Talk:Matt Gaetz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"He is considered close to the far-right."

What is this? I'm not even a Gatez fan or Trump fan but this is clearly not NPOV. This far-right. That far-right. One far-right. Two far-right. Red far-right. Blue far-right. It seems like anyone who is not left-wing or anyone who has a conservative opinion is automatically far-right.

How in the world is he far-right? Just because he supports Diaper Don and is pro-guns doesn't make him an extremist. I mean, the dude led an effort to repeal a ban on same-sex couple adoptions. Is that not enough for you? Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the only instance of the term far-right in the article is the quote The Times of Israel called him "a far-right figure who is close to Donald Trump." This is appropriate, as it does not use Wikipedia's voice to make the claim that he is or is not far-right, but rather mentions that an outlet has referred to him as such. For obvious reasons, it does not matter what we as editors think of his politics.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The term does indeed fail WP:NPOV, which is one of the three pillars of Wikipedia. It should be sufficient to just detail his positions in the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that only one outlet (the Times of Israel) is cited, I would not mind its removal from the article (unless additional sources are also provided which describe him as far-right, in which case it would be fine to mention that he has been described as such). The term only fails WP:NPOV if there aren't enough RS to support its inclusion on a BLP.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 08:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, no matter how many sources we use, to me using that term still fails WP:IMPARTIAL. "Far-right" is a phrase that would only be used by people on a certain point of the political spectrum to deride their opponents, so it's inherently politically charged and thus inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Here's a counter-example to illustrate: A quick ctrl-f of Bernie Sanders finds no use of the term "far-left", even though by US standards he is, and even though there are sources used for the article that do explicitly call him "far-left". Instead, editors have concentrated on detailing his policies and views - which is more informative to the reader, I think, than a label like "far-X". Anyway, I'll leave it up to you if you want to do anything. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't believe we should call Gaetz far right, certainly not using Wikipedia's voice. I agree that it's a very inflammatory word, and we should be very careful about using it, but I don't agree that it's never appropriate. I don't know if I'd agree that a good number of high-quality RS refer to Sanders as far-left, though there are instances in the article which mention that his positions have been referred to as "far to the left of the majority of the Senate" which is fine. Marjorie Taylor Greene is an example of an article where a very lengthy list of mainstream sources are used to describe the subject as far-right in Wikipedia's voice. These labels can be contentious, so it generally requires a consensus to agree that their use is appropriate. The articles Alex Jones and People's Party of Canada both required consensuses to include the term "far-right," and it was only possible for editors to reach consensuses at their respective RfCs because there's such an overwhelming number of RS to describe them as far-right that it would be sacrificing objectivity in the name of neutrality to purposefully avoid including the term, which is not what NPOV is for. I do see where you're coming from, though. Cheers  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Your "sacrificing objectivity in the name of neutrality" is well made. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: "Alleged corruption, sexual relationships with minor, participation in sex trafficking"

This section badly needs its own page.

It had one but some of you busybody editors nuked it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz_child_sex_scandal.

Then it had another page - but you busybody editors nuked that too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz_sexual_misconduct_allegations

C'mon - as per usual - this site is being totally ridiculous. It doesn't matter what your politics are. This "child sex scandal" needs its own page. And if you want to give it another name - fine, whatever - call it "Matt Gaetz alleged child sex scandal". I don't care what you busybody editors call it - it needs its own page.

That you busybodi— I'm just going to call you what you are - GOP hatchet men or GOP hatchet tools - need to give this thing its own page and stop covering for the sex creep. Call me "prejudicial" if you want to - but everybody with a soul knows that's true.

Do not "refactor" (or whatever the term is) this comment. Show you aren't a absolutely soulless husk. I have total faith in you that you'll do the wrong thing. You guys always do. It's who you are.

I wonder how quickly it'll be refactored. Hours? Scores of minutes? About 10 minutes? It's before dawn in the most US and it wouldn't surprise me if some of you GOP tools have rigged this page's RSS to an alarm clock to wake you up so you can do your duty as quickly as possible to be a timely defender for the sex creep also know as Matt Gaetz.

Or if you're in DC - is it past dawn here? You must be having your coffee and policing this situation. With a donut. I'm sure that you are. I see you guys with donuts. Why not? It has a hole.

Sad.

---

Decent people - if you don't like my tone - fine - I can't say I give a damn. Know thins - once this is refactored - post your own comment in Wiki-speak. Do the right thing. It's not hard.

Hell, I don't care if you refactor this page yourself and then leave your own Wiki-speak comment with this info. I want to turn my vpn back on and leave this cesspool of a talk page. I don't need to be involved in this convo at all. But decent people do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllThatJazz2012 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's quite a post. It's entirely possible that this will need to be split into its own page at some point simply for reasons of length. We'll see. The spin-off article was begun prematurely. I get the sense that there were more 'deletes' early on in the AfD discussion and more 'keeps' later. In the meantime, the section continues to accrue detail as various editors add emerging information and hone the work of others. It's demonstrably not being censored by "GOP hatchet tools" (and I don't see why siloing this off to a separate article would make it any more prominent, which seems to be your demand).

Personally I have a slice of beef pie rather than a doughnut, but to each editor her own snacks. As for your tone, it's insulting and unhelpful, as intended. I hope it provided an outlet. Nobody is going to "refactor" what you've said. There are rules about that. › Mortee _talk 21:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

CNN admited that this scandal was fake. 2A00:1370:812D:178D:2C6C:BD2D:5D06:1AC5 (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Source? -- Sleyece (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

To date, the allegations are anonymous

"Gaetz, who has not been charged, has consistently denied the two anonymous claims against him: that he had sex with a 17-year-old girl and paid for sex."

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/13/gaetz-bahamas-investigation-481273

Adding this to the third paragtaph of the lede.

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections Matt Gaetz#Controversies be split into a separate page called Matt Gaetz controversies. Simply put, these topics shouldn’t be taking up half the page. Trillfendi (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm not going to !vote because I'm not deeply read on these matters, but it seems to me that at least half of Gaetz's notability stems from the controversy he stirs up, sometimes deliberately and sometimes just because that's who he is. I'm not sure WP:UNDUE applies, for that reason. If it were split off, in order to give adequate weight to the controversies this article would still need to give at least an overview of what they were.

Also just to note that there's an ongoing discussion about where coverage of the current main storyline should go, this article or a dedicated one. › Mortee _talk 00:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be a WP:POVFORK and the better approach would be to trim and relocate info from the WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article isn't large enough to require splitting. The article is about the things he's notable for, and if those things are controversial... so be it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not voting on splitting the article but I feel there should be a link to the controversies section in the lead to the article like this because Gaetz is notable mainly for controversies. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Creating a spin-off WP:CSECTION article is not productive or encyclopedic. KidAd • SPEAK 17:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

~7,000 words don’t need to be devoted to various “controversies” either. Trillfendi (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's see how big/detailed the story gets first, then decide if it should be its own article. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• If this article were better organized in the first place, there would not be a "Controversies" section to split. Drunk driving and sex life would be in the personal life section, as it is with other biographies. There would be something like a "Political career" section for the subject's political life and work, as opposed to political views, which would include all the things like meetings and actions taken in Congress and the two "on Twitter" sections that you have now. You are only in this position because you have not organized things well. Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Let his disgusting depravity be right here on the main page. No splitting. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:UNDUE DMT biscuit (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Wait This section is growing by the day due to the ongoing investigation, but I don't know if it's at the point where it should be transformed into an article. Iff enough substantial content is added to warrant recreating the article about the sex trafficking scandal (which was recently redirected to this article's controversy section), then it would be appropriate to transfer the bulk of the information to its own article and trim the section here down to a more brief summary of the scandal. For now, I think the best option is to leave it as-is and revisit the discussion if/when any major developments happen.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Add new information - Federal investigations into sex trafficking

On April 29, 2021, The Daily Beast reported Greenberg penned a confession letter in an attempt to secure a pardon before President Trump left office. The letter reportedly detailed Gaetz' involvement in illegal activity.

References

 Already done It's already included in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Trimming needed

This article is clearly excessive in going beyond an encyclopaedic summary of the subject, and becoming more of a news feed about Matt Gaetz. Content in the sex trafficking section in particular needs to be critically evaluated for inclusion, such as anything to do with former representative Katie Hill, who is categorically unrelated to the allegations or investigations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, quite a few articles have this same flaw, seems to be just a WP:COATRACK. EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sex trafficking allegations in lead

C'mon, how on earth are the allegations missing from the lead? This is one of the biggest stories in American politics of the past few months, and there is no possible universe in which it doesn't become an important enough part of Gaetz's biography to warrant mention in the lead. I get WP: NODEADLINE and all, but really, at this point non-inclusion is just being deliberately blind. Do a gut check—this is clearly warranted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP plays a big role, just because its big news doesn't warrant information into the lead that could potentially damage a persons image/reputation, This is an Encyclopedia, not a blog. IF it has enough WP:RS and can easily cover WP:REDFLAG with all the media coverage then yes, won't be an issue, then respectively if it is a significant portion of this article that warrants WP:DUEWEIGHT then we could discuss putting it into the lead. EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Are there any specific parts of WP:BLP that would make it inappropriate to mention in the leading paragraphs that Gaetz is currently subject to investigations? My understanding of WP:BLPCRIME is that we should be careful to not give the reader the mis-impression that he's been found guilty, and my understanding of WP:BLPREMOVE & WP:REDFLAG is that poorly sourced or unsourced material must not be in the article, and that extraordinary statements require several mainstream reliable secondary sources. I think that it's appropriate to at least mention the investigations in the lead (which as of right now the article almost does; it only mentions that he has been accused of misconduct but not that there are ongoing investigations relating to these accusations). There's certainly no shortage of sources to provide both verifiability & notability, and we don't give the reader the false impression that any sort of verdict has been reached.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The Lead

@Robert.Allen: and @Curbon7: Can we talk about the changes I made to the lead here? Robert, you referred to them as "inaccurate and poorly written." Can you please provide some further detail as to each of those? I am unsure which confuses me more--all of that content comes from the body of the article, where sources for it can be found. I don't know what would be inaccurate. Regarding my writing, the current version reads to me as unfocused and tangential. I also feel it does not properly cover numerous aspects of the article, and places undue weight on the one thing which is currently in the news over various other things which are equally important on the larger scale. That seems to me a violation of WP:NOTNEWS.

Curbon, you left a generic user warning on my talk page. (To reiterate here, I found it strange.) The warning only said I had removed references; I will assume good faith in that you did not notice I simply moved the sources to the body of the article. (2 of the sources were already there.) Your edit summary also says "stuffing all that into the lead is undue weight." Again, I refer to the response to Robert; as it sits right now, the only events in Gaetz's life explicitly mentioned are his elections to the state and US houses, as well as the accusations of sex trafficking. Gaetz has been the subject of numerous major news stories in his decade-long career in public life. I firmly believe it's a bigger violation of Undue Weight and Not News now than my version.

As I hinted at on my talk page, these reversions genuinely surprised me. This is a major copy edit to a major article, so it's no surprise it raises eyebrows. And I am not the best editor ever, so improvements are warranted. However, and I'm not trying to pat myself on the back, I strongly believe my version is significantly better than the prior.

Can you both please expand upon your prior thoughts so we can parse out what is best? I hope we can agree the current version is mediocre; there are 3 of us (at least) willing to put the time into improving it. So what do you see as its current flaws and what can we do to fix them? My thanks, PrairieKid (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

In my view it's a matter of relative importance. Both of the other two items you added to the lead, Gaetz's driving violations and his invitation of Charles C. Johnson to the State of the Union address, are of relatively little importance compared to the risk he runs as the subject of this DOJ investigation. In addition, you added the information that the DOJ "announced" the investigation, when the reports are the result of anonymous leaks. I'm fine with moving the references to the body, but the news of the DOJ investigation is so inflammatory, that it's probably better to leave them in for now. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I took your thoughts into account and created a new lead. What do you think? It still has the general improvements in flow/readability, and balances in more of his biographical narrative. Regarding the controversies, I kept the broad sentence at the start but only went into detail regarding the sex trafficking one. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do you persist in writing that the DOJ "announced" the investigation, which is false? The news of the investigation was based on leaks to The New York Times and other media outlets. This is an important distinction. It is against DOJ policy to announce ongoing investigations until charges are brought. Typically such leaks are due to unrevealed political considerations. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS advises that citations may be added to the lead (see MOS:LEADCITE). Several editors seem to prefer them in this case, probably because the subject is contentious. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Greenberg Record etc

There appears to be a fair amount of weight put on Greenberg. Given he has admitted form for accusing others of relations with minors - not noted in either the Gaetz or Greenberg articles, shouldn't this be added rather than treating the allegation as gospel? If the only witness against Gaetz is a man whose credibility is shot then isn't this piece giving undue weight to the issue? Note too that Greenberg's tie to Gaetz and the 'controversy' are emphasised in the lead.

As it stands the first three-fifths of the Controversy section comprises 8 different controversies, the final two-fifths covers a single controversy, but from three different aspects. More undue weight?

If Gaetz is charged and convicted feel free to focus on that, but as it stands it appears that Gaetz is being treated as likely guilty based on the allegations of a man whose plea deal entails admitting to making similar false claims about others. 人族 (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• @人族: - If the only witness against Gaetz is a man whose credibility is shot ... a man whose plea deal entails admitting to making similar false claims about others - it is not up to you to determine Greenberg's credibility. It is up to the reliable sources to do so. If reliable sources extensively report on the story, it certainly seems that they are not rejecting Greenberg as a man whose credibility is shot. I've heard this argument before... for Michael Cohen, I think. In addition, there are mobile payment receipts such as Venmo transaction records in this story. starship.paint (exalt) 11:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Still, after reading the section, I agree that there is too much coverage on Greenberg. I have trimmed content that does not pertain to Gaetz [1]. starship.paint (exalt) 11:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

2nd Amendment on Silicon Valley

There's some recent reporting that Gaetz called for the use of the Second Amendment on Silicon Valley due to cancel culture. However when you see his wider remarks, he may have simply be talking about two different topics. Newsweek thinks so (made a separate point about the Second Amendment). Daily Beast thinks so as well (moved on to talk about the Second Amendment). The clearest indication that it is a separation topic is that he explicitly said that the Second Amendment was for use against the government (which Silicon Valley is not). starship.paint (exalt) 15:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"Let us use the Constitution to strengthen our argument, and our movement. We have a First Amendment right to speak and assemble, and we better use it. The internet's hall monitors out in Silicon Valley, they think they can suppress us, discourage us. Maybe if you're just a little less patriotic, maybe if you just conform to their way of thinking a little more, then you will be allowed to participate in the digital world? Well, you know what? Silicon Valley can't cancel this movement, or this rally, or this congressman. We have a Second Amendment in this country, and I think we have an obligation to use it. The Second Amendment—this is a little history for all the fake news media—the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it's not about recreation, it's not about sports. The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary."

starship.paint (exalt) 15:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Soibangla: - this explains my partial revert of your addition. Sources used: Vice / Politico starship.paint (exalt) 15:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your edit because he made two remarks, first about SV, then about the government. soibangla (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I suggest my version be restored to allow the reader to interpret his meaning in full context.soibangla (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla - better sources (WaPo / SFGate) have emerged for the SV comments, which I have added. What do you think? Other sources that I have not added due to OVERCITE. Mercury News / Daily Dot starship.paint (exalt) 01:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

About "Federal investigations into sex trafficking"

The section needs its own page. This is ridiculous. AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

AllThatJazz2012, See WP:Articles for deletion/Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Matt Gaetz. Curbon7 (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This site is pathetic. AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

AllThatJazz2012, Thanks for your input. Curbon7 (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Timing is everything. Ah, l'esprit de l'escalier. I hate it when I get a good idea too many minutes late. Oh, well. But there's always next time. AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

Please remove reference #126.

Hiaasen, Carl (October 17, 2015). "Carl Hiaasen: from God's lips to Gaetz's ears". Miami Herald. Miami, Florida. Retrieved February 22, 2018. (reference 126)

As a satirical op-ed, this is not a reliable source nor is it necessary as another reference is used for the same statement. 107.209.13.145 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done soibangla (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversies sub-section

Extended content

Crowdsourcing a resolution with r/The_Donald (subheading 1) In its July–August 2017 issue, Foreign Policy reported that Devin Murphy, a Gaetz legislative aide, had written a resolution that Gaetz brought to the House Judiciary Committee, and that the resolution primarily used content from r/The_Donald, "a pro-Trump subreddit notorious for both its embrace of conspiracy theories and its gleeful offensiveness." The r/The_Donald posters' suggestions are represented in "roughly two-thirds of the total finished amendment." One of the allegations was that James Comey had leaked investigative matters to New York Times reporter Michael S. Schmidt, beginning when Schmidt was around 10 years old. In an email to Wired magazine, Gaetz said, "It is the responsibility of our staff to gather as much information as possible when researching a subject and provide that information for consideration. We pride ourselves on seeking as much citizen input as possible." References

The above sub-section was removed from the article during the integration of the "Controversies" section. I'm adding it here in case there is discussion regarding it. Curbon7 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Foreign policy

Can Iraq, Israel, Syria, and Yemen all be merged into a Middle East sub-section? They don't seem to offer enough alone and it would probably be better to include it as part of the entire region. I would do this immediately though I don't want to tamper with a controversial figure and one that has come to infamy so recently. FredModulars (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

FredModulars, Funny seeing you again so soon! And yeah it's probably best if they were merged. The Israel sub-section is also completely unsourced so there's that too. Curbon7 (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist tag

Jaydoggmarco, as is being discussed here, [[2]] these tags are only appropriate when it is a defining characteristic of the person (WP:NONDEFINING). That is not the case here. Gaetz's defining feature might be that he is a politician or a Republican rep. The conspiracy theorist claim is not such a feature. Additionally, it is a disputed tag and per wp:NOCON contentious claims about BLP subject that don't have consensus should be removed. Springee (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on this, the only time the body of the article mentions "Conspiracy" is in reference to teh COVID lab leak theory. While the Wiki article claims he said it was a leaked bio-weapon, the CBS source doesn't say that. Additionally, many sources backtracked on the idea that the lab leak is just a conspiracy theory. That means we have neither a defining characteristic nor a conspiracy theory. TJD2 was correct to remove the tag. Springee (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have listed him as a conspiracy theorist, TJD2 (and you) are wrong. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

First, if the body of the article doesn't make the clear case for the tag then the tag should not be included. Second, NONDEFINING makes it clear that tags are only used when this is a defining characteristic, not just a characteristic. Michael Jordan's defining sport is basketball, not baseball. Finally, neither source you provide would be sufficient to support the use of that tag. Newsweek isn't considered a RS (see RSP for Newsweek post 2013). MJ's entry contains a warning about political commentary and MJ doesn't say he is a conspiracy theorist even if they say he has spread a conspiracy. Again, this fails NONDEFINING and there isn't consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's BS WP:RECENTISM. Not at all warranted in this case. Lots of people, from politicians to celebrities to that crazy dude on your local Facebook group, retweet falsehoods, believe in things that aren't, bloviate and hyperbolize, or outright lie. This does not make them defined as conspiracy theorists. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

oppose as per WP:POVCATMoxy- 06:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• The article does mention his promotion of conspiracy theories several times, so I'd say the category is warranted. I would also point out that WP:NOCON refers to discussions that result in no consensus. This discussion does not yet have a result, and the fact that someone removed it does not automatically mean there's no consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 02:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history it appears there has never been a consensus for inclusion. The lab leak theory is no longer considered a conspiracy theory (the source doesn't say he claimed it to be a bio weapon). Since this tag fails NONDEFINE why should it be kept even during discussion? Policy says those who want to add it need to show consensus first. Springee (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Which policy says that consensus needs to be shown before adding content? –dlthewave ☎ 11:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? I didn't say that consensus needs to be shown before adding. I wouldn't expect an experienced editor to make such an interpretation. To be clear, if new content is added and then challenged it can be assumed there is no consensus for it's inclusion unless consensus is specifically shown (not assumed). Typically that would be a talk page discussion supporting the edit. Reviewing WP:CONSENSUS can help here. Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. This content was disputed before becoming stable so we cannot assume it had consensus. To that end, In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. We are in the part where new content is challenged so it needs to stay out until consensus is reached. Springee (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Jaydoggmarco, please justify that there is a consensus for the tag you restored. Springee (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It does not work that way. The tag was there without consensus and there was concern about the accuracy of the initial description. Restoring something that was removed does not need consensus again if there was no consensus in the first place. Let’s continue this discussion here, keeping in mind what RS’s have to say on the tag. I think it is accurate, especially considering the conspiratorial nature of the subject’s comments on 1/6/21. Considering, in addition to this, RS’s refer to him as such, I would consider the tag accurate; thoughts? (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

'slew'

Changed "providing a slew of evidence" to "providing evidence". "slew" is editorializing and this word is not in the referenced source. Seki1949 (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

Change A Republican, he became one of the foremost congressional allies of President Donald Trump. to A Republican, he became one of the foremost congressional allies of former President Donald Trump. Qxrz (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That is how it is commonly written. Presidents maintain the title of president when being written or spoken about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Matt Gaetz’s Law license has lapsed

Matt Gaetz failed to pay $265 in fees due October 1st, 2021. He has been deemed “delinquent” and is currently blocked from practicing law in the state of Florida. Delongite (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have the corresponding WP:RS links to update the article? Does the coverage from the media give WP:SIGCOV? Might not be worth mentioning if it fails to reach enough coverage. EliteArcher88 (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

didn't see this before, but it also seems WP:UNDUE. "Oh no, he didn't pay 200$ for a license!!!11!1!" Curbon7 (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Add Statement from Gaetz Rationalizing his Opposition to the "Equality Act"

Under the LGBT section, this page states that Gaetz voted against the Equality Act. This implies he opposes "equality". However, it seems important to include Gaetz voiced justification for his opposition:

According to Newsweek, he voted against it because he was "concerned about the potential of bad actors who would exploit the provisions of this law for their own gain." (https://www.newsweek.com/matt-gaetz-transgender-lgbtq-equality-act-1384059)

Politicians can play dishonest games where the name of a bill does not accurately reflect what the bill actually does. Then they can malign their opposition based on their resisting the bill. For example, if we name a bill "The Freedom Bill" and it advocates for raising taxes on everyone, a politician who opposed the bill would be characterized as "voting against the Freedom Bill", implying they opposed freedom.

This is enablement of underhanded and bad-faith partisan tactics which is the kind of thing Wikipedia strives to block. To insulate against this tactic, articles should cite whenever possible the justifications from the politicians themselves for why they opposed or supported certain legislation. Novatecho (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You realize that readers can just read about the Equality Act on this same site, don't you? It's hardly a conspiracy to describe events in a completely flat and neutral way with no justifications or criticisms. 108.174.175.69 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic sentence

Please delete the text ", which Gaetz denied". It's not noteworthy for someone who has been accused of a crime to deny it. Like the phrase ", which is an office-building" in the sentence "Their offices were located in the Empire State Building, which is an office-building", it conveys no actual information. It's routine. Wikipedia is not Gaetz's lawyer, his campaign-manager, or his public-relations firm. You don't work for him, and sentences advocating his point of view have no place here. I'm sure he pays those he hires to defend his image quite well. Let them do so without your help.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

No mention of Greenberg or Gaetz being implicated in a sex trafficking scandal?

From Greenberg's wiki page: Greenberg was formerly a friend, associate, and ally of Gaetz; after being arrested in 2020, Greenberg began to cooperate with federal investigators probing Gaetz, who was also implicated in the sex trafficking scandal, although he has not been charged with a crime. 86.129.57.99 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

See Matt Gaetz#Federal investigations into sex trafficking. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

BLPCAT issues

John Chibona, this recently added category [3] appears to violate WP:BLPCAT. Even in cases where RSs describe someone as "alt-right" or "far-right" the article errs on the side of attribution. That is not the case with categories thus BLPCAT says we have to err on the side of not using contentious categories when labeling BLP subjects. That I why I removed the category you added. Absent consensus it shouldn't be restored. Springee (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the WP:BLPCAT states that:

...the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources.

The article makes clear that Gaetz is a "... a proponent of far-right politics." Many reliable sources are given.

John Chibona (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

John, in the article lead the article avoids stating in Wiki voice that Gaetz is "far-right". If we can't state it in Wikivoice in the lead then we can't use the tag. Finding some sources that call him far-right isn't sufficient when we are talking about BLP labels. Also, many of those sources are using the term in context of far-right within the GOP vs far-right 4chan etc. Currently we don't have consensus for the tag. Perhaps a BLPN discussion would help since CON/NOCON with only two editors can't been seen as strong either way. Springee (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

References

fundraising

Hey, @Springee, let's discuss? Raising 2M in a week seems like it would pass the test, to me. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

But it's not about Gaetz, it's about an opponent. I'm not really convinced the off color remark should be included. If the intent is to express his policy position then we don't need the quote. If the intent is to show he says ugly things to people then it should be included sources that say, "Gaetz uses outspoken rhetoric" and this is an example. Such a statement wouldn't be used as a position on abortion rather an example of rhetorical style. Anyway, as for the opponent, are they going to be notable in context of Gaetz in 10 years? If not then they shouldn't be included here. Springee (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue it is about Gaetz, as the fundraising was done directly off his comments, but maybe that wasn't made clear enough. And I do think it'll be something mentioned in future discussions of him, but I'm willing to wait to see that happen. Could we add a sentence along the lines of the comments were used to generate $2M for abortion funds within a week after he made them or something like that? Valereee (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Overall I'm still not convinced RECENT doesn't apply here. However, I can see the part about was used to generate $2M being a reasonable addition as it does suggest this had an impact beyond the media/talking head noise. I think your suggested comment makes sense (absent RECENT concerns). Springee (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to add as short as possible so it wouldn't be undue, see what you think. Valereee (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

you have a point and geatz got erested in 2008 so why trust him?@Travis 16 2603:9000:D104:61F0:F4CA:6359:83C3:F734 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

WaPo article: "Career prosecutors recommend no charges for Gaetz in sex-trafficking probe"

URL here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/23/gaetz-no-charges-sex-trafficking/

The first paragraph of this article is startling: Career prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation — telling Justice Department superiors that a conviction is unlikely in part because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses, according to people familiar with the matter. However, the second paragraph says Senior department officials have not made a final decision on whether to charge Gaetz, but it is rare for such advice to be rejected, these people told The Washington Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. They added that it is always possible additional evidence emerges that could alter prosecutors’ understanding of the case. Beyond the issues with anonymous sources, it strikes me as inappropriate to use this as a validation that Gaetz will not be charged, as it does not say that Gaetz "will not be charged". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

After a year and a half of investigation yielding no charges, it strikes me as highly appropriate and of great interest to add the bit from the WaPo. It is not procedure for law enforcement to announce or confirm for the public that charges will never be filed. So, let's add the WaPo information now as it is likely to be the final line in this story. Otherwise, unless charges are filed, there will be no trigger to finish the story. In any case, the fact that the WaPo reported the recommendation by prosecutors is part of the story, along with the WaPo's statement that such recommendations are rarely rejected. This WaPo bit is probably the final line in in the story unless the Justice Department ignores the recommendation and files charges anyway, which would make this recommendation piece of the story extremely pertinent! Richwilkinson (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Since no charges will be filed, it is also necessary, under the WP:BLP policy, to drastically reduce or delete the section on the allegations. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

that's not how blp works. (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

extortion

Is this talked about in the article?

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/11/22/businessman-pleads-guilty-in-25m-extortion-attempt-of-matt-gaetzs-father-1394858

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and in the Don Gaetz article, too. -- Pemilligan (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove sentence from 'Early life and education' section

Remove "In October 2021, the Florida bar suspended Gaetz from practicing law due to unpaid fees." from the "Early life and education" section. It is in reference to something which happened long after his early life. It was obviously included in this section simply because of political hatred. 107.11.55.112 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I moved it to the end of the section and renamed the section "Early life and career", as it covers his early career. There is no "political hatred" in noting that the bar suspended his license. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Restore role in speakership vote

220,000 WP viewer read this article but one decided to delete text w/o notification. Activist (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Activist, I think they may have been right to delete the section. The whole section is poorly written as it reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry. It also contains a lot of information that would fail any 10YEAR test. HistorianAJG's removal here [4] seems like a good start rather than the total of what should be removed. Something like, "Gaetz, as a member of the Freedom Caucus, withheld their votes during the 2023 Speaker's election (link to primary topic on the election if there is one)." More than that and we are either adding a COATRACK to this article or we are just adding content that will fail the 10YEAR test like discussions with AOC. If we are going to put information about the 2023 vote it should include what they said they wanted in exchange for support rather than trivial details like talking with AOC. Springee (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Gaetz's role in the speakership election sure is noteworthy, but his having a conversation on the floor with AOC doesn't seem relevant to him as much as it is to C-SPAN's coverage and how speakers control the camera angles. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I watched the coverage on different channels that went on past midnight EST. It was clear that Gaetz's role was central to ending the impasse and McCarthy's reassuring public characterizations about the ask and what was given were somewhat opaque. The deal, whatever it is, will likely have immense impact. Would you care to sort through the coverage? The Intercept's coverage was the only outlet that I saw or read that shed much light on it. Activist (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I've reduced the section down to the relevant material. Springee (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

"Gaetz's suggestion that "antifa" was to blame for the attack on the Capitol is false and baseless" seems like a POV and should be modified

To reflect something like "Washington Post and Tampa Bay Times have called these claims false and baseless" etc or some such. Right now it just seems as if whoever added that had a very strong POV on the matter and does not come across as neutral. Shouldn't we be reporting x did what, how y things went, not what the $CurrentEditor necessarily think about it? 98.145.200.85 (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Antifa was not involved soibangla (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, so adding "X source says" to each statement on the entire project is redundant and unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The statement was false and there is really no way to avoid mentioning that. Wikipedia isn't a fact-checking outlet, so we don't catalogue false statements to debunk, but the statement is notable because of its falsity. I've tightened up the language as we also don't need Gaetz's attempt to sanitise his remarks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposals for the lead

I have two proposals for the lead. The first is remove "far-right" from the lead. This has never been really debated on the article talk page and is the sort of thing that is frequently added because editors are able to find some sources that use the term without showing it is a wide reaching description. It's telling that the body of the article doesn't say "far-right". The second is to remove the sex crime allegations from the lead. The charges have now been dropped so it seems this is no longer (and probably never was) lead worthy material. Springee (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The body of the article does say "far-right". From the Political positions section, Observers have described his views as far right, followed by the same six references used in the lead. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, I did a keyword search for "far-right" not "far right" so I missed that. That said, if that is the only mention in the article body then it's UNDUE for the lead, especially the first paragraph. I also wonder how we would call someone who wants to relax laws against pot as far-right... but I do acknowledge we have sources that have called him far-right. Springee (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I can agree with removing the sex crime allegations from the lede and replacing it with more relevant content. Curbon7 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I second that notion: since the investigation is over and no charges were ever filed I would propose deleting the sex crime allegation from the lede. It's still covered in the Legal Issues section. Joeparsec (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the closed legal case material from the lead. Far-right is still a concern but I don't see the clear consensus so it may require further discussion. Springee (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing the sex crime allegations from the lead is appropriate since the charges were dropped. "Far-right" is very well supported and belongs in the lead as a description of Gaetz's political alignment. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)