Talk:Gavin Newsom/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents


Assess

Resolved.

Article lacks depth on accomplishments and status of sf during his term. Also topics are vry brief to be of broad use to readers. Anlace 15:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

2004 Weddings

Resolved.

I changed "married" to "issued marriage license". Some same-sex couples had there ceremony by city officials in city hall, some did not. Even today, same-sex couples can have ceremonies in city hall. What they cannot get, regardless of who performs the cermony, is a marriage license.--DaveOinSF 03:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Links

Resolved.

Okay, fine, in the sake of being 'fair' (which is silly considering the guy has 80% approval ratings, an amazing achievement in an extremely democratic and liberal city that disects and re-disects every politician on an almost daily basis...), Do we HAVE to have TWO 'negative' links about him? If we have to keep them to be 'fair' could we at least find two positive ones? Otherwise I just don't see the point of keeping these links which try to smear him as someone who is electioneering his way into office. The links don't really even mention Gonzales who was actual opponent, so how relevant are they?

Sofia

Resolved.

Does her nationality REALLY matter THAT much when the page is about Gavin Newsom? (unsigned)

What's with the bullet points?

Resolved.

Why was this article re-written using all bullet points? It is more difficult to read and looks amateurish. The article was perfectly fine in its previous format. Can we please restore it to the original version? CagedRage 17:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What's with the removal of his affairs?

Resolved.

They are relevant to his current situation (mentioned in current articles about the Tourk controversy), were covered in major news media (thus meeting WP:BLP and WP:RS), and created controversy relative to his elected position (i.e. Scientology and the city of San Francisco, and the efforts to remove Scientology-sponsored Narconon for San Francisco schools at the time of his relationship with Milos, a Scientology member; condoning underage drinking with Mountz). Therefore, I have reverted the removal. These quotes have also been in the article before and were removed, and I think we need to gather consensus before removing them again. Calwatch 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

First, they're not "affiars," since he wasn't married at the time. Second, they didn't create controversy. Dating a scientologist isn't controvesial. Dating a young woman isn't controversial. This is a biography -- stick to the main points. Griot 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. They were newsworthy at the time and caused controversy (see above). This is not going to turn into an edit war, but I would like to hear other comments before continuing. Calwatch 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I would too. I don't want Wikipedia to become something resembling a gossip sheet. Griot 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't think affairs are a big issue in my assessment of a candidate, but if he runs for office again, the issue of having having had an affair with a married woman and betraying the trust of his campaign advisor will obviously become a huge character issue in any future campaigns, so they should be included. I think it amounts to bias NOT to include references to the issue. On the other hand, discussion of an affair clearly shouldn't overshadow his political achievements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gfanslow (talk • contribs) 06:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
I have to agree. It's no slight on Mr Newsom's considerable political achievements to recognize a moral failing in the same person. It happens. But the goal of the article should be to give a complete picture, to the greatest degree possible. Omitting a substantial matter such as betraying the trust of a close confidant would be a disservice to anyone interested in the man. 69.243.221.227 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A 40 year old mayor dating a 20 year old girl and being seen and photographed with her drinking underage in public isn't noteworthy enough for this article?

Has the mayor's new girlfriend, who is only 20, been drinking? --BillyTFried 03:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Heading Edit War

Resolved.

Griot, is there any chance of you and Hoponpop69 agreeing on a heading for the affairs topic? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Go back to editions of this article dating to last summer. The title has always been "personal life." I think Hopalong's title is bulky and hard to understand. Griot 05:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because it was called "personal life" several months ago doesn't mean we should keep it that way. The latest revelations about Newsom's life are not just about sex -- they deal with the fact that he betrayed a good friend, and that he had sex with a subordinate who was married to another one of his subordinates (which may or may not constitute sexual harassment -- even consensual relationships between a boss and an employee can turn into harassment after a while.) Secondly, the alcohol abuse scandal calls into serious question Newsom's commitment to his job as Mayor. These revelations are completely different from the Mayor's various girlfriends (scientologists, 19-year-olds, etc.), which I agree could be set aside as purely a "personal" matter. paulhogarth 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Last summer was before the affair was public news, so of course the heading would be different then. The section covers two things his first marriage, and the affair and subsequent revelation of alcoholism. I'd be willing to work on a compromise title, but I feel the title needs to mention the affair.Hoponpop69 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I object to "Rippey-Tourk affair" in this heading. It makes it sound as though this is a household name or an instance from history, like the XYZ affair. I've attempted a compromise. Hope you like it. Griot 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Controversies" heading seems eminently fair to me. In fact, I'm really puzzled by the neutrality-disputed scare tag there. The paragraph is pure reporting, as far as I can tell. I appreciate an attempt to end the revert war! Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, maybe we should stick the gay wedding stuff in that section? Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Because then you'd have to put "Care not cash" in as well. I think the same-sex wedding stuff belong under Social Policy. Griot 19:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with this new heading. The only thing is I added the word "personal" in front of controversies as to disambiguate it from political controversies, such as the same sex weddings, which someone mentioned earlier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Sheesh. After all this we go from "Personal Life" to "Personal Controversies." Moving molehills here. Griot 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because one word is changed, doesn't mean it was a small change.
Actually, I prefer "Rippey-Tourk affair" as this section only deals with that situation, not to the divorce, Brittanie Mountz, Sofia Milos, or any of the notable incidents that were reported in mainstream media about Newsom. Calwatch 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

Resolved.

For the record, this is what the "neutrality is disputed tag" is referencing:

In December 2001, Newsom married Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former San Francisco prosecutor and legal commentator for Court TV, CNN, and MSNBC, and who now hosts The Lineup on Fox News Channel. On January 7, 2005, the couple jointly filed for divorce, citing "difficulties due to their careers on opposite coasts." The couple had no children.
After the divorce, Newsom was linked to various women, including actress Sofia Milos [1] and model Brittanie Mountz [2], who was photographed drinking wine with Newsom while under the legal age to drink alcohol.
On January 31, 2007, Newsom's campaign manager and former deputy chief of staff[3] Alex Tourk, resigned after he confronted the mayor about a sexual affair Newsom had with Tourk's wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk. The affair happened in late 2005 as Newsom was going through a divorce from Guilfoyle, and while Rippey-Tourk worked in Newsom's office[4]as the mayor's "appointment secretary." [5] Newsom confirmed the affair at a news conference on February 1, 2007. "I hurt someone I care deeply about, Alex Tourk, his friends and family, and that is something that I have to live with and something that I am deeply sorry for." [6][7][8]

Until I get some consensus from some more users about adding the other cited affairs in, the neutrality disputed tag stays. (I am alleging an unfair positive bias to Newsom, by omitting notable incidents of his life that were reported in mainstream media.) Calwatch 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the word "affair," with its many seamy connotations, is inflammatory and unfair to Newsom. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid -- a rag that reports on people's "affairs." Futhermore, I believe you are misusing the "disputed" tag. 71.139.27.85 23:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how I am misusing the disputed tag. POV is POV, whether it is positive or negative. The personal lives of politicians are notable, especially when reported in mainstream media, and not in supermarket tabloids (like for celebrities). I will object to the tag's removal until I have a few other people other than Griot and IP addresses making a consensus that these "issues" (how's that for neutrality) or not relevant in understanding Newsom as a person. Calwatch 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Where's the POV? There's no POV here. The question is what to title this section -- or am I missing something? I agree that "affair" doesn't belong in this title. I'd also like to see people who care about this topic and post often about SF and SF political figures weigh in, rather than people who just show up because Newsom is in the news. Griot 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this goes all the way back to when I slapped the disputed tag in the first place, when you deleted the paragraphs above. POV can be introduced by not reporting things, too. Calwatch 03:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I second the motion as per the POV as many things are not in the article that should be. Including the resignation of his press secretary "peter". I will elaborate at length later on. PEACETalkAbout 05:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The entry for John_F_Kennedy also remarks about "extramarital dalliances". If anything, the section on Rippey-Tourk could be distilled down to a sentence or two that states unbiased fact.Dautermann 06:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to say that I think the neutrality tag is not quite the appropriate tag. I think the inclusion of his former girlfriends/dates is neither a positive or a negative thing. Honestly, I'm a resident of San Francisco, and there are some people that see his being single and dating as positive and some that see it as negative. I think the mention of specific names is unneccessary, but it is worth noting that he is an unmarried (divorced) mayor with no children. The question is not about neutrality, it's about completeness. 76.21.127.105 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This tag has been here now for almost two months. It's still unclear to me what is disputed here. This paragraph reads like a statement of facts and his well-sourced with references. I'm removing, and I ask that if anyone restores this, he or she give a good reason why it still belongs here. Griot 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

New photo...

Resolved.

...looks much better. Smee 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

OK, one yes and awaiting Griot. PEACETalkAbout 02:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial request for resignations

Resolved.

Shouldn't Newsom's controversial request for hundreds of city department heads' resignations be included in this article? It's certainly caused quite a stir and has made major headlines. Seems pretty noteworthy to me, no? --BillyTFried 02:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No longer Roman Catholic

Resolved.

- If WP:RS can be produced to show he isn't then post for reconciling refs. Benjiboi 13:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One cannot be considered Roman Catholic under the circumstances of divorce and remarriage. One cannot divorce or remarry in the Roman Catholic Church, or receive communion. See, for example, http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_rc.htm, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030418/ai_n14547909, and others. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't your job to decide who is or isn't Catholic. IrishGuy talk 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. It's papal policy that determines this. And please do adhere to WP:CIVIL and AGF. Thank you! IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please be advised of WP:BLP and WP:OR. Stop adding your own personal interpretation to articles. IrishGuy talk 01:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! You are adding your POV, claiming that this person is Roman Catholic. It is not for you to decide. External, objective qualifiers tell us that he is not. See WP:NPOV. Require consensus here. Otherwise, this will end up an edit war.
Wrong. If the article subject considers himself Catholic, it isn't for editors to decide amongst themselves that he isn't. IrishGuy talk 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. It isn't editors that "decide" he is or isn't ROMAN Catholic, it is in accordance with papal policy and factual, objective factors. By definition, an individual can't make that "determination." If I consider myself Mick Jagger, but don't qualify to be Mick Jagger, does that in fact render me Mick Jagger? Of course not! In the same way, an individual cannot qualify as a ROMAN Catholic if he and she doesn't qualify. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and NO POV, sir.

{{help}}

Please assist for WP:CIVIL and problems with NPOV and OR. Request protected until dispute is resolved to prevent edit war. See above. Thank you. Again. IgorBlucher (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The {{help}} template is not meant for content disputes, please use {{RFCbio}} if you want outside intervention.--12 Noon 2¢ 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you 12 Noon. IgorBlucher (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is disputed that the subject of this article is Roman Catholic. IgorBlucher (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsom's Catholic, as proclaimed be Newsom himself, church attendance, SF Chronicle writers. I don't think we can question if someone meets a classification of a category. There are many subjective group identities it would be almost impossible to question all of them and unless there is a large consensus among news media or people. And even then, it should be listed that they identify as Catholic but getting a divorce runs contrary to Catholic beliefs. [[User:calbear22]] (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, the theology of the original poster is incorrect here. Although he is correct in part, in that the Catholic Church doesn't allow divorce and remarriage, in Part II, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 7 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, at In Brief, Line 1665 (can be found at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P57.HTM), the Catholic Church specifically states that, although those who divorce and remarry cannot receive communion, they are NOT separated from the Church. So although Mr. Newsom shouldn't consume a communion wafer, he is still very much a part of the Catholic Church (barring some other circumstance not mentioned here). Theokrat (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2008

Given the weight of evidence that Newsom is Catholic by unbringing and identification, it would require evidence of equal validity to counter that claim. The sources provided by IgorBlucher fail that standard (laughably so, in fact). Drawing a conclusion not supported by verifiable sources is called Original Research, and that's pretty much all I see in Igor's objections. Pairadox (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm. Defines excommunication. Gonzales, a theologian, said a compilation of documentation will be forwarded to Rome within the next few days. Also, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58334: "We're also composing a letter to Neiderauer asking him to excommunicate the group, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, so that this mistake cannot happen again. And we're asking him to excommunicate (San Francisco Mayor)Gavin Newsom and (U.S. House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi for not adhering to Catholic doctrine on same-sex relationships and abortion." You must read the sources. IgorBlucher (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Assume good faith that I did read the sources (which of course I did). Nowhere does it say in any of them that he is not Catholic, nor does it say that he has actually been nominated for excommunication, whatever that means. They merely report that certain people with opinions plan to express those opinions to church leaders. Not the same, and not compelling enough. Pairadox (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you? Perhaps you missed a lot in the reading. "by unbringing and ["A self-styled “Roman Catholic”, per http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020106.html]identification" isn't the issue. Adding this of interest as well, per http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm: (a) In the case of adultery, a single action, if proven, is enough for permanent separation, but in the case of infidelity or heresy, a certain persistence in the sin is required (cf. St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. xxxv, Q. i, a. 1), such for example as adhesion to a non-Catholic denomination. Does anyone have any references relating to penalties for dressing gay men up as nuns and presenting them for Catholic communion? IgorBlucher (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source that states this has actually been applied to Newsom in any way? That's really the only relevant question here. Pairadox (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You are quoting a document that predates the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and therefore isn't necessarily still valid. As for the POV links you continue to add...they don't state what you claim they say. Once more, read WP:BLP and stop POV pushing. IrishGuy talk 22:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The only "source" you have is an article from October 2005 which states that the some proposed to the Vatican that certain politicians be sanctioned. That was over two years ago. It obviously never happened. Stop. IrishGuy talk 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"Document that predates current Catechism"??? No, it does not. It's from the current Catholic Encyclopedia! Adultery IS a precursor to separation from the Church. Would you post YOUR sources contrary to that?
The sources I've provided are pertinent, as are many other sources posted on Wikipedia that date back as far or farther than 2005. They certainly indicate excommunication and separation, particularly the controversy surrounding Newsom's religious standing, which is not my POV but papal policy, and mentioned in valid media sources. There is no consensus-- discussions are underway! Also, you appear to be erasing my new section on this controversy. Why? Are you now proposing that the controversy doesn't exist? IgorBlucher (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of your link. It clearly states: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. 1907 predates the current Catechism. Divorce doesn't automatically excommuncate in the current Catholic church. Technically speaking, one should always attend Mass especially on Holy days...but one doesn't get excommuncated for not doing so. It is clear that you think Newsom isn't a good Catholic and most likely not a Catholic at all. That is fine. Unfortunely, your opinion isn't encyclopedic and therefore doesn't belong in the article. IrishGuy talk 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem surrounding POV is evidently yours, not mine. The section I posted is derived from the CE article on Adultery, not Divorce. The precepts of 1907 you refer to were unchanged by Vatican II and hence remain applicable. Also, I am proposing a section on the controversy surrounding Newsom's religious standing. I created the section. You erased it. On what grounds? IgorBlucher (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, the reasons are listed above as well as in the WP:AN/I thread. You originally clearly stated: One cannot be considered Roman Catholic under the circumstances of divorce and remarriage and you are only changing tact when it was repeatedly pointed out to you that you were incorrect. You haven't provided anything reliable about adultery...you simply keep claiming it. IrishGuy talk 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
So, from your comments it's apparent that you didn't read my sources carefully, and your POV renders your incorrect. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
For one who goes on about civility, you certainly don't adhere to it. Please don't presume to tell me what my opinions are or aren't. I am upholding WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Newsom himself is irrelevant to me. I don't live in California. Again, until you can provide reliable sources, and preferably ones that aren't over two years old, there is nothing more to discuss here as there is no controversy. IrishGuy talk 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't detect any incivility on my part. "Please don't presume to tell me what my opinions are or aren't." Please take your own advice and afford me the same. "There is no controversy"? I think reading the link below may be of interest. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
(deindent)There is no controversy over his Catholicism — he has other controversies; i.e. his affair, support for gay marriage, gay/lesbian adoptions etc. --Haemo (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Which are linked to Catholicism. Thank you, excellent summary of these issues pertaining. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't wish to contribute to my new section on this controversy, that is your prerogative, but please try to remain WP:CIVIL. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. But the fact remains that there is no controversy over his Catholicism. --Haemo (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course there is, I've provided links that reflect that. And there are others to come. IgorBlucher (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
From my reading, your links do not provide the actual conclusion that there is a controversy over his Catholicism; they only indicate that, given a certain construction of the different principles each represents, there are bases on which a controversy might arise. Put more succinctly, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that your construction is the most proper, you're just saying that there COULD, or SHOULD, be a controversy, or alternatively (but note that this is an argument that is entirely distinct) that there WAS one (in 2005); nothing establishes that there remains an ONGOING controversy. And I've yet to see anything that says that the specific remedy for divorce and remarriage outside the Church, as prescribed in the official Catholic Catechism (from the Vatican website, no less), is appropriately disregarded. Theokrat (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
See recent article on Clinton campaign. Could you clarify your last remark? I do not understand what you are claiming. Thank you, IgorBlucher (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. You have not provided reliable sources that support a controversy over his Catholicism. You have provided a lot of links about controversies, which are already covered in the article, and tried to synthesize them into one over his religious standing. --Haemo (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If WP:RS states he is a R-C then fine. If a WP:RS disputes that then contrast the two. Benjiboi 13:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Benjiboi. It appears that sources state he is a self-proclaimed Irish Catholic. Also, it appears that, due to controversy over his religious activities and standing, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced that she will not accept his endorsement. IgorBlucher (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Irish Catholic refers to people of Irish descent who are Catholic. It is not a religion, it is a cultural designation; his religion is still Roman Catholic. --Haemo (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Clinton accepted the endorsement and made Newsom part of her campaign. See Newsom might hurt.. and the sources linked to the intro of the page. I think we should keep him as Roman Catholic. I don't think Newsom meant he was Irish Catholic when he said it. The attached article sources him as Roman Catholic. RELIGION.... I'd be interested in seeing what other people have to say.User:calbear22 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Irish Catholics are Roman Catholic; look at our own article on the subject, for instance. --Haemo (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually had read our own article. At one point, it says that there at one time was a difference in ceremonies. We should stick with Roman Catholic. There isn't a Irish Catholic Pope. It's not as if it is a different religion that has broken away User:calbear22 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Resolved.

I propose a subsection under controversies surrounding Newsom's religious standing, and actions involved in these controversies. Editors help on this are welcome. So far, GHits, "Gavin Newsom affair", 24,600, "Gavin Newsom Adultery," 12,100, "Gavin Newsom Catholic controversy," 20,400, "Gavin Newsom gay nuns", 71,300, such as http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/09/MNQRTM37Q.DTL&type=politics. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to post a draft here before putting it in the article. And do try to make sure it's accurate this time, or it will be deleted again for violating WP:BLP. Pairadox (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it was accurate the first time. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Not when it claimed that "Newsom guided gay men dressed as nuns to holy Communion." Not when it said "Discussions of his excommunication and subsequent separation from the Catholic Church are in progress." And not in the sources, none of which mention his affair or pending remarriage in connection to any potential church sanctions. Hmmm, that pretty much invalidates the entire paragraph. But go ahead, write another draft. I'm interested to see how you try to present your POV next. Pairadox (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
And don't use the Google Test for things like that. It's well documented that he's had an affair; you can find numerous reliable sources attesting to it. However, I'm not sure if that has any specific relevancy to his religious standing, and can't find any sources to attest to it. --Haemo (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Google is a great test for determining significance of an issue. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not. Especially when your search terms are so broad as to provide no insight into which issue is being examined. --01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The search terms are actually quite specific. See below, proposed subsection. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, one can find sources from as little as a year ago stating that he is still a Catholic. --Haemo (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Controversies are the issue here. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I propose a subsection under controversies surrounding Newsom's religious standing, and actions involved in these controversies. Editors help on this are welcome. So far, GHits, "Gavin Newsom affair", 24,600, "Gavin Newsom Adultery," 12,100, "Gavin Newsom Catholic controversy," 20,400, "Gavin Newsom gay nuns", 71,300, such as http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/09/MNQRTM37Q.DTL&type=politics. IgorBlucher (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No way. This is just a POV religious sentiment, not a real controversy. Even if some people actually feel this way, it is utterly trivial in connection to his overall notability. He is a significant political figure who, though wildly popular, has his detractors. If we give space to every fundamentalist religious group that has a beef with every liberal politician all of our articles would sink under the assault. Wikidemo (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If you don't wish to contribute to the new section on this controversy, that is your prerogative, but please try to remain WP:CIVIL. Statements like "He is a significant political figure who, though wildly popular," and "If we give space to every fundamentalist religious group that has a beef with every liberal politician all of our articles would sink under the assault" is disputable POV and unproductive. "our" includes those contributors like myself. "Even if some people actually feel this way, it is utterly trivial in connection to his overall notability" is false. See the December 9, 2007 edition of the SF Gate. IgorBlucher (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have an actual proposal for discussion or has this already devolved into a "Yes it is," "No it's not" quagmire? Pairadox (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I will create a subsection on the controversies surrounding Newsom's religious standing and related activities. You are welcome to contribute if you wish. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it will be very helpful to discuss the proposed subsection with editors interested in contributing. IgorBlucher (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You have still not provided any reliable sources showing there is a controversy over his religious standing. Until you can provide them, this isn't going to go anywhere. --Haemo (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it will be very helpful to discuss the proposed subsection with editors interested in contributing. IgorBlucher (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You're repeating yourself. Got anything real to contribute? Pairadox (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I am interested in contributing, and it's not particularly polite to state that I am not. However, I don't think think there's anything here to contribute towards since there has been a total absence of any demonstration that there is a controversy over the issue of his religious standing. --Haemo (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this edit and the edit summary illustates his desire to work within the community. IrishGuy talk 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
None of the top google hits for the "google test" actually connect Newsom with any sort of controversy concerning nuns or his religion. The words appearing in the same text can mean nothing. If you read the link to the article given, there is no evidence of a controversy. I did a 25 page research paper of Gavin Newsom for a class, and there isn't a religious or gay nun controversy. Now what might be worth adding to the article is how people outside San Francisco associate Gavin Newsom with the city. When people think of Gavin Newsom, they think of gay culture, gay marriage, and the gay nun incident although that's not him.
An example of something that might also be worth adding is Newsom's gay porn day proclamation Policy changing after gay porn studio lauded. In San Francisco, this was hardly controversial, but Bill O'Reilly and some national media and "traditional" family types were critical. Still, this goes more to how some national media see Newsom then to any actual controversy, and the information was obtained be reading the source, not counting google hits which is just silly, quite frankly. Usually, we consider something to be controversial if a large number of people, like 90% believe it is wrong on some higher principle. Cheating on someone's wife is universally considered wrong. So would something like embezzling money. Those that disagree with the gay porn day proclamation or any other gay issue are having a political disagreement on an issue, but that doesn't make it controversial. Generally, Wikipedia doesn't like calling a section controversies because it is not POV. [[User:calbear22]] (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I oppose such a section, based on the premises of Catholic violations leaving him no longer catholic, as there continues to be a dearth, nay, a bare cupboard, of reliable sources for any excommunications, or personal abandonments of faith, and so on and on. This continues to appear to be one editor against all others. For clarity, I came here to check up on this after the AN/I thread, and I continue to oppose the inclusion of IgorBLucher's SYNTH conclusions. When the catholic church says he's gone, we can include it. Until then, one lay-person's reading of the scriptures and codicils and so on and so on doesn't really amount to anythign here. ThuranX (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't Gavin Newsom Sucks.com listed as an external link?

Resolved.

There's no mention of the Gavin Newsom Sucks.com [[1]] blog that not only captures the San Francisco spirit combined with this new chapter of Rich Interet Applications for the common man (low cost blogging), but more importantly chronicles the Mayor's transormation from adultry and rehab to a landslide re-election. —Preceding Dean Barbella comment added by 71.202.46.213 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, this isn't the place for your rant against Newsom; use the blog itself for that. Second, blogs aren't allowed per WP:EL. Third, a few hundred posts is really pretty insignificant. Pairadox (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood - No blogs. By the way: blogs by definiton are biased; yet, my request for a listing is hardly a rant.

For the record and as I had explained, the Gavin Newsom Sucks.com blog is a Pro-Newsom site see the About Page [[2]].

Addtionally, a few hundred posts about one man over eight months is more than sufficient to justify the Gavin Newsom Sucks.com blog as the most comprehensive source for Gavin Newsom related content. If we posted any more frequently, the quality of information and admittedly entertainment would suffer.