Talk:Gavin Newsom

"Front group"

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

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

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

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

Alcoholism

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

"Early Life"

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

Controversy

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

Enthusastic young adult

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Gavin_Newsom_and_an_enthusiastic_young_adult.JPG

Weight of the Rippey-Tourk affair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lt. Gov start date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is apparently some debate on the point; see [1] (already linked above), [2], [3], and [4]. Now, there is of course some question as to whether delaying "swearing in" changes whether or not he is the lt. governor, but...that's sort of why I'm thinking we need to wait for reliable sources to tell us.  Frank  |  talk  19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

48th or 49th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gubernatorial Campaign

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

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