Talk:Gavin Newsom

Far left politician

If people like Doug Mastriano are labeled as far-right, shouldn't Gavin Newsom be labeled far-left? 173.62.201.143 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia works off WP:RS reliable sources. Do you have any that say such a thing? Miner Editor (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-24/skelton-california-governor-gavin-newsom-first-year

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/06/gavin-newsom-the-worst-governor-in-america/

https://www.dailynews.com/2022/10/18/things-wont-get-better-in-california-as-long-as-gavin-newsom-remains-governor/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2021/08/16/gavin-newsom-is-bad-for-californias-health/?sh=738e8e82354c

https://www.sfgate.com/gavin-newsom-recall/article/drew-magary-newsom-recall-andrew-cuomo-governor-16380119.php

https://calmatters.org/explainers/newsom-recall-report-card/

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/09/newsom-calls-gop-governors-bullies-but-what-about-him/

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/08/14/newsom-is-a-terrible-governor-but-i-dont-know-what-to-do/

https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/readers/2021/08/23/letters-its-easy-recall-bad-things-gavin-newsom-has-done/8236298002/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/gavin-newsom-democratic-california-governor-reelection/673810/

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6263011557001 173.62.201.143 (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the real issue with this article is that his political alignment is only described once, in the last sentence of the lead, and then using the word "conservative": An analysis published in 2019 found his political positions to be more conservative than almost any Democratic legislator in California... that's pretty bad. The contrast to the Doug Mastriano article is indeed striking. And actually, I'm not sure why I decided to comment on this article at all other than it popped up in a recent changes feed. I'm going to bow out at this point... I've seen this movie before and it's not my cup of tea. Good luck! Miner Editor (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Introductory Paragraph

I wish for the last sentence as of today to be reviewed. I do not believe that the last sentence in the lead paragraph adheres to Wikipedia's standards for lead articles. Specifically, as outlined in the 'manual of style/lead section' page, it states, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear..."

I attempted to edit the article to make the lead more broad, but there is a user who is actively changing it. When I left the user a warning about activist editing/war editing, and left a warning about it on their page, my user recieved a similar tag from a different user. I have requested a review of this article.

The sentence in question is, "An analysis published in 2019 found his political positions to be more conservative than almost any Democratic Legislator in California". I believe this sentence is relevant to the article, but belongs within the body of the article. This sentence is clearly designed to guide the thinking of the reader, and does not belong in the introduction as it is strangely specific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_Newsom&diff=prev&oldid=1165883844 Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I dispute that it's "strangely specific". As a government official and politician, Newsom's political position is basic biographical info. This is something that any reader could reasonably want to know. I don't see this as undue for that reason.

CalMatters appears to be a reliable outlet, but it would be nice to more clearly indicate that they are the ones who performed this analysis. This probably belongs in the body, not the lead, but once explained in the body, it makes a lot of sense to then explain it in the lead, as well. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like that was clarified by User:Erp. As per the body, the best place for that would probably be in the National profile section. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 06:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Probably not in the lead (Summoned by bot) this is a WEIGHT matter, rather than a NPOV matter. What importance to attach to a single analysis, though there might be others arguing something similar. The content should definitely NOT be in the lead unless a more detailed and contextualised account is in the body (who/when/what did this analysis - which doesn't seem to be the case at present - the text having recently been removed) roughly per Grayfell. If sources describe his political positions similarly, a brief summary would be apt in the lead, but if this is the only one, it probably isn't lead worthy. I'm UK and therefore not competent to have an opinion on CalMatters, though its attributed use would seem to be justified in the body. Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. I'm an American, but this sentence seems to me to be an attempt to influence the opinions of the readers. I am looking at the articles of Bill Clinton and Abraham Lincoln, and I don't see any sentence like this in either of those articles.. I am going to propose that we move this and add it to the section that user Erp proposed. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is too unneutral to go in the lead, rather that if it isn't a widely held view and something widely commented on, it isn't important enough. Recording where a politician is on a L-R scale is a legitimate practice, but should be supported by more than one source/poll. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where similar information is presented on other figures. If this does exist in more then 10 examples, and I just haven't seen it, then the point could be broadened and it would be fine. Otherwise, the point should be added to the body of the article. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Every article will be based on its own set of sources, so due weight has to be decided on a case-by-case basis using those sources. See Wikipedia:OTHERCONTENT for an explanation of why precedent is only sometimes persuasive in these kinds of discussions.

In this case, the source is specifically explaining how Newsom is unusual and his position is unexpected. Naturally, other politicians are not going to also be unusual in exactly the same way, so they won't have this in their leads. That doesn't really tell us anything about this article or the weight of this claim. Grayfell (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

We can request review from additional Wikipedia resources regarding this. Will wait to make changes. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What does " additional Wikipedia resources" mean?

Do you understand what I am saying? The main point of the source is to explain how Newsom's record is unusual or unexpected when compared to others in his party. This is especially noteworthy since he is the governor and not just a state representative. Comparisons to other articles won't really work for that reason. Other articles would not be expected to say how someone isn't unusual, because that would be empty filler. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

CalMatters is a relatively recently created (7 years maybe?) non-profit news organization that specifically covers California topics regarding politics and lawmaking (not crime, sports, food, entertainment, etc.), and partners with NPR and other similar type stations who also report with and republish CalMatters content.

1) I agree that this statement should be in the body if it is to be in the lead. 2) I agree that it would be better sourced if multiple sources talked about his position on the American left/right political line/graph. 3) While I haven't seen any other analysis as extensive as this one, there have been MANY comments by journalists recently regarding what he has signed/vetoed where journalists have stated that he is clearly NOT following what California Democrats support (his local power base) and has been moving more to the right than in the past, with them guessing that this shift is to set himself up as a better nationwide Presidential candidate (to not push ultra-left policies which could be used as ammunition against him for mainstream voters).

See, for example this quote from the Guardian: Diverging at times from his own professed policy ideals, Newsom has attempted to walk the line between California progressivism and nationally appealing moderation. He pushed to keep open the state’s last nuclear plant, going against an agreement devised with environmental groups years ago. He successfully championed a controversial program to force unhoused people into mental health and substance abuse treatment, over the objections of civil rights leaders, disability activists and healthcare professionals. And last month, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed for supervised injection site pilot programs in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland – backtracking on his own support for such measures to prevent overdose deaths. “I have long supported the cutting edge of harm reduction strategies,” he said in a veto message, but he said the bill “could induce a world of unintended consequences”. Ultimately, he kicked the can down the road, directing the health department to research “best practices” for such programs. “A centrist Democrat who needs to win swing voters in the general election can’t sign legislation creating government-run drug sites,” Schnur said. Based on his personality, his business-minded background and his policy track record, Newsom isn’t likely to inspire the party base the way progressives like Bernie Sanders could. “So his opportunity lies in really presenting himself as a center-left alternative,” Schnur said. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Political figures are political figures. They are clearly an apple to apple comparison.. This is a strangely specific point that does not belong in the introduction. Most lead sections for politicians don't have this kind of information in the lead paragraph. This sentence is certainly unusual.. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Your comment: "Political figures are political figures. They are clearly an apple to apple comparison." is overly simplistic. You seem to not understand (or not WANT to understand) Grayfell's point (which I agree with) that all politicians and all articles about politicians are not the same. Newsom is an outlier for his California-Democratic party, and that is what the statement is pointing out. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Another article that indicate Newsom is moderate (conservative by California Democratic standards) is White, Jeremy B. (2022-12-29). "Newsom's moderate course in California angers critics as his national profile rises". POLITICO. Retrieved 2023-07-18.. Erp (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Politicians are politicians. They are apples to apples. The point you are making is the same as saying, "A quarterback and a running back in football are totally different"; while it is true a quarterback and a running back are different, they both play football, and require similar athletic skills. Gavin Newsom is the Governor of California and a politician. Alexandria Cortez is a Representative in the U.S. Congress - she does not have a strangely specific statement like this in her article. She has a couple of innocuous sentences towards the end of her lead that objectively express her political positions (And again, these are positive statements about her political positions, not relativistic reflections on her positions in relation to other members of her party/caucus). To continue our analogy; Cortez and Newsom are both politicians. They have campaigned for office and are members of the the same political party, they represent similar positions. They have campaigned, they have have worked out law for their respective jurisdictions. Both of their professions; while it is true are in some respects are different, have plenty of overlap and more than enough to liken them for the purpose of this discussion. They are clearly playing the same sport, they require similar skills, like the analogy about the football players.

I am willing to second your proposal to keep that sentence in there if we can find ten political figures who have similar statements in their article lead as of the time of this writing; specifically, the examples should be similar in that they express represent the political positions of a politician NOT by stating, "X supports A, B and C", but rather the statements should be the effect that, "(Subject) is known for having different political views/positions than those of their compatriots within their party (or political organization)".

I would like to remind you Avatar317 that we are on Wikipedia engaging in an objective dialogue about the suitability of a sentence within the lead. It would be helpful if you took an attitude of open mindedness and extended the courtesy of respecting my thoughts on this matter, rather then representing them (and me) as some sort of idealogue who is proposing an edit to an article out of partisanship. I will assume the same out of you, and would appreciate similar respect. Thank you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

A few points. First, long-standing practice on Wikipedia is to describe topics based on sources for those specific topics. Above I linked to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#What about other content? which is an essay that attempts to explain this. It is an explanation, not a policy, so you can still change consensus on this for this particular article, but for that to happen it would help for you to demonstrate that you understand these norms first, before you try to go against them.

This article is about the current governor of California. This positions is itself an outlier among California politicians, and California is an outlier among US states. If sources describe Newsom as an outlier in other ways as well, the article will have to reflect those sources. Following sources is not optional. We don't use precedent in the way you are suggesting, we summarize sources. If any particular article describes any particular football player as an outlier, as many do, so be it. Those articles must also follow sources first and precedent a distant second.

You have described this as "a strangely specific point" but still have not explained why. If this statement is an accurate way to describe his position, it's not automatically inappropriate just because some Wikipedia editors find it to be unflattering for some unnamed reason. If you have an objection based on WP:NPOV, you will have to actually make that objection directly, without comparison to other articles.

Additionally, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's last name is hyphenated. Her name is not "Alexandria Cortez" anymore than Gavin Newsom's name is "Gavin Som". The article for Ocasio-Cortez's article is based on sources which describe Ocasio-Cortez. That article's talk page is a much more appropriate place to discussion changes to that article. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It is clear this is a strangely specific point. It is a relative reflection on Newsom's political views, not even nationally, but within his 'caucus' (for lack of a better term) within his jurisdiction. It is equivalent to saying, "John was born in Ohio, and John is 5 feet tall. While men are generally 6 feet tall, in Ohio men are generally 4 feet tall. John is therefore tall."

As to the point you made regarding the representative, I'm not clear on why that is important or how it is relevant to the point we are discussing. I'm not sure how it supports your argument that this sentence should live in the lead of the article rather than the body. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead offers an assessment of his position relative to his peers, what, exactly, is strange about that? These overly-simplified comparisons and hypotheticals aren't persuasive. It's not some great mystery why reliable sources are looking at Newsom's political position, so I don't accept that this is strange. If reliable sources consistently commented on "John's height" as a defining trait it would be for a reason, and that reason would matter. If some of those sources contextualized this information by comparing his height to his peers in Ohio, those sources would be a useful, and we could include that in his article as a way to provide context to readers. As with any article, sources decide what is relevant and what isn't, not so much individual editors. You haven't explained yet why sources are incorrect about this. Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone is contesting that the sources are wrong about this. What is being contested is that this sentence is in the lead.

I think it is beyond dispute that this sentence should not be, 'removed' from the article. It is true that this sentence belongs in the Article, I also did remove it initially. When I removed it, I should have added it to the body of the article. In the 2nd and 3rd edits which I made, which were reverted, I believe I added it to the article. It is germaine to the article. Gavin Newsom is a politician, therefore his political positions are important. If a legitimate source has determined that within Claifornia, he is a moderate or centrist, that is certainly note worthy. I don't think many people know that or are aware of that. I certainly didn't. I do think it is pretty clear that this particular point belongs within the body of the article, and not in the lead. It is strangely specific and a non sequitor.

I don't believe that it belongs in the lead section of the article. I feel like I must not somehow be making myself clear on the points I'm making, because I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I have stated the sources were incorrect on this. If I could persuade you to help me understand how you understand what I'm saying, then I can work to fill in any of the blanks for you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, you have said to me to me that you don't think it is a strange point to make, but below I can see you said, "That the information is unusual really shoudn't be a deciding factor here". Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of discussion of this study in the lead. The comparison between a governor and state legislators of the same party is interesting but perhaps inherently a bit misleading. State legislators represent the residents of their districts while the governor represents the nearly 40 million residents of the state. Legislative districts in California are often highly blue or highly red, although it is clear that the blue seats dominate. The governor of the most populous US state has considerations that legislators mostly don't. Plus, Newsom has an entrepreneurial/business background that inclines him to cautious assessments of progessive agenda items, as can be seen by his earliest involvements in public policy issues. This content seems to imply that Newsom is out of step with California Democrats. That is belied by the fact that 62% of all California voters opposed the 2021 recall, and 59% of all those voters supported his re-election in 2022. It is clear that the vote percentages were much higher among Democratic Party voters. Describing Newsom as an "outlier" is not supported by the preponderance of reliable sources. Of course, some Democratic Party interest groups will complain bitterly about Newsom, just as some complained bitterly about Jerry Brown. But this does not represent broad dissatisfaction. Discussing this in the body instead of the lead allows for this particular survey to be presented in context. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

What, exactly, does his popularity among voters have to do with this specific issue? The source is attempting to impartially analyze his votes and policies, not his popularity or supporters. Arguably this is the entire point of these kinds of analyses. The failure of the recall is, of course, also important context for understanding the topic, but excluding one based on the other would be editorializing. If sources make that connection, let's summarize those sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in the lead, per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. The lead should summarize the "most important" points of the article, is this really it? Do we have many dozens of sources all making this one point, a long section of the article talking about this from multiple points of view? It's also an opinion, and not a fact like some event that did or didn't happen, and generally we don't do opinion in the lead, but if we do, it ought to be from more than one source. As a point of comparison: French presidential candidate Éric Zemmour has a section of the body devoted to his political orientation, and the lead sentence has fifty-one citations for the description of his politics as "far right". (Not recommending that approach (!), just contrasting it with the one source here.) Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, but mention in body Steve.A.Dore.4 kind of has a point that its inclusion in the lead in the present form is a bit... odd. Notice how there are no sources in the lead. Everything appears to be stated as matter-of-fact, even statements about the subject that are not flattering, like criticism of his personal behavior that it would seem no one disputes.

It is very appropriate to compare similar articles. Looking at AOC's article lead, there are a handful of potentially disputable statements that are sourced, like the claim that she is the "first female member of the Democratic Socialists of America elected to serve in Congress", or that "she has been noted for her substantial social media presence". Any dispute of these claim can be looked into through the provided sources. But in this article, the only possibly disputed claim in the lead, apparently, is the last one about a particular analysis about Newsom. I must agree that this analysis appears fairly randomly placed up there, but I do think it is notable enough to include in perhaps the National profile section. Ender and Peter 06:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Governor of California's political positions are not noteworthy for the lead? I do not accept that it's appropriate to intentionally donwplay information based on it's apparent "oddness". That the information is unusual really shoudn't be a deciding factor here. His political position is hardly trivia, and a comparison to his peers is as valid a metric as any other. If you feel this is 'disputed', please explain why. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Greyfell, of course widely shared assessments of Newsom's political ideology should be included. The problem is that this particular assessment does not appear to be widely shared, and is not borne out by the behavior of California Democratic Party voters in the 2021 and 2022 election cycles. It is rare, after all, that a governor goes before the voters in two consecutive years, and Newsom won landslide support both times. Cullen328 (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, state legislstors are not "peers" of governors. They serve in an entirely different branch of the state government, and represent vastly fewer voters than the governor does. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Greyfell Sorry, I did mean to mention that my suggestion does not intend to bury this info. It is only that the National profile section seems like the ideal place for this, which I would suggest expanding upon, because that section looks a little sparse to me. This is noteworthy information, for sure. It's just that in the lead, it very much sticks out like a sore thumb, as it were, because it has an appearance of being tacked on to an otherwise disputeless intro.

Although an objective metric was applied for Calmatters to reach their conclusion, one could still argue that Newsom leans strongly to the left. It is as though Calmatters is saying that Newsom doesn't lean as far left as you think he should or something, which comes across a bit like commentary.

There is quite a bit of important info about Newsom in the body that does not appear in the lead. In this case, a single entity making an assertion based on their own analysis is notable to mention, but may not be definitive enough for the intro. Ender and Peter 17:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you make a fine point, and that the lead on the whole could use a significant increase in citations. I suppose this is just the first thing I noticed and lept on it. I will see what I can do about this. My opinion is that on the whole, the lead is pretty 'milk toast' and strong and doesn't make partisan statements elsewhere. I'll give it a closer read though and let you all know. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)