Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:28, 15 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matt Gaetz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Florida Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Navarre, Florida Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Navarre, Florida, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Navarre, Florida on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Navarre, FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject Navarre, FloridaTemplate:WikiProject Navarre, FloridaNavarre, Florida Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: State Legislatures Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Matt Gaetz (49 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 5,105 5,105 Early life and career 8,266 8,266 Florida House of Representatives 12,347 12,347 U.S. House of Representatives 34 45,499 Elections 3,427 3,427 Tenure 13,351 37,895 2023 speakership election 2,940 2,940 Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, ethics committee investigation 4,270 4,270 Ethics controversies 17,334 17,334 Committee assignments 1,354 1,354 Caucus memberships 2,789 2,789 Nomination for attorney general 6,265 6,265 One America News Network 502 502 Political positions 9,304 115,121 Cannabis 10,661 10,661 Donald Trump 12,957 29,659 Mueller investigation 8,029 8,029 First impeachment of Donald Trump 6,367 6,367 Second impeachment of Donald Trump 2,306 2,306 Support for impeaching President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas 5,261 5,261 Economy 1,903 1,903 Environment 5,719 5,719 Foreign policy 146 9,255 Myanmar 713 713 Middle East 6,764 6,764 Niger 1,105 1,105 Ukraine 527 527 George Floyd protests 3,798 3,798 Gun policy 5,981 5,981 Health care 2,751 15,015 COVID-19 9,888 9,888 Abortion 2,376 2,376 Human trafficking 4,212 4,212 Immigration 5,291 5,291 Law enforcement 2,882 2,882 LGBTQ rights 5,123 5,123 Big Tech 1,057 1,057 Legal issues and controversies 1,366 69,941 Federal investigations into child sex trafficking and statutory rape 16,835 66,571 Defense and counter-claim of extortion 12,484 12,484 Response and other developments 21,955 21,955 Conclusion of DOJ investigation 1,290 1,290 Re-opening of investigation by House Ethics Committee 14,007 14,007 Driving offenses 2,004 2,004 Firebrand book and podcast 1,224 1,224 Personal life 4,081 4,081 Footnotes 30 30 References 28 28 External links 2,436 2,436 Total 270,845 270,845

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: March 28 to April 3, 2021 (3rd) April 4 to 10, 2021 (15th)

Criminal allegations in the lede

I think it made sense for a while to have the sex trafficking allegations in the lede, as it was the most mentioned thing in relation to Matt Gaetz. I think that time has passed - there doesn't appear to be any progress or new stories about the investigation, and media mentions of Gaetz increasingly don't concern or raise it. I think having it in the lede is therefore Misplaced Pages:UNDUE, and it would make more sense to continue the lede by focussing on his positions and profile in the House (i.e. Trumpist, provocateur, anti-election certification etc.) which are more central and relevant parts of his profile (obviously this would change if charges are brought in the criminal allegations, and certainly if he's convicted). --Samuelshraga (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The article as a whole needs a rework. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. As of this month the DOJ concluded its investigation and no charges were brought. Keeping this in the lede centers an issue that's failed to be substantiated, in a way that takes up nearly half of Gaetz's intro no less. The topic is still covered in the Legal Issues section. Why don't we just delete it from the lede? Joeparsec (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A bit late to the discussion, but the House Ethics Committee had reopened the probe into Gaetz in July 2023. I've update it at the bottom of the Federal Investigation section for chronology since its related because the reports says the probe was paused then re-opened to not overlap with the DOJ investigation. Not sure if that still justifies an inclusion in the lede, or if the "Federal Investigation" heading should be updated - is the HEC considered a federal agency? ----Zhanzhao (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There's still a lot of news about it and an ongoing House Ethics Committee investigation concerning it. See and which came up for me on a search of his name alone. TarnishedPath 07:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If the criminal investigation was closed and there appears to be no charges imminent, keeping such allegations in the lead is inappropriate and undue. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that the future attorney general of the most powerful nation in the world has been investigated for sex trafficking at one point is notable enough for the lede. LilianaUwU 23:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If he were convicted, arrested, or charged in any official capacity I could see validity to that argument, but it appears the investigation and accusations were nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. The ongoing house investigation is likely going to evaporate early next year. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's gonna evaporate. It's the definition of "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing". LilianaUwU 01:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We need to wait. The committee won't release the report as he has resigned, but the report could come out in the confirmation hearing. If there is one. Too much is uncertain here to know what the situation will look like in three months. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that this should be removed from the lead in its entirety. Kcmastrpc argues that it gives undue weight to the investigation because it did not result in a conviction. Neither you nor I can say with undeniable certainty whether these allegations are true. As editors, we are held to the standards of validity and verifiability, but we cannot pass judgment on whether an accusation is factually true or false.

An investigation abruptly ending due to powers of jurisdiction does not qualify it as a "partisan witch hunt". It's similar to a man being found "not guilty" of murder or a world leader not being charged for allegedly colluding with a foreign power (Both men accused have mentions of this in their articles' leads.). This article contains swaths of prose and reliable sources relating to the allegations to constitute their mention in the lead. While I cannot say the allegations are true, I can say that they are verifiable and have significant prose backed up by reliable sources in the article's body. — Paper Luigi 04:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

100% agreed. The standard we out to go by here is WP:BLPPUBLIC. Given that this is all well documented in media reporting I would expect at least some coverage of the allegations and resulting investigations in the lead, even if we don't have a position about the veracity of the allegations. TarnishedPath 06:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The material should be removed from the lead. The accusations were made in 2020. If nothing has happened since then this needs to be moved out of the lead as a BLP issue. Springee (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely some controversy here now, as the House report may actually never be released. see CNN. I believe there might be some mention DUE, but keeping all the specifics in the lead is incredibly UNDUE, given the allegations never actually materialized into consequences that can be correlated to the investigation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I've referenced this discussion from BLP/N, please see: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matt_Gaetz

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmastrpc (talk • contribs) 14:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"Baby gaetz" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Baby gaetz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13 § Baby gaetz until a consensus is reached. Xeroctic (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

So the next Attorney General is "far-right"?

In the opening paragraph for Matt Gaetz right now it tries to associate him with being far-right. X doubt. Alexysun (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What does "X doubt" mean? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Does the original poster have any sources describing Gaetz to the contrary? The article cites a number of sources that describe him as "far-right". — Paper Luigi 06:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae it's from a meme. A quite dated meme which was based of Fallout 3, a computer game. TarnishedPath 06:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's actually from L.A. Noire, but po-tay-to po-tah-to. LilianaUwU 08:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources refer to Gaetz as being far-right. See this article from The Age as an example. The age is listed by WP:RSP as being WP:GREL. TarnishedPath 06:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Realiable sources for an opinion? 2600:6C40:0:204E:57BC:65B7:D91D:DC28 (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not an opinion if enough reliable sources state it as a fact. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not going to be a conversation that leads anywhere that is illuminating. TarnishedPath 08:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I could accept this reasoning if there were maybe what, one source making the claim? But there are six in the lead section of the article alone, and there's probably more in the article itself. Also, why is it that facts presented in reliable sources are always dismissed as "opinions"? LilianaUwU 08:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For the same reason we don‘t call Donald Trump far-right in his lead. It’s contentious and MOS:LABEL suggests it becomes undue unless the vast majority of sources describe Gaetz as such. Just like any other popular politician, a handful of highly partisan opeds just isn’t going to cut it. Thus far, I don’t see arguments supporting describing him as far-right in the opening sentence. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Trying to write stock standard secondary sources off as opeds is a non-starter. You're not going to get anywhere with those sorts of alternative facts. TarnishedPath 10:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please keep a tone of AGF. The way the lead is currently written seems to dance around doesn't violate LABEL since it factually states sources have used the term with Gaetz. It is factual and doesn't put the term in Wiki voice so I feel LABEL is satisfied. However, the need to put such sentences in article leads in general perhaps says as much about the political leanings of Wiki editors on these subjects as it does about the BLP subject themselves.

While I understand your comment about OpEd vs regular reporting, we do need to understand that there is a strong political leanbias in the media with only 3.4% of journalist identifying as Republican . When labels like these are thrown out we do need to ask if they are supported by the article body or are they the opinion of the author mixed with other factual reporting. Finally, I don't think this would be so contentious if our far-right article didn't make an immediate visual association with things like a Nazi flag. I think almost any political observer would agree that Gaetz is on the far-right of mainstream US politics. I doubt any objective observer would associate him with Nazism or Neo-Nazism any more than Bernie Sanders's far-left politics would be associated with the Khmer Rouge. I think the article would be better without the "far-right" sentence in the lead but I don't see gaining consensus for that change as likely. Perhaps if we do a survey of just how many current sources describe him as such and if the ratio is say less than 5% or so it would be UNDUE for the lead. I will leave it to others to propose such a change. Springee (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC) edited Springee (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This same issue has been discussed ad nauseum across so many articles. I don't see a reason to really retread the same discussion here. One of the issues, which you pointed out @Springee, is that the sources Misplaced Pages considers reliable are objectively left-leaning. Even if we were to say in wikivoice that, "media outlets describe Gaetz as far-right", that's only a half-truth because not all news media outlets describe him that way (just several of the ones that Wikipedians may aggregate). Perhaps a compromise would be to move it out of the opening paragraph and make it clear that his views have been described by partisan sources as far-right (and without the blue). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm Kcmastrpc it's going to be hard to compromise with someone who manages, in one single paragraph, to slip from "objectively left-leaning" (the opinion of another editor, hardly a fact) to "partisan sources". If you disagree with the conclusions reached via consensus for WP:RS, you can perhaps go elsewhere to spend your time? Drmies (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to, it's widely understood that news sources are partisan and biased, and just because they're considered reliable doesn't magically negate such truths. see WP:PARTISAN. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Drmies is correct that my choice of "bias" isn't ideal here. The radio of Republican to Democrat identifying journalists isn't proof of bias but it is concerning when we write about political topics. A die hard Red Sox fan can be objective about the NY Yankees playoff record but it won't change their objective view that the Yankees suck. Springee (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Springee, it seems your biggest problem is with the far-right article. If there are improvements that you think can made there then it would probably be best to discuss those there. Your argument that only a small percentage of journalists identify as Republican isn't one that holds much weight. WP:DUE demands that we represent reliable sources in proportion to the prominence. Whether a majority of the hyper-politicised punters in the US would agree in irrelevant. We simply go where the sources take us. On a final note, Gaetz in on record as endorsing the Great Replacement conspiracy theory which is literally a white nationalist, far-right conspiracy theory. TarnishedPath 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There is truth to what you are saying. Part of the issue is "far-right" isn't a well defined term thus what a political writer says when using the term and what wiki editors choose to emphasize when writing our article on the topic may not be well aligned. We specifically caution editor about this when putting hyperlinks within quotes. We are told to be careful because the speaker's intent may not align with the article at the other end of the hyperlink. To some extent that is the issue here as "far-right" isn't a clearly defined term in all context. So in that context it is an problem for this article vs for the far-right article. Also, the political alignment of reporters when covering political topics is something we should be aware of. Editors of this article have chosen to emphasize a label applied by some sources. That is a choice on the part of Wiki editors, not something about the sources themselves. We can still maintain NPOV without that sentence in the lead. Also, RS says we can use biased sources but we should use them with care. When there is such a clear alignment among the media and in a way that clearly doesn't reflect the US electorate, we should be cautious. That doesn't mean we ignore the material, but we should be extra vigilant to avoid treating subjective labels etc as fact. Springee (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that far-right is no less defined than right-wing. The fact that editors are able to write articles about them that aren't messes of original research speaks to that. TarnishedPath 01:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My issue isn't so much about the minutiae of partisanship in sourcing but the sentence itself. The lead states that Gaetz "is widely regarded as a staunch proponent of far-right politics", but Gaetz is on record denying the far-right label and describing himself as a libertarian populist. Omitting his self-described ideology from the lead and writing instead that he is a "staunch proponent" of it is misleading and unbalanced. Emo band My Chemical Romance has told people for years that they aren't an emo band. Its lead describes them as "a major act in the pop-punk and emo genres, despite the band rejecting the latter label." A sentence with a balanced viewpoint like that is preferable to the "staunch proponent" sentence in the article now. — Paper Luigi 16:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable approach and would certainly help the lead. Springee (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I took a shot at this, I won't be surprised if it gets reverted (along with my other changes). Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

there is no way "far-right" should be included in the lead paragraph if "far-left" is not included in the antifa page.. Also the phonetic spelling of his name should be GATES not GAYTS... 2601:580:4580:9F30:C147:966E:51E8:2377 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've referenced this discussion from BLP/N, please see Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Matt_Gaetz

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmastrpc (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

White Nationalist theory in lead

This was just added. I removed it per BRD. This is undue and out of place for the lead as written. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Matt Gaetz's endorsement of Great Replacement Theory

Should Matt Gaetz's endorsement of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory be mentioned in the lead. I think it should given that it is significant that a mainstream politician would endorse a that particular conspiracy theory. For reference it was removed from the lead most recently at Special:Diff/1257503594.
Pinging @MisterWat3rm3l0n, @Malerooster and @OntologicalTree as editors who have edited over the content. TarnishedPath 08:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't be in the lead. This is a specific detail and isn't a high level summary fact. Springee (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's significant fact that speaks to his entire world view. TarnishedPath 11:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

A sound bite for partisan talking points is barely DUE in the article body, let alone the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Your repeated claims of bias, partisan talking points, opeds, etc rings hollow. TarnishedPath 12:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll just retort that your repeated attempts to elevate the same media outlets whom we can all depend on to parrot the same outrage churnalism as some sort of scholarly source is equally tiring. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Active politicians
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Florida articles
• Mid-importance Florida articles
• WikiProject Florida articles
• C-Class Navarre, Florida articles
• Low-importance Navarre, Florida articles
• C-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Mid-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class US State Legislatures articles
• Unknown-importance US State Legislatures articles
• WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report