Talk:Paul Gosar

Merge?

I've proposed merging this article into United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010 because Mr. Gosar doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Simply running ahead in partisan polls does not qualify him for his own article, although that information should certainly be included on the elections page. We can discuss here or at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Simply running ahead in polls does not qualify him for his own article"??? Who says?? Dear Arbor832466: Where did not learn such a thing? Is this some kind of secret Wikipedia rule? No, it is not. I think that the FACT that he is running ahead is a solid reason to keep the article. Wikipedia is no place for partisanship. Wikipedia is not censored. Dear Arbor832466: Please point out the specific Wikipedia rule that backs up your claim that a politician that is running for Congress and is ahead of a sitting Congressman 25 days before election day does not qualify for an article. Please provide.--InaMaka (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, Arbor832466 is simply not telling the truth. The Hill just released an independent poll that places him ahead. Arbor832466 please do not make up things to back up your attempts to delete articles about politicians 25 days before an election.--InaMaka (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, the Hill poll is non partisan. That was my mistake. Please assume good faith, InaMaka. However, there are specific criteria for notability (WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO) and polling is not among them. I'm curious why you don't support the same strict notability standard here that you did over at WP:Articles for deletion/Stephene_Moore? Arbor832466 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong to assume that I don't support the "same strict notability standard" in the Gosar article that I supported in the Moore article. Let's compare the two articles so that you can see what I am talking about. I'm looking for a consistent application of the rule. That's all. The notability rules for politicians are very clear that just being the spouse or child of a politician does not confer notability. And when you are honest you know that the Moore article survived merely because she is the spouse of a Congressman--even though Wikipedia is clearly states that being a spouse or child of notable person does not confer notability. You have stated over and over again that there is significant coverage of Moore in the media. But that is not true. The only articles that you provided were articles that refer to her collaterally as part of the KS 3rd Dist campaign. But you and I both know that election coverage does not confer notability either. Moore's only career accomplishments are as a nurse and a educrat at KU. Even though working as a nurse is important and valuable work, it does not qualify for an article. And the KU job is an entry level job. I know I held a similar position while in graduate school at KU. So Ms. Moore does not qualify--not under any set of circumstances. Now if she was competetive in the Congressional race--which she isn't--then she would qualify because she would be within striking distance in the polls, but she's not. If she was in striking distance then media reporters would be writing her up in a positive way. There would be tons of articles about her personally. You know and I know it. If a female Democrat had a real chance to keep the seat of her retiring husband in one of most Republican states of Union, the national media (NY Times, Wash Post, Time, Newsweek, ABC News (Cokie Roberts), The View (Joy Behar), CBS News (Katie Couric), etc.) would be talking about it everyday. They would be talking about her as replacing Biden as Obama's '12 running mate (yeah, that's hyperbole). But at any rate, there would be in depth articles about her personally and not just about the race. Now Gosar on the other hand (and the same applies to Bucshon) has a very good chance to win the Congressional seat. He is ahead in the polls and you are wrong to state that being ahead in the polls is not relevant. It is completely relevant. It is relevant for two main reasons. Removing an article about a politician that is winning a Congressional seat 24 days before an election violates the NPOV provisions of Wikipedia. I don't care how you look at it. It is partisan. Period. And when an individual is ahead in a Congressional race 24 days before an election by definition means that there is tons of information written and produced about that individual. Take Bucshon for example I worked yesterday and I found tons of things to add to the article and I added a small part of it. You need to attempt to fix the article instead of attempting to have them deleted. That is just bad form. And if someone is a competetive challenger then I am going to work to stop you and Flatterworld (and anyone else) from blatantly deleting the article or burying in the another article. It may not be done maliciously but it does violate the spirit of Wikipedia and usually violates the rules of Wikipedia. I did not agree with the decision to keep Moore's article up--when I believe that it should have been merged into the Kansas politics article, but I do respect it. Also, in the Bucshon situation there was NO discussion before you and Flatterworld merged that article. Now, that flat out violates the rules of Wikipedia. And I am going do something about every time you and him do that between now and Election Day. Most of the articles that you nominated for merger probably should be merged. But many of them do not and I can name three off of the top of my head: Gosar, Bucshon, and Reed. The real issue is NOT about my consistant application of the rules but your completely inconsistant application of the rules. Moore is not competetive. She will lose in November. It is a fact. There are no real articles about her because her accomplishments are very, very small. Come on! "Project Coordinator"???? That is a minimum wage job. Kevin Yoder is ahead in polls and he is going to sweep to victory. When November 4th comes I am going to move immediately to have Ms. Moore article completely merged into her husband's article. She does not qualify. But at the same time you support Moore's article you want to delete Bucshon's article. Bucshon is beating his opponent live a mule. He is talented heart surgeon and there are long, detailed articles about him and his life which are easy to find if either you or Flatterworld took the time to look for them. But neither of you did. Both of you just wanted to delete the article. If either you or Flatteworld attempt to destroy the article about Bucshon again then I will take my concerns to the next level. I will get louder about it. Deleting his article was totally uncalled for. Also, the manner that you and Flatterworld used to delete the Bucshon article completely violated Wikipedia rules because neither of you waited for input from other editors. You just killed it. That was inappropriate. I don't really care if Flatterworld is world's greatest, most important, mightest admin the world has ever seen. Admins can and do throw their weight around but they can only go so far and I will call him to the carpet if I have to. That move was inappropriate. And one last thing. I noticed that the vast majority of the articles you and Flatterworld wanted deep sixed were articles about Republicans. Did you ever take a look at the article about a Democratic candidate named Krystal Ball. She is not qualified to sweep the floors of my office much less be a member of Congress. She has NEVER accomplished anything. She is losing badly--not even close. But I noticed that neither you or Flatterworld marked her article for merger or deletion. And surprise, surprise she is Democrat. Her article should have NEVER existed in the first place.--InaMaka (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude and false claims are getting extremely irritating. I improved a lot of articles, of both parties and probably some third parties as well, which should never have been created in the first place if we strictly followed Wikipedia guidelines. They originally consisted of no more than a link to the campaign site and some cut-and-paste efforts, much of which wasn't even grammatical when put together. Wikipedia is not a campaign brochure. In an attempt to encourage new volunteers and set a good example, I added formatting, structure, and non-partisan links. However, Jerzeykydd started turning out five-second trash articles faster than I could keep up. No one else was engaging in improving these articles, and that includes you. As I don't have unlimited time, I marked the remainder for Merge, still trying to avoid actually deleting them. I did two merges (one Democrat, then one Republican) to show the alternative available. I don't know what more I could have done to show good faith and being helpful. You, on the other hand, are taking the view that any and all trash articles are to be left as is. Wrong answer. You are welcome to try to improve them, but in the meantime you have no 'right' to have trash remain. Flatterworld (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul Gosar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110717095940/http://tribtown.trib.com/post/wypolitics/at_least_one_gosar_was_elected_this_year.html to http://tribtown.trib.com/post/wypolitics/at_least_one_gosar_was_elected_this_year.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

after Unite the Right rally (Charlottesville) :

Arizona congressman repeats bogus claim that Charlottesville violence was left-wing plot

Imo, it should be mentioned in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. These are notable and notably false statements by him. --Sstrader (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Caucus memberships

Okay, I agree that all 67 aren't necessary to include, but caucus membership is good information for constituents and researchers. The three he's chairman of should be included; among the others the House Freedom Caucus m'ship should be included since it's one of the best known of the rest. How about:

As of November 2017, Gosar is a member of 67 caucuses. They include:

• Congressional Western Caucus (chairman)
• Congressional Interstate 11 Caucus (co-chairman)
• Congressional Inventions Caucus (founder and co-chairman)
• House Freedom Caucus

Fishlandia (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Only if there is secondary RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

References

A lawmaker calls for treason charges against the heads of the DOJ and FBI; covered by WP:RS. WP:UNDUE, really?

A highly experienced editor removed a congressman's statement that the leaders of the FBI and DOJ ought to to be tried for treason[1]. The text is sourced to Politico, and has been covered by other RS, such as WaPo, the Hill and Newsweek. The statement is also bound to receive more RS coverage, given its absurdity and dangerous authoritarian flavor. The text is WP:DUE by any standard. The revert is utterly spurious, and I encourage the editor "Power~enwiki" to self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup. In addition, note WP:NOTNEWS. If Wikipedia included every stupid thing a Congressman said, political articles would be absurd. If this gets sustained coverage or he takes actions based on this hyperbole, I'd support including it. Otherwise I request that we wait until there's a consensus before this info is included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this sounds like a completely principled stance, why don't you go ahead and scrub Gosar's entire article? There is no sentence in this article that is sourced to more than two secondary RS, and I doubt any one item here received sustained coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There *is* quite a lot of other crap in here. I'm not sure how/why the "Charlottesville "false flag" conspiracy theory" or "Native Americans" sections are included here. They've both been in the article long enough I'd rather not remove them without discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

add fake news from Gosar ?

• Is This a Real Photo of Obama Shaking Hands with Iranian President Rouhani? Arizona U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar tweeted a fake image of a meeting between former President Barack Obama and Iran President Hassan Rouhani. 7 January 2020 Snopes.com per this.

X1\ (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Potential WP:BLP violation

This is concerning this addition:

On January 19, the last day of the Trump administration, it was reported that Gosar and Biggs sought pardons from the outgoing president. No pardons were granted to the two representatives or to "anyone else involved in the Jan. 6 failed coup attempt that sought to block Biden’s certification as president" according to one report.

We shouldn't perport these accusations, for one, the article cites CNN, but CNN does not report Gosar sought a pardon. The article seemingly made up the story that he did. We cannot allow this high accusation on the article unless concrete information is present and simply saying it was "reported" doesn't cut it. @Jorm: reverted my edit removing this with the line, "It stays." That's a half-assed explanation if you don't mind me saying, WP:BLP violations are concerning no matter who the individual is. CaliIndie (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the Arizona Mirror no longer a reliable source? Just because you question their reporting doesn't make it so. If you have a problem with the reliability of a source, WP:RSN is thataway.--Jorm (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You're being ignorant, the Arizona Mirror is clearly basing their reporting entirely on CNN and they say so multiple times, but nowhere in said-report from CNN do they say Gosar sought a pardon, they say several Republican lawmakers, but never name anyone. They say Gosar is potentially liable for legal suit, but again, nowehere do they say he asked for a pardon. And as you may know, accepting a pardon is an acknowledgment of guilt. To seek a pardon is admitting you committed a crime. To report he may have done so when there is no reporting beyond this source to say so is a major WP:BLP violation. I'm saddened to see you patently deny this, but maybe you're intentionally doing so for your own self-serving. If CNN had named Gosar as someone who was even reported as seeking a pardon, I wouldn't be raising this issue, but clearly Gosar wasn't named and the original report had no intention to name anyone in particular since doing so would've either been a major indignation on that person or they seemingly lacked the information. Either way, it is clear to anyone with eyes the Arizona Mirror fabricated the association. CaliIndie (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That's cool and all that you think I'm ignorant but I stopped reading right there. I suggest you to to the reliable sources noticeboard and try to sell your original research there. Good luck!--Jorm (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Your responses to me have been single sentences with no acknowledgment of any of the valid concerns I've raised, your poor conduct is transparent. You say you've stopped reading but I don't believe you ever started at all. CaliIndie (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Jorm is correct. The article as it currently stands remains heavily whitewsahed, calling AFPAC "A [sic] American Nationalist" event, language that is not used in any reliable sources, and removing all reliably sourced references to white nationalism. Wikipediaa is not in the business of whitewashing racism, and the references to white nationalism should be restored to the body unless someone is able to provide WP:RS to the contrary. Nmi628 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Attempts to whitewash

Multiple new accounts and IP users have attempted to remove reliably sourced content on Gosar's links to white nationalism, such as here and here. Not sure if some kind of protection on the page is necessary, but vandalism has been rampant in the wake of recent headlines. Nmi628 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Specifically the sub-section titled "Attendance of America First Political Action Conference" is heavily whitewashed by IPs in its current form. Specifically, Fuentes' twitter is being cited as a reliable source to WP:COATTRACK lots of irrelevant information whitewashing Gosar. Additionally, all references to AFPAC being a white nationalist conference have been removed, despite them coming from reliable sources (ABC, Washington Post, CNN and others all use this language to refer to the conference) as well as references to Fuentes' white nationalism and his explicitly racist comments at that conference (e.g. claiming that "white people are done being bullied" and must "fight"). Lastly, the conference is described as "a [sic] American Nationalist" event, language only used by Fuentes himself and not repeated in any reliable sources. Wikipedia should be wary of users employing weasel words to whitewash white supremacy, and I'd ask that a confirmed user remove the obvious whitewashing and bad faith editing from that section. I suggest that the section be restored to its previous language in this version, before the IP accounts started vandalizing. Nmi628 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been edited a decent bit since you made this edit request, the only specific request outlined was a reversion to an old revision which no longer really makes sense, so I'm closing this edit request for now. Feel free to re-open it if you still have specific changes you want to be made. Volteer1 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The current version definitely looks better, although I think it's important to specify that it is a white nationalist conference in the lead, not just "far right." AFPAC has been described as "white nationalist" by most reliable sources I can find, such as here or here or here. Alternatively, we could also describe the conference as "tied to white supremacy" as the Washington Post says, if that's slightly more NPOV in your estimation. But regardless, it seems a disservice to readers to exclude ties to white nationalism and/or supremacy entirely in the lead when it's clearly reflected in the body. Nmi628 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The recent edit by Jorm is perfect and fixes the whitewash issue in the lead. This looks resolved, thanks. Nmi628 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: How were my edits 'not improvements'? Please explain this. Beaneater (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)