Talk:Gavin Newsom/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assess 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2004 Weddings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What's with the bullet points? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's with the removal of his affairs? 

message: 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 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/01/BAG4VHGFR31.DTL and model Brittanie Mountz http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/15/MNR.TMP, 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 staffhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/24/MNG0VLUREQ1.DTL&feed=rss.news  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 officehttp://www.ktvu.com/news/10893656/detail.htmlas the mayor's "appointment secretary." http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/01/san.francisco.mayor.ap/index.html  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." CNN Video Streamhttp://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=4993684http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/01/san.francisco.mayor.ap/index.html
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed tag 

message: ...looks much better.  Smee 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, one yes and awaiting Griot. PEACETalkAbout 02:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversial request for resignations 

message: There's no mention of the Gavin Newsom Sucks.com [] 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)
thread_title:  '''Why isn't Gavin Newsom Sucks.com listed as an external link?''' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV Article 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

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

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Brittanie Mountz 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 , 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Try not to replace specifics with an inaccurate and misleading summary. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Minor dispute over relation to Pelosi 

message: #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.
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Preliminary GA review 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#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): 
#:: 
#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)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alcoholism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Early Life" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Youngest mayor in "100 years" or youngest mayor "in San Francisco history?" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Okay, the President pro Tempore of the California Senate says 48th. Hekerui (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certain that nobody served between Maldonado & Newsom. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  48th or 49th 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to the State Constituion, his term as LtGov began today. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We're certain though, that Maldonado is no longer Lieutenant Governor. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: There is apparently some debate on the point; see  (already linked above), , , and . 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)

text: That source can't be reliable as it contradicts the State Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Abel Maldonado.  Frank  |  talk  22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lt. Gov start date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gubernatorial Campaign

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gavin Newsom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gavin Newsom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gavin Newsom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  A campaign biography for a candidate.  

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

message: 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. — Lbtocthtalk  06:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being too literal on this, but oh well. GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Projected to win" is NOT the same as "has won". See WP:BLP. No WP:ORIGINAL. — Lbtocthtalk  06:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  During election time, many editors tend to "jump the gun". WP:DJTG — Lbtocthtalk  07:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

text:  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. — Lbtocthtalk  16:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wait for final results 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title of the Governor's wife 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Review 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sidebar "Preceded by" is not correct 

message: * Samuel and Joseph Cather Newsom, builder-architects of the Carson Mansion.
* Ted Newsom
:T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relatives? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. It has no meaningful weight. Should be striken absent actual polling data. Anastrophe (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Struck. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  04:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing, gossip 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  follow the money 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too many pictures 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plumpjack 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recall 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lower  casing in infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: . ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Curious to see what other editors think 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Vaccination Ruling 

message: 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)
replies: text: Clearly WP:NOTNEWS applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsom mask debacle 2.0 

message: 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)
replies: text: In case anyone else has time, here are two sources for starters. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I added a discussion of this, feel free to share suggestions here Zaelzo (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vetoes 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  For the love of God use a different picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion of no-bid contract section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo