Talk:George Santos

Citizenship

Is there any evidence that Santos has been an American citizen for at least seven years (as required by the Constitution to hold a seat in the House)? Do we know for sure where he was born? TheScotch (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

As noted in the article, he has reportedly claimed dual citizenship to a friend in the past. This page for him on the National Republican Congressional Committee's website now says he was raised in Jackson Heights, Queens; it previously said he had been born there as well.

Even if he had been born in Brazil, being taken to the US as a child below a certain age would have allowed him to claim citizenship at 18(?), and that would have been more than enough time. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

He would only become a citizen automatically by operation of law if he was living in the United States as a permanent resident in the permanent legal custody of at least one parent when that parent naturalized. Details here: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/i-am-the-child-of-a-us-citizen 2600:1700:3041:9290:4951:C120:E29F:56E1 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I do think increasingly it looks as though, however, that his U.S. citizenship is not in doubt ... two states at least have let him vote, and the Brazilian court documents give "American" as his nationality. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, anything Santos or the Republican Party merely claims hardly constitutes evidence. I don't think your response addresses the question. TheScotch (talk)

I merely said the article reports that he has claimed this; it might well be true given that no one seems to doubt his parents are Brazilian-born and thus natural citizens. Per our article, someone born outside Brazil to a Brazilian citizen is automatically a citizen themselves if one of three conditions apply. Two are plausible for Santos: his parents being on file with the local Brazilian consulate, or him having gone back to Brazil (as we know he did) and confirming their nationality before a federal judge.

As for his U.S. citizenship, I think the balance of probability is in favor of it since he was able to register to vote in two states, and usually citizenship is verified for new registrants. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Proof of registration is not proof of citizenship. Anti-immigrant, etc., activist, Kris Kobach found applicants registering to vote in Kansas who lacked, i.e., only having taken the oath swearing them in, before they became eligible to vote. Local registrars may not know that documents presented to confirm citizenship could be false. Activist (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Local registrars can verify citizenship documents with the State Department. New York's online version of the form (the same as the paper version given out by county BOEs save for print identifying specifically the county in question and giving its address) requires submitting the last four SSN digits or your DL number (and if you check the third box saying that you don't have either, but say you are a citizen, expect a phone call and a discussion to find out what alternatives you have (and if you do this at the registration deadline you will probably wind up having to vote an affidavit ballot)). Both of those can easily be verified in data bases that clearly state whether the person thus identified is a citizen or not. What Kobach found IIRC was the result of a mistake made when those people got driver's licenses (and does not show that those people presented false documents to register, only that a bureaucratic mistake was made).

Also, as I noted above, the 2013 Brazilian summons gives "American" as Santos's nationality. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• For God's sake, you two, this is all WP:OR. And for your information, there are jurisdictions in which non-citizens can vote on certain issues. So just cool it and wait for sources directly on point. EEng 11:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's why we're discussing it here; I don't think the article can say one thing or another about his citizenship unless the usual RSes discuss it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

After reading the page, nothing shows that he or even his parents have any legit claims on US citizenship. Some clear facts are needed. There's also a problem with grammar in punctuation throughout the page. PB1967 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Grammar in punctuation"? Surely you meant "grammar and punctuation" ? (I hate to do that, but if you're going to make that kind of mistake that's absolutely the last context you want to do it in). At any rate, that's the result of a heavily edited page on a breaking, developing story where things are changing rapidly and a lot of editors are getting involved. At some point, when things have somewhat settled down (whenever that happens), the article would benefit from being printed out and subjected to a hard-copy edit with a red pen.

As for the citizenship question, the key phrase you used is "clear facts are needed". We know too little to state things definitively one way or the other. His birthplace has never been independently established ... if as Santos has said he was born in Queens then the question is settled. If not ... well, the media have so far shown little interest in looking into this, and until they do we can't say anything.

I feel the fact that he was allowed to register to vote in two different states supports an inference that he is a citizen, for reasons I've gone into elsewhere on this page ... but that's OR and we can't use that inference in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I keep saying it: there are jurisdictions in which noncitizens can vote on some issues. As for "grammar in punctuation", see WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. EEng 21:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

New York City did pass a law last year allowing non-citizens to vote but only in local elections (i.e. for City Council, say, not Congress), but it was struck down and in any event it would not have taken effect until this year. I don't know about Nassau County or Florida; frankly I rather doubt they've even seriously considered the idea. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, in the name of God, why are you still going on about this when it has no prospect of contributing anything to the article? EEng 05:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, first, because what you had previously added to this discussion was not entirely correct; second, because I think having had this discussion here might be productive if and when the issue is discussed by reliable sources and we can include something more about it than we already have. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What was not entirely correct? EEng 19:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the implication that Santos might have been able to vote despite not being a citizen. As his registered address last fall was in New York City, and the law that would have allowed non-citizens to vote was struck down before taking effect (and it only applied to local elections, and in any case wouldn't have gone into effect until this year), the mere existence of those laws elsewhere in the US does not suffice to explain why Santos might have been able to vote while not being a citizen. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't explaining why anything. I simply said (a) that there are jurisdictions in which noncitizens can vote on certain issues (which is true) and (b) that this entire thread is a colossal waste of time because it's all OR (which is also true). EEng 19:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You are, on the face of it, right that without a reliable source there's no way any of this gets in the article. But ... I see this thread as serving the secondary function of deterring responsible editors (which there are likely to be more of since I've had to keep the page on semi-protection) from innocently adding something about it to the article, as this way they'll look at the talk page before editing, see this thread and say "OK, thanks". Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That assumes they can get through it and stay awake. EEng 07:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, won't argue with you there ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of blogs speculate about his citizenship, but I haven't seen it in what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. Ann Teak (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• This whole discussion about him possibly not being an American citizen is extremely far fetched. Not being a citizen is one of the extremely few things that would actually invalidate his election to Congress. After all of his other extensive lies have been made public, it is extremely unlikely that a reporter or political opponent hasn't already done research into the question of citizenship, and if there was any smoke there, it would be public knowledge by now. Whether or not he's a dual citizen is a different matter though. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Jesus Christ, more OR and speculation on speculation. I'm in an ornery mood so I really have a mind to archive this whole mess. EEng 19:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  • @User:EEng Not sure why you're attacking me when I agreed with you that the discussion was pointless. However, it doesn't matter, it is against policy to archive any active discussion, so I have no idea why you're threatening to do so. While you haven't made any personal attacks yet, you are getting close to it throughout this talk page. Maybe you should just avoid editing when you're in an "ornery mood". JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

    I'm always in an ornery mood. And please learn proper use of indentation markup (not that you're the worst offender on that score, but since you pissed me off with the RfC I'm just itching to give you a hard time about something). EEng 20:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

    • I know exactly how to use an indentation mark. I want the bullet point to appear at the start of my comment so that it is clear where my comment starts. I don't want an unnecessary amount of empty space between the bullet and my comment. Lots of people edit talk pages like that. I stand by my statement that you shouldn't edit when you're in ornery mood. I will also never understand why people get upset about getting more community input on a debate when Wikipedia is supposed to be a community and collaborative effort. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

      No, actually, you manifestly do not understand proper use of indentation markup, as explained in this diff [1]. And as for getting more community input on a debate, the RfC you recently and so inadvisedly opened stands at Strong oppose; Strong oppose; Oppose; Strong oppose; Strong oppose; Oppose. So have you had enough community input yet? EEng 06:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

      • Is indentation really that important? Seems off-topic here. Ann Teak (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

After the above ocean of blather, the answer remains, "No." As far as any Wikipedia contributor blathering here knows, there is no public evidence that "Santos" has been an American citizen for the past seven years. TheScotch (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, by a preponderence of the evidence, unless either 1) the location of his birth is established or 2) the naturalization of one his parents is, the clear presumption is that he is not in fact a U.S. citizen, no condition obtaining that would establish that. Staying here for decades as a non-citizen doesn't age you into citizenship, not any more at least. Current text is completely silent on this issue and I should think it is at least possible to clearly state the birth location. Lycurgus (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Except for the fact that, as noted, no independent reliable source has given one. In one of his campaign pages, it says he was born in Jackson Heights. But, that probably came from him, and for obvious reasons, we do not consider George Santos to be a reliable source even for this sort of information which is ordinarily noncontroversial.

No other source has given a birthplace. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

So checking, the Naturalization Law of 1795 is apparently still in effect and that implicitly makes anyone with 5 years residence a citizen. I suppose the only thing that can vacate that is if the border is crossed illegally which didn happen if his parents got residency. Still the article ought to say clearly whether or not he was born here. Lycurgus (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's not enough just to live in the US for that time; you have to formally apply and prove that you lived in the U.S. for those five years. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/the-everything-guide-to-george-santoss-lies.html says he was born in Queens, implicitly in '88/'89. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

But that hasn't been independently confirmed or documented. No one's seen his birth certificate; no one's seen any Certificate of Citizenship. The only source for that is his campaign page, and since he made many other claims on it that turned out to be untrue, we have no reason to believe any word on it, including "and", "of", "for", "but" and "the". Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That's why I reported it as hearsay although the rag in question puts it in a section which is supposed to be the only known to be true facts about him. The reason this individual is a phenomena is because he's not the only fabulist. Not sure there's a difference between shoddy thinking of the mag, industry, and the perp, other than degree. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That page has been around since the first week of the story, when a lot of the media hadn't fully understood the contours of the story and that the only source for his birthplace might be suspect since it arguably came from Santos himself. (And maybe it's just someone thinking like, well, should we be surprised that some grand poseur like this came from Queens?) Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well ... it seems that Vice has finally addressed this at some length, although without resolution, due to a slipup by Santos's campaign staff on the question. I have added a paragraph on it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The mentioned sources seem to all be gossip or pure speculation, not reliable evidence about his citizenship; you haven't seen most people's birth certificates, that's not a good reason to assume it's true. It seems to me that what you're looking for is to make him look bad, which is what he already has done himself with his lying and ethics violations, substantial parts of this article. But besides that, this focus on citizenship to me reeks of the birther movement conspiracy theories. If there is good evidence of lies about his citizenship (which would surprise me since elections authorities let him in office), non-gossip sources will highlight it, and only then does it make sense to include text about it. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Candidates for office in New York, as far as I know (and I have done my share of collecting petition signatures in this state) do not have to provide proof of citizenship when they file for office ... the Board of Elections is more concerned with whether you got enough valid signatures by the deadline. It has always been assumed that you wouldn't be doing this if you weren't a citizen (There's only one case, IIRC, where someone got elected to Congress as a naturalized citizen not having met the seven-year requirement, and he was open about it so they delayed his swearing-in a few months).

Now he also did seem to get two states to let him register to vote, so then he might have been verified. And if that marriage was allowed to go through, that might also be proof since ICS would have verified his citizenship.

But that requires speculation and original research we can't put in articles. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I think it's safe to say he's a U.S. citizen. The New York Times and The Hill both seem to think so. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

But it would still be nice to have proof one way or the other ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but the NYT is right that in order for his former wife to apply for citizenship Santos had to have citizenship. The immigration court would have checked his citizenship. His claim to Brazilian citizenship is still unverified and this does not effect that. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is the psychology to better explain this man's motivations?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As someone who has been proved evidentially to be a habitual liar, who has committed crimes, used fraud and deceit, and has shown no lack of remorse or contrition, why has Santos' strong traits of a sociopathic personality disorder not been added to the article. There are quite a number of articles about this man's well documented behaviour

• GEORGE SANTOS IS A SOCIOPATH!
• George Santos is a ‘sociopath’, fellow New York Republican congressman says
• George Santos and the fascinating psychology of compulsive liars
• Inside the mind of a fabulist

All these are reliable secondary sources that state that his behaviour and personality fit well within the defined scope of behaviors of sociopathic or psychopathic disorders. The fact that he can't feel shame or even appear shocked at being unmasked for all the lies he has told is a trait that needs more explanation.146.199.128.212 (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The first one, at least, is not reliable in WP-land (headline sort of hints it). Per WP:BLP, what text do you suggest adding, to what section? Rule of thumb is that any speculation on his mental state should probably come from medical professionals. Otherwise it's just gossip. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the above, we do not use pop psycolalys in BLPs. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

+1 to both of the above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I knew that would be the standard answer because that's how Wikipedia works. Quickly it pounced on that it can't be said he's "is" a "sociopath". Yeah I know that only a formal psychometric assessment can put that to bed. But what is important to report is that he has been called a "sociopath", see what I did there? That's what WP:VERIFY means, it doesn't have to be true only that "reliable" secondary sources have reported it. OK the National Enquirer is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination but the Guardian are Independent. Besides nationally broadcast talkshow hosts are now saying it openly eg At 4:01, Jimmy Kimmel calls Santos a "serial liar, sociopath" on YouTube. Is the The Atlantic also now no longer a reliable source? What Psychology Can Teach Us About George Santos? It's clear he has been called a sociopath based on his behaviour and evidence.146.199.128.196 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, we can say "he has been called a sociopath", not that he is one (which seemed to be what the OP suggested). We can only deal with the question as asked, not second guess what it really was. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I read the Atlantic piece when it came out and decided it was too generally about the mentality of fabulists in general, with a couple of specific examples from Santos's many statements, to offer anything that would add to this article. Upon rereading, that opinion is unchanged.

I am also not impressed that he's being called a "sociopath". That epithet is thrown around far too casually today for it to be meaningful in any way, unless it comes from a medical professional qualified and experienced to render such a diagnosis who has personally examined Santos at length (Jimmy Kimmel? Where'd he get his medical degree?).

Also, really, since it refers to an actual mental condition described in the DSM, using it this casually is ableist, and we really shouldn't encourage that level of abusive language if we can help not doing it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This page already smacks heavily of campaign oppositional research given the distribution of content. Dumber things have gotten through the editing process here, but suggesting he's a sociopath would absolutely shatter suspension of disbelief even if it were true. 69.74.248.66 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to spin off the section on the 2022 election?

I had been thinking of posting this after Easter in any event, but after Iamreallygoodatcheckers tagged the article over its length this morning, I feel my hand necessarily forced, so I will do it.

I think (and have been thinking for a while) that with the amount of material on last year's election in NY-3 we have in the article, we could address its length by starting a separate article on that election itself, i.e. 2022 New York's 3rd district congressional election. According to the section lengths in the banner above, that section as is amounts to a respectable 22.5K, more than enough for a credible article, and of course a standalone article on that election could include more material about things not directly relevant to Santos but very relevant to that election such as the lengthy and hotly contested Democratic primary for the nomination and New York's wild redistricting ride last year that led to that primary and, arguably, Santos's election (If nothing else, I have decided, this year later I will be starting Harkenrider v. Hochul).

Doing this and leaving a rump behind here would help shorten the article. I have also thought that maybe in time an article about the 2020 NY-3 election could and should be created, but I don't think now is the best time to discuss it ... perhaps more will emerge about that race that will bolster the case.

I will be tagging that section for a proposed split. If there is no serious opposition, I will start the article in draftspace by the end of the week. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There having been no objection, I will be doing this soon. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Late to the party, but this seems fair to me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this should be done. I've just removed much material about the 2022 election that is trivial for this biographical page, but would belong on a dedicated article, that can be retrieved from the page history. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case: 69.118.237.29 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  OK, and ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

LGBT claims

@Daniel Case:. Several reliable sources have publicly disputed that Santos is LGBT. (Or at least similarly cast significant doubt upon the claim.)

This is an exceptional case - and I think we should operate under the assumption that nothing he claims about his personal life is credible.

I'm fine with it remaining in the body... but not the lead. KlayCax (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

We discussed this above (it may have been archived now; this one was) and the consensus is that Santos is gay, as reading through the article should demonstrate, with commentary from others, including former romantic partners, reliably sourced. Some people in fact thought it was downright insulting to question his sexual identity, as The Daily Beast did, simply over the fact that he didn't disclose his seven-year marriage to a woman until after it was over, on the rather antiquated grounds that "he's married, thus he can't be gay". As a result, we aren't using any of their reporting as a source on this article (at least). Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Scrolling through the archives it seems one of the few points of consensus amongst editors has been most editors tend to agree he is gay and the reliable sources establish that. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Caucus Membership

Has he joined any congressional caucuses? There is a NYT article about ties to the Freedom caucus, but it does not say that he joined. [2] His website has it blank, but then says to email them to know which ones he is on. [3] 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no requirement that members of Congress make public any caucuses they're on, as they're informal groups with no official standing. If Santos isn't making that information public in a way that we and readers can verify, then we shouldn't have it in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I wanted to see if I missed something when looking for that information. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

white supremacist "OK" sign

In the subsection "Post-2022 campaign" in the first paragraph it states: "Three weeks later, during the votes for Speaker of the House, Santos was photographed flashing the white supremacist "OK" sign." WP:SNOPES has found that this is un proven. However, the sentence in the article portrays it as a fact. This sentence needs to be corrected and/or removed. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly I think it's better off just being taken out entirely. There was always, if you look up above (or in the archive ... I think it's there now) debate about even including this, and with a few months time it has steadily diminished in relevance. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree to just remove it. Especially given that making it a hate sign was just a way to troll. It’s best to just ignore and not feed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox charges

I am trying to add charges to the infobox, but it's not showing up. Can someone please fix? Thank you! Pennsylvania2 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure we ned them, they are still only charges. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Split proposal

I propose that the sections False biographical statements scandal, Campaign finance issues, Investigations and legal issues and Federal indictment be split into a new article titled Allegations of misconduct by George Santos (or something of the like).

The present article is certainly too long, there is no doubt about that. Much of the articles bulk comes from these sections which realistically could warrant a page of their own. Cheers! Estar8806 (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Support, most of this material belongs on a separate page. This article should have a summary of his many issues, not a comprehensive record of everything written about Santos in the last year. I support WP:BOLD action to implement a split and may take such action in the next couple days myself if there is no objection. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been planning to do this in draftspace; you have just forced my hand. I eagerly await your attention and devotion to shaping the draft into something presentable in main space in some time, since you care. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help! Feel free to ping me whenever it would be helpful (i.e. when me jumping in to make changes wouldn't interfere with what you are doing). —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have created the draft on the 2022 election article. Obviously before we can go to mainspace with it it will need material about the Democratic primary, a proper intro and infobox. I'll try to take care of the second tonight despite all the other it-never-rains-it-pours things I have been having to do, on-wiki and off, online and off, lately. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I support splitting the article because of the length of 3 of the 4 sections (false biographic statements, campaign finance, and investigations and legal issues) and make those 3 sections into their own article on Santos' scandals or crimes. Some are allegations, but most have been verified as legitimate.

I would keep the federal indictment section in this article because it's shorter and changing because the legal process is still playing out. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the allegations belong in a separate article yet; I think we discussed that above and decided against it because we don't really have a history of creating separate articles for things like that without a formal hook for it like an actual investigation or prosecution. OK, we have that now, but that's only a fraction of the allegations (I strongly suspect that there will be more; maybe eventually we can have something like United States v. Santos or George Santos campaign finance scandal if there is). Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Inseparable from his bio. Plus, even if moved, it should be something like George Santos scandals. Neutrality^talk 17:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support split of false biographical statements scandal: I'm worried allegations of misconduct by George Santos is a bit too broad of a page and cramming a lot of loosely related scandals in it will be confusing and hard to read/navigate. Would prefer splitting specific instances. The easiest would probably be the false biographical statements scandal since that one appears to have largely "resolved" while a lot of the other scandals are developing. Additionally, the false biographical statements scandal section has a chronological explanation of the breaking of the scandal that would make a decent main section for a standalone article.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that there's not really a "scandal" over his fanciful biographical claims since none of them involve an actual violation of the law, nor are they alone enough to force the House's hand on expelling him. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a law broken for a scandal to be a scandal. Plenty of politicians get caught up in sex scandals without there being any laws broken. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about per our naming conventions. It seems like we reserve that term for situations where there are at least allegations of laws broken, and perhaps an investigation, even if it comes to the conclusion that no action is/was necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd be okay with whatever article title works best; I'd even be okay with cutting different section. My main concern is splitting too much at once. As proposed, I think the current split is a little too big and all encompassing. Out of genuine curiosity (and not to be argumentative), how much of the article is left if we split all the allegations of misconduct at once? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support split. The scandal(s) about him is taking up more than half of this biography on him. Natg 19 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Article length is not a reason to ignore BLP. First, the scandals take up most of the article because, as noted above, it takes up most of the coverage in reliable sources. Second, this gets into the questions of POV that "Criticism of ..." articles have long opened up ... with the difference being that this one is about a living person. Do we have any other articles generally devoted to "Bad stuff about Joe Blow"? If you know of one, please link it here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why POV would be an issue in "Criticism of..." articles, especially considering many articles have built-in sections covering the matter. First of all, it would be against NPOV to not cover it. And more to the point you're trying to make, there's nothing inherently biased against separating criticisms of an article subject when those criticisms are so frequent and also cover most of the usage in reliable sources. It only becomes biased when we apply it arbitrarily or when the way it is written gives undue weight to a certain opinion regarding the accuracy of the claims. estar8806 (talk) ★ 05:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRITS would like to have a word with you. Indeed, in this context, that whole page is worth reading. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I think @Daniel Case is right and we should consider WP:CRITS when titling articles and making splits here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yea go for it, if it’s gonna be a crap tone long, then yes go ahead 107.116.83.7 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support split for above reasons. New article itself is certainly notable – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 02:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I don't understand the name argument however. What ever the potential dangers of Criticism of … articles there is a large amount of WP:RS criticism of him and RS discussion of said criticism. Therefore I agree it would violate WP:NPOV to not have coverage of something. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue is not whether we have it, it's whether we put it in a separate article. It is one thing to have Criticism of Microsoft, say, or Criticism of Wikipedia—those are things. By contrast, an article devoted solely to negative allegations about a living person is something no one has yet responded to my challenge to find and link to. This at the very least raises serious BLP concerns. In fact, I think we might be better off having this discussion at BLPN, where a couple of months ago we were able to put to rest the question of whether we included Santos's ex-wife's name to rest. (See archived link above). Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are now two proposals for splitting off sections, #2022 campaign to 2022 New York's 3rd congressional district election and this one, #False biographical statements scandal to Allegations of misconduct by George Santos. Before discussing splits, the article should be edited thoroughly, to weed out duplications of text and cites. IMO, there won't be enough material for either separate article once the editing is done. There's not much substance to Santos's real-life biography, so we're left with a list of lies and how they were detected. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, to be fair, I think eventually we will know his real story. There is "not much substance" to his biography only because what he has told us has turned out not to be true, and because he has so trashed his credibility that way that the things that cannot be verified, or are normally accepted on faith (like his birthplace) cannot be relied on. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I suspect this content can be greatly condensed. We're currently just throwing in everything and the kitcken sink. I've excised a bit of it. Even so, you could probably cut out nothing but filler words and random factoids and manage to cut out 15-20% of the article without seriously affecting the meaning. GMG^talk 11:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  And thanks very much for your wonderfully elucidative edit summaries! Wow! I swear, where would the rest of us benighted peons be without your blazing displays of wit and erudition slashing across the Wikipedian firmament! If we didn't know we couldn't live without you before, well, we sure do now! Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I dunno. Go clean it up then. The prose is bloated. GMG^talk 17:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, since you did such a great job, I'm afraid that if I did you would come racing over to cut me down to size with another withering edit summary clearly intended to leave everyone in awestruck rapture at your brilliance. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  You apparently don't get perfect tense, because past tense orients itself to the present, while perfect orients itself to a moment of reference in the past, looking back on the past from that particular perspective. But I'm sorry, did you have a point to make? GMG^talk 19:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  See discontinuous past: "a category of past tense of verbs argued to exist in some languages which have a meaning roughly characterizable as 'past and not present' or 'past with no present relevance'". See also Simple past#usage:

  .. [S]ome stative verbs do not generally use the progressive aspect at all, typically verbs of mental states (know, believe, need), of emotional states (love, dislike, prefer), of possession (have, own), of senses (hear) and some others (consist, exist, promise) ... and in these cases the simple past is used even for a temporary state ... The simple past is used when the event happened at a particular time in the past, or during a period which ended in the past (i.e. a period that does not last up until the present time)

  I grant that a lot of people misuse it, and most of the time when you have taken it out you have been correct to (see? If I said "were correct to", it might be taken as implying "but you're not now", and we wouldn't want that, would we?). But still abusus non tollit usum.

  It may be a regional thing ... where I live the simple past has that meaning when used without a stated time the action began (assuming we are talking about a continuing action, such as aligning oneself politically with someone else), but I've noticed in some other areas it seems to be exactly the opposite (Much like some Southern U.S. English speakers tell stories clearly set in the past using the present.). Studying Russian made my attention to aspect in English that much sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  The perfect in the second sentence is necessary. There is a point marked in the past, at this event with a definite beginning and ending, a thing that is no longer occurring in the present. The referenced moment is past relative to the present, just as the thing we're pointing at is in the past relative to that moment. In the first sentence, if Santos aligned himself with Trump, and remains in this state, there is no relative reference point from which we are anchoring ourselves to point back to the past behind it. The only reference point is "right meow" and that's simple past.

  This faux perfect that creeps up everywhere is an artifact of people imagining their point of writing as being in the past relative to the point of reading. It's not necessary 99% of the time unless you have reason to believe that the time of writing is relevant to changing circumstances. As of writing 12 of the 14 people had been rescued from the mine collapse. As of writing Neil Armstrong had become the first person to walk on the moon. Well no, Armstrong was and the temporal reference in the perfect tense is meaningless. GMG^talk 10:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe the solution here is just to recast the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose splitting any content off from this article based on point of view, per WP:CRITS. The allegations of misconduct are an inseparable part of this biography. – bradv 15:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  If no criticism/allegation articles could be made, we wouldn't see articles like Allegations of sexual misconduct against Donald Trump or Allegations of cheating during the 1994 Formula One World Championship. The problem would be if the fork is not told from a reasonably neutral point of view or if it is a WP:POV_Fork, which I see no reason to believe the information about the allegations against Santos aren't legitimate allegations that should be discussed on Wikipedia. Making a split doesn't preclude there being brief parts of the present article about the accusations with a link to the new article for more information. Especially given the length of the article, it seems totally reasonable to me. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're leaving out that this is a living person we're talking about ... of course we can spin out a section about cheating in an F1 race or races, and the allegations against Trump resulted in a lawsuit (as well as the article titularly confining itself to one narrowly defined area of misconduct). I think a separate article about Santos's misconduct might require more active cases than just the current one ... if, for instance, the House Ethics Committee brings some serious charges (as I suspect it has recently signaled it very well may) and/or the current indictment is superseded by one bringing more charges (again I think that entirely possible). Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Santos is tied to his scandals, and they are the most notable thing about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The present article has pretty extensive sections about Santos' lies and ethics violations that I believe make the article too long. XTools says the article has 84 kB of prose, for which WP:TOOLONG#Size guideline quite straightforwardly indicates the article "Probably should be divided" (articles between 60 and 100 kB). Especially since Santos is really not that impactful of a figure compared to others with long articles, I think this makes sense.

Though I suspect this is the intention anyway, I would still highlight that there probably should remain a brief section or sections in the article. there are plenty of other articles that keep a brief summary of some topic about a figure, but have separate articles that go into more depth. To give a random example, Noam Chomsky has a section in his article about his political views, but there is a substantially longer page on his political views separate from the primary page: Political positions of Noam Chomsky. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

please remove "alledged fraudster" this is a biased addition and unecessary. 2601:188:CF80:5C50:A9C7:F865:F1B3:7341 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Please place edit requests in "Please change X to Y" format. In any case, alleged fraudster is appropriate language as the subject of the article has faced allegations of fraud but has not been convicted of them, hence "alleged". Estar8806 (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

He's been famous for a while but only just became a representative

Seems dishonest to describe him like he wasn't involved at all before he ran for office, because that's untrue 2001:56A:7D81:BF00:6DB6:61A9:9DD4:E0C8 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Has he? Any news sources form before the election? Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what this comment means, exactly. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, what I meant was that we need RS to establish notability before he won. Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he had run in 2020. But we don't consider opposing candidates who don't win notable simply by virtue of that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake

The word expulsion is misspelled as explusion at the end of the 4th paragraph. Someone should fix that 50.83.141.115 (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)