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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: LGBT activistLGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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
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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dyslexia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DyslexiaWikipedia:WikiProject DyslexiaTemplate:WikiProject DyslexiaDyslexia
Gavin Newsom is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
It is shocking that the French laundry controversy, one of the highest profile COVID-era controversies in the country, is almost entirely unmentioned in this article. It was controversial to the point where there was a time that polling had a majority of Californians expressing support for Newsom's recall, but it is given only a single sentence in the 2021 recall section. This alone should be given much more attention in either "ethics concerns" or "COVID-19 pandemic."
Additionally, Newsom's opposition to prop 36, which he actively campaigned against, should probably be put in the "criminal justice" section. 97.190.52.164 (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly half a paragraph in the "2021 recall election" section is plenty DUE coverage of the French Laundry incident.
Shouldn’t every article about a person who is in government state containa way of contacting that person by email or phone to submit ideas or respond to serious problems that their constituents are having?for example today I have an idea as to how the governor of California and other state officials could use the Palisade area that was recently burned as a site for wind turbines that would be protected from fire and connected to the grid with underground cables that would also be protected from fire. The winds are pretty steady at the top of the Palisades, where people should probably not rebuild homes and businesses for many reasons. The utility company could pay the owners of the property or and the government and/or the owners of Forest lands, money in return for turning over their land to the government and the utility company for their use in order to create zones where fire breaks could also be created to protect the wind turbine equipment, and grid lines, etc. how could I get such an idea out to the mayor of Los Angeles or governor Newsom and his staff. 216.107.204.234 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, by "opening paragraph" you are probably referring to the lead section of the article. Per MOS:CITELEAD, citations there are often omitted since the material is repeated in later sections. For example, the fact that Newsom is a businessman is discussed under "business career", of which the section is fully cited. Thanks VolatileAnomaly (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this deliberate comment from Newsom, which was widely reported, subject to “recentism”? This doesn't make sense. If it were a mis statement by him, it would have been corrected by his office. @Usr TrjHelpingtoclarify (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why all his “pro-trans” views and actions are relevant to the section on “LGBTQ+ rights” but this more recent view, which might show some balance on Newsom’s part is not. This is especially the case when his comment was delivered on a conservative podcast and was so widely covered. This is widely reported and there is a clear consensus as to what he said and why its notable.
Lack of willingness to include this clearly points to a bias.
So tell me, does 3 months need to pass and its no longer “too recent”? What would allow this update? There are statements of other politicians that are updated immediately.(see Trump statements) Helpingtoclarify (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think because it was just a brief statement and wasn't even the subject of the podcast episode. Plus his actions clearly don't support it. Also, all the "pro-trans" stuff in the "LGBTQ+ rights" section are actions and not just brief statements. If Newsom actually takes action to prohibit trans women in women's sports, then maybe that can be included, but if he doesn't, then it's just an empty statement and no more worthy of inclusion than any other statement he's made in the last 28 years. Usr Trj (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we think “he didn't mean it”? He hasn't walked it back, clarified or corrected his statement.
If its “just an empty statement”, isn't that notable in itself that he said something so controversial on such an important issue, where his track record has been the opposite. Especially when CA has a law on the books specifically allowing youth to participate in the sports team of the gender they identify (which Newsom’s comment suggests he may now oppose).
I would argue that the mainstream coverage of this points to that later perspectice this coverage itself makes it worthy of inclusion. Also the pushback which has come from this statement is significant.
I don't think I've seen a statement by a politician more widely covered. My search was not exhaustive.
I'm not necessarily saying "he didn't mean it", but Newsom's office did subsequently issue a statement saying, "The governor rejects the right wing's cynical attempt to weaponize this debate as an excuse to vilify individual kids."(https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/gavin-newsom-trans-people-sports) Newsom also followed up his initial statement about fairness by saying, "These poor people are more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression, and the way that people talk down to vulnerable communities is an issue that I have a hard time with as well" and that he believes transgender inclusion in sports should be handled with "humility and grace", (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna195165) which makes it kind of unclear as to whether or not he would actually support restricting trans people's ability to play on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.
I just think that, given his past actions and support of trans rights, we should wait and see if he actually takes action to limit trans women competing in women's sports or if this statement is just a blip and he continues to support trans rights regardless. Usr Trj (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this statement is re added to the article though, I strongly support including his subsequent comments about trans people being a "vulnerable community" that is "more likely to commit suicide, have anxiety and depression" etc. since that shows he is not completely renouncing trans rights and is at most, on the fence about it. Usr Trj (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be re-added, and an encyclopedia article is not the place for warring factions of editors to pile news article on top of news article in some kind of ideological arms race. Alan Barth said, "Journalism is the first rough draft of history", and that may be so, but it is not what we do. Wikipedia is not the first rough draft of history, nor is it even the second draft of it (that would be secondary sources like books and articles in reputable magazines. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we wait till the books and magazines figure out what was important in all those news reports that spill out the news as it happens in crazy-quilt fashion, and then they try to make sense out of it all to create a narrative, and then finally we come along after that, and look at all those secondary source narratives, and figure out what the common thread or majority view is in all of that. Jumping straight to the latest news is jumping the gun, and it is not our role as a WP:TERTIARY source of information. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for your perspective. I wasn't planning on re adding it, I was just saying IF it was. But I agree that it should not be re added. Usr Trj (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, okay, but the derth of news sources covering it seem to think it relevant, so, Wikipedia isn't being the first draft here, it's very much adding a notable statement of a politician's views which is, kind of central to his article given that he's, you know, a politician? Snokalok (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dearrhbia the wrong word. Its the opposite. However 1) the fact trans rights has been a big issue nation wide 2) Newsom has been an unequivocal supporter 3) he very intentionally made a comment to a conservative podcaster 4) it was VERY WIDELY covered (as widely as I've ever seem) suggestions these sources believe it is noteworthy. These articles also suggest his comments have cause MANY to react.
How is this different than the dozens of such comments Trump has made that are quoted verbatim, blow by blow on Wikipedia?
There is no “ideological war” here and this is no “rough draft”. For Wikipedia to preserve its balance it must include all aspects of Newsom’s view on this high profile issue. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What news sources consider newsworthy has no bearing whatsoever on what Wikipedia considers inclusion-worthy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇15:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is way simpler than you are making it…
His views on trans rights is “inclusion-worthy”, its already discussed at length in the article.
This is a recent statement by him that is potentially relevant to this topic. I don't see how this is not the case.
Also, i'll put it another way, what has to happen for it to be inclusion worthy? Does he have to say it in another interview. Once? Two more times? Does he need to clarify or confirm his view to update the article? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
