAD. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CRIMINAL says When the person is primarily notable for a reason other than the crime, principles of due weight will usually suggest placing the criminal description later in the first paragraph or in a subsequent paragraph which seems to be good advice. But it really says that we should avoid imprecise statements regarding the accusations against him. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be honest, I think Gaetz' current level of notability is probably more due to legal/ethical questions than anything else at this point. He was ineffective legislatively in the house (he had no major successes), and I think the majority of the reason that he's a household name at this point is because of the scandals being brought to the forefront by his nomination.
I don't have strong opinions on whether this belongs in the lede or not, I can see arguments against, as well, but I do think questions around his behavior are a primary component of his national notability. Qalnor (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the policy from CRIMINAL and since the subject is NOT a criminal, we tread very lightly on this subject, especially in the lead where weight is maximal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously I would have said this should stay entirely out of the lead. However, it appears to have been widely covered in context of his short lived nomination for AG. As such I think a summary (1-2 sentences) would be DUE in the lead, perhaps in context of his nomination or perhaps that should be an additional sentence. Springee (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been covered at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Matt Gaetz and my read of consensus there is that it is not a BLP violation. TarnishedPathtalk 02:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also likely the ethics report will come out and give it more attention. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a matter of weight, nobody here is arguing for exclusion of the content from the article. Half of the lead was absurd. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what part of WP:BLPCRIME are you alleging is being flagrantly violated? Be specific, I'm expecting a direct quote Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great question, WP:BLPCRIME says (in totality): "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime." Nothing in that policy advocates unlimited coverage of allegations, nor does it address the given weight. These allegations in this case were investigated and never brought charges, so we can assume they are dead. That is the lowest weight of allegation we can find, and thus we use WEIGHT to determine the due weight we give. WP:LEAD tells us how much weight we give in the lead. We do not have to cover everything in the lead and we have BLP rules to follow. WP:PUBLICFIGURE goes on to state that we are welcome to cover these issues, which we do in this article. It is covered in a small section in the article. It was then summarized (incorrectly in my opinion) in massive WP:WEIGHT (taking up more than half the lead). This is wrong and a WP:BLP violation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures is quite pertinent from what you quoted. Given the amount of reporting on the issue WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:WEIGHT would strongly support the material being covered in the lead. There is no WP:BLP violation per the consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Matt Gaetz. This is nothing short of BLPCRY. TarnishedPathtalk 05:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: What, in your opinion, would be a more appropriate summarization in the lead? ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 18:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to summarize in 1-2 sentences in the lead. I also suggest not use the word 'sexual' in the LEAD, and certainly not 'child sexual' as is used in the body of the article as a sub-section title (also probably undue). Wikipedia is not a tabloid and not a tool to amplify these claims in wikivoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is going against WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLPPUBLIC and MOS:LEAD for the information not to be included in the lead beyond what you are willing to accommodate given that 63,422 bytes is used covering it in the body. There is a mountain of reliable sources covering accusations of child sex trafficking as attested to by the amount of content that this takes up in the body. The edit at Special:Diff/1258970275 to completely remove the content represents a misunderstanding of WP:PAG and needs to be rectified. I'm thinking an RFC is required here. TarnishedPathtalk 03:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the single sentence in the lead is less than what is DUE but the 40% we had was too much. While the lead should follow the body, it is quite reasonable to ask if the length of this content in the body is also given undue weight in the article as a whole. Springee (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Federal investigations into child sex trafficking and statutory rape" section takes up 23.96% of the article. That warrants a paragraph in the lead, not a single sentence. Given the WEIGHT of what is covered in the body, and per WP:BLPPUBLIC and MOS:LEAD that also suggests that what he was accused of be specified and not whitewashed with the euphemism "misconduct violations". If compromise is not reached on this relatively soon, given that it has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive364#Matt Gaetz where consensus was that the information was not a BLP violation and that it was due, I will take it to an RFC. That editors are ignoring community consensus, as arrived at in the WP:BLP/N discussion, and claiming WP:BLPRESTORE violates WP:LOCALCON. TarnishedPathtalk 05:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That editors have put so much emphasis into unproven allegations does not mean it's the correct weight in the article body. There is certainly no consensus to restore the undue detail to the lead. We instead should be looking at trimming the body content to an appropriate length and not covering the play by play details. Springee (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no credible policy based argument for removal in which case WP:ONUS puts the responsbility on those seeking change to obtain consensus. Consensus is not measured merely by taking a head count of who is the noisiest on either side of a discussion. There is in fact enduring coverage of the material in reliable sources which has increased in recent times despite this having going on for a long time. This speaks directly to how DUE the material is for inclusion whch BLPPUBLIC states should happen. TarnishedPathtalk 04:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material is covered in the lead though I do think it could be a bit more detailed. However, making 40% of the lead about unproven allegations is undue. Given the BLP issues we should err on the side of less not more. Springee (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: If you'd like to discuss your concerns with the WEIGHT in the body, I think it would be on you to start that discussion anew from this one. After three threads on the lead, I think we can put that to rest for now. If you can manage to get a consensus to shorten the section in the body (which I would suggest obtaining before being BOLD here since we all know it'll be a contentious edit that'll get reverted without it), then shortening the lead will only be natural. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 04:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly reasonable to discuss it here since editors are trying to claim that the length in the body justifies the length in the lead. That argument presumes that the body is balanced and that we don't have too much play by play details in the body. Your argument about being BOLD may be misplaced. ONUS applies to those additions. Then again, have you seen me making a lot of edits? Springee (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss in the RFC, noting that WP:LOCALCON does not override community consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 12:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Accusations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape in the lead

Should allegations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape be covered in the lead? If yes, to what extent?

Prior discussions have occured at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive364#Matt Gaetz, Talk:Matt Gaetz#Criminal allegations in the lede and Talk:Matt Gaetz#LEAD weight TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

  • Yes per WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLPPUBLIC and MOS:LEAD given that there is 63,422 bytes covering the material in the body of the article, which is roughly 25%, that would strongly suggest that the material be covered in the lead with about a paragraph's worth of material. There is a mountain of reliable sources covering the accusations of child sex trafficking and statatory rape, as attested to by the amount of content that this takes up in the body. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as no charges were ever filed due to insufficient evidence.77.22.43.72 (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2-3 sentences (not run on sentences) It is clearly a significant topic but it is also a case where, per our own article, charges were not filled because the witness where not consider credible by the Biden DOJ. The host investigations are currently speculative and without opposition we shouldn't ever take claims at face value or given them too much weight. Do no harm is a fundamental of BLP [10]. This is a case where over emphasizing this material can do harm. I think the appropriate level of coverage in the lead is that he was accused but the DOJ decided not to pursue the claims. Later he was investigated by the house and there is speculation that the investigation may have impacted his choice to withdraw from AG consideration. Springee (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe 2-3 sentences, why have you been revering to one sentence which uses language which doesn't cover the accusations at all? TarnishedPathtalk 12:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you restore the overly long version against consensus? Per my link, ONUS should err on the side of do no harm. Your restoration is over the top. It's better to have the short version in the lead vs the long version. Springee (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't restore the complete amount of the previous paragraph. As per your other comment Onus weighs on those seeking change, not on those seeking the status quo. If you have no convincing policy argument then status quo should remain. TarnishedPathtalk 12:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not edit war. Per NOCON the material should start out until consensus is established. Since you started the RfC is looks like bad faith to also edit war your favored material into the lead. Per ONUS this material should also stay out until consensus is established. Springee (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm sorry but WP:STATUSQUO was an appropriate call here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nocon is policy. This supercedes any claim of status quo. There isn't a stable version of this content thus no status quo to fall back on. As such we go to NOCON which says remove both because we are dealing with recent edits and because there are BLP issues here even granting that some level of inclusion isn't a BLP violation. Including too much does harm ( [11] Springee (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article; failing that keep in the allegations This is a politician only notable for the controversy that surrounds him. I'd prefer Wikipedia not comment on such people at all. But any article that suggests he's notable but simultaneously ignores these allegations is flatly non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes two sentences, no more. We should take our cue from the DOJ in that they decided not to pursue this, so we shouldn't be overemphasizing a nothingburger. It's covered waaay too much in the body of the article as is. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Pinging @GhostOfDanGurney, @Horse Eye's Back @Springee as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive364#Matt Gaetz TarnishedPathtalk 05:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why didn't you ping all the editors in that discussion? That looks like selective notification. Also the consensus there was only that BLP didn't warrant exclusion from the lead. It said nothing about restoring an overly long version in the lead. Springee (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If consensus there was that BLP didn't warrant exclusion then we are at WP:ONUS where it is on those proposing change from the status quo to obtain consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 12:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ps, community consensus always overrides LOCALCON and that is why I pinged editors from that discussion. If you believe there are editors from other discussions that should be pinged then I have no objection. TarnishedPathtalk 12:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've actually used this article as a case study in what's wrong with BLPs. Almost everything is sourced to news and what little isn't is sourced to primary sources or to advocacy groups. There's effectively no academic commentary of Gaetz and there are no books about him cited. Honestly we should be doubting whether this man is even notable - not every politician in the United States passes the long-term notability test and I think our tendency to have in-depth bios for every politician in that country is a side-effect of the pervasive tendency to ignore WP:NOTNEWS. My honest !vote would be to exclude the crime stuff and everything else that is sourced to news coverage of his antics and delete his page altogether. However if there is any lasting relevance to this man it's in the cloud of controversy that has followed him. Fellow Republicans generally seem to detest him. A lot of this has to do with the unproven allegations against him. Thus the problem: if this man is at all notable it is for crimes he has not been convicted of. He is utterly unremarkable outside of that. As such we should ideally delete the article. Failing that the allegations probably need to stay in the lede. Frankly there's nothing else. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matt_Gaetz&oldid=1260036938"