Talk:Paul Gosar/Archive 1

Merge?
I've proposed merging this article into United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010 because Mr. Gosar doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Simply running ahead in partisan polls does not qualify him for his own article, although that information should certainly be included on the elections page. We can discuss here or at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Simply running ahead in polls does not qualify him for his own article"??? Who says??  Dear Arbor832466:  Where did not learn such a thing?  Is this some kind of secret Wikipedia rule?  No, it is not.  I think that the FACT that he is running ahead is a solid reason to keep the article.  Wikipedia is no place for partisanship.  Wikipedia is not censored.  Dear Arbor832466:  Please point out the specific Wikipedia rule that backs up your claim that a politician that is running for Congress and is ahead of a sitting Congressman 25 days before election day does not qualify for an article.  Please provide.--InaMaka (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Arbor832466 is simply not telling the truth. The Hill just released an independent poll that places him ahead.  Arbor832466 please do not make up things to back up your attempts to delete articles about politicians 25 days before an election.--InaMaka (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right, the Hill poll is non partisan. That was my mistake. Please assume good faith, InaMaka. However, there are specific criteria for notability (WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO) and polling is not among them. I'm curious why you don't support the same strict notability standard here that you did over at WP:Articles for deletion/Stephene_Moore? Arbor832466 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are wrong to assume that I don't support the "same strict notability standard" in the Gosar article that I supported in the Moore article. Let's compare the two articles so that you can see what I am talking about.  I'm looking for a consistent application of the rule.  That's all.  The notability rules for politicians are very clear that just being the spouse or child of a politician does not confer notability.  And when you are honest you know that the Moore article survived merely because she is the spouse of a Congressman--even though Wikipedia is clearly states that being a spouse or child of notable person does not confer notability.  You have stated over and over again that there is significant coverage of Moore in the media.  But that is not true.  The only articles that you provided were articles that refer to her collaterally as part of the KS 3rd Dist campaign.  But you and I both know that election coverage does not confer notability either.  Moore's only career accomplishments are as a nurse and a educrat at KU.  Even though working as a nurse is important and valuable work, it does not qualify for an article.  And the KU job is an entry level job.  I know I held a similar position while in graduate school at KU.  So Ms. Moore does not qualify--not under any set of circumstances.  Now if she was competetive in the Congressional race--which she isn't--then she would qualify because she would be within striking distance in the polls, but she's not.  If she was in striking distance then media reporters would be writing her up in a positive way.  There would be tons of articles about her personally.  You know and I know it.  If a female Democrat had a real chance to keep the seat of her retiring husband in one of most Republican states of Union, the national media (NY Times, Wash Post, Time, Newsweek, ABC News (Cokie Roberts), The View (Joy Behar), CBS News (Katie Couric), etc.) would be talking about it everyday.  They would be talking about her as replacing Biden as Obama's '12 running mate (yeah, that's hyperbole).  But at any rate, there would be in depth articles about her personally and not just about the race.  Now Gosar on the other hand (and the same applies to Bucshon) has a very good chance to win the Congressional seat.  He is ahead in the polls and you are wrong to state that being ahead in the polls is not relevant.  It is completely relevant.  It is relevant for two main reasons.  Removing an article about a politician that is winning a Congressional seat 24 days before an election violates the NPOV provisions of Wikipedia.  I don't care how you look at it.  It is partisan.  Period.  And when an individual is ahead in a Congressional race 24 days before an election by definition means that there is tons of information written and produced about that individual.  Take Bucshon for example I worked yesterday and I found tons of things to add to the article and I added a small part of it.  You need to attempt to fix the article instead of attempting to have them deleted.  That is just bad form.  And if someone is a competetive challenger then I am going to work to stop you and Flatterworld (and anyone else) from blatantly deleting the article or burying in the another article.  It may not be done maliciously but it does violate the spirit of Wikipedia and usually violates the rules of Wikipedia.  I did not agree with the decision to keep Moore's article up--when I believe that it should have been merged into the Kansas politics article, but I do respect it.  Also, in the Bucshon situation there was NO discussion before you and Flatterworld merged that article.  Now, that flat out violates the rules of Wikipedia.  And I am going do something about every time you and him do that between now and Election Day.  Most of the articles that you nominated for merger probably should be merged.  But many of them do not and I can name three off of the top of my head:  Gosar, Bucshon, and Reed.  The real issue is NOT about my consistant application of the rules but your completely inconsistant application of the rules.  Moore is not competetive. She will lose in November.  It is a fact.  There are no real articles about her because her accomplishments are very, very small.  Come on! "Project Coordinator"???? That is a minimum wage job.  Kevin Yoder is ahead in polls and he is going to sweep to victory.  When November 4th comes I am going to move immediately to have Ms. Moore article completely merged into her husband's article.  She does not qualify.  But at the same time you support Moore's article you want to delete Bucshon's article.  Bucshon is beating his opponent live a mule.  He is talented heart surgeon and there are long, detailed articles about him and his life which are easy to find if either you or Flatterworld took the time to look for them.  But neither of you did.  Both of you just wanted to delete the article.  If either you or Flatteworld attempt to destroy the article about Bucshon again then I will take my concerns to the next level.  I will get louder about it.  Deleting his article was totally uncalled for.  Also, the manner that you and Flatterworld used to delete the Bucshon article completely violated Wikipedia rules because neither of you waited for input from other editors.  You just killed it.  That was inappropriate.  I don't really care if Flatterworld is world's greatest, most important, mightest admin the world has ever seen.  Admins can and do throw their weight around but they can only go so far and I will call him to the carpet if I have to.  That move was inappropriate.  And one last thing.  I noticed that the vast majority of the articles you and Flatterworld wanted deep sixed were articles about Republicans.  Did you ever take a look at the article about a Democratic candidate named Krystal Ball.  She is not qualified to sweep the floors of my office much less be a member of Congress.  She has NEVER accomplished anything.  She is losing badly--not even close.  But I noticed that neither you or Flatterworld marked her article for merger or deletion.  And surprise, surprise she is Democrat.  Her article should have NEVER existed in the first place.--InaMaka (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your attitude and false claims are getting extremely irritating. I improved a lot of articles, of both parties and probably some third parties as well, which should never have been created in the first place if we strictly followed Wikipedia guidelines. They originally consisted of no more than a link to the campaign site and some cut-and-paste efforts, much of which wasn't even grammatical when put together. Wikipedia is not a campaign brochure. In an attempt to encourage new volunteers and set a good example, I added formatting, structure, and non-partisan links. However, Jerzeykydd started turning out five-second trash articles faster than I could keep up. No one else was engaging in improving these articles, and that includes you. As I don't have unlimited time, I marked the remainder for Merge, still trying to avoid actually deleting them. I did two merges (one Democrat, then one Republican) to show the alternative available. I don't know what more I could have done to show good faith and being helpful. You, on the other hand, are taking the view that any and all trash articles are to be left as is. Wrong answer. You are welcome to try to improve them, but in the meantime you have no 'right' to have trash remain. Flatterworld (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Paul Gosar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110717095940/http://tribtown.trib.com/post/wypolitics/at_least_one_gosar_was_elected_this_year.html to http://tribtown.trib.com/post/wypolitics/at_least_one_gosar_was_elected_this_year.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

after Unite the Right rally (Charlottesville) :
Arizona congressman repeats bogus claim that Charlottesville violence was left-wing plot

Imo, it should be mentioned in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These are notable and notably false statements by him. --Sstrader (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Caucus memberships
Okay, I agree that all 67 aren't necessary to include, but caucus membership is good information for constituents and researchers. The three he's chairman of should be included; among the others the House Freedom Caucus m'ship should be included since it's one of the best known of the rest. How about:

As of November 2017, Gosar is a member of 67 caucuses. They include: Fishlandia (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Congressional Western Caucus (chairman)
 * Congressional Interstate 11 Caucus (co-chairman)
 * Congressional Inventions Caucus (founder and co-chairman)
 * House Freedom Caucus
 * Only if there is secondary RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A lawmaker calls for treason charges against the heads of the DOJ and FBI; covered by WP:RS. WP:UNDUE, really?
A highly experienced editor removed a congressman's statement that the leaders of the FBI and DOJ ought to to be tried for treason. The text is sourced to Politico, and has been covered by other RS, such as WaPo, the Hill and Newsweek. The statement is also bound to receive more RS coverage, given its absurdity and dangerous authoritarian flavor. The text is WP:DUE by any standard. The revert is utterly spurious, and I encourage the editor "Power~enwiki" to self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. In addition, note WP:NOTNEWS.  If Wikipedia included every stupid thing a Congressman said, political articles would be absurd.  If this gets sustained coverage or he takes actions based on this hyperbole, I'd support including it. Otherwise I request that we wait until there's a consensus before this info is included. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this sounds like a completely principled stance, why don't you go ahead and scrub Gosar's entire article? There is no sentence in this article that is sourced to more than two secondary RS, and I doubt any one item here received sustained coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There *is* quite a lot of other crap in here. I'm not sure how/why the "Charlottesville "false flag" conspiracy theory" or "Native Americans" sections are included here. They've both been in the article long enough I'd rather not remove them without discussion. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

add fake news from Gosar ?
X1\ (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is This a Real Photo of Obama Shaking Hands with Iranian President Rouhani? Arizona U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar tweeted a fake image of a meeting between former President Barack Obama and Iran President Hassan Rouhani.  7 January 2020 Snopes.com per this.

Potential WP:BLP violation
This is concerning this addition:

We shouldn't perport these accusations, for one, the article cites CNN, but CNN does not report Gosar sought a pardon. The article seemingly made up the story that he did. We cannot allow this high accusation on the article unless concrete information is present and simply saying it was "reported" doesn't cut it. reverted my edit removing this with the line, "It stays." That's a half-assed explanation if you don't mind me saying, WP:BLP violations are concerning no matter who the individual is. CaliIndie (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the Arizona Mirror no longer a reliable source? Just because you question their reporting doesn't make it so.  If you have a problem with the reliability of a source, WP:RSN is thataway.--Jorm (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're being ignorant, the Arizona Mirror is clearly basing their reporting entirely on CNN and they say so multiple times, but nowhere in said-report from CNN do they say Gosar sought a pardon, they say, but never name anyone. They say Gosar is potentially liable for legal suit, but again, nowehere do they say he asked for a pardon. And as you may know, accepting a pardon is an acknowledgment of guilt. To seek a pardon is admitting you committed a crime. To report he may have done so when there is no reporting beyond this source to say so is a major WP:BLP violation. I'm saddened to see you patently deny this, but maybe you're intentionally doing so for your own self-serving. If CNN had named Gosar as someone who was even reported as seeking a pardon, I wouldn't be raising this issue, but clearly Gosar wasn't named and the original report had no intention to name anyone in particular since doing so would've either been a major indignation on that person or they seemingly lacked the information. Either way, it is clear to anyone with eyes the Arizona Mirror fabricated the association. CaliIndie (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's cool and all that you think I'm ignorant but I stopped reading right there. I suggest you to to the reliable sources noticeboard and try to sell your original research there. Good luck!--Jorm (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your responses to me have been single sentences with no acknowledgment of any of the valid concerns I've raised, your poor conduct is transparent. You say you've stopped reading but I don't believe you ever started at all. CaliIndie (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jorm is correct. The article as it currently stands remains heavily whitewsahed, calling AFPAC "A [sic] American Nationalist" event, language that is not used in any reliable sources, and removing all reliably sourced references to white nationalism. Wikipediaa is not in the business of whitewashing racism, and the references to white nationalism should be restored to the body unless someone is able to provide WP:RS to the contrary. Nmi628 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021
Remove white nationalist from the page. The crowd at AFPAC was extremely diverse and speakers included a Mexican, a Filipina, and an African American, as can be seen in pictures widely circulated across the internet. Any effort to portray it as white nationalist is dishonest at best, and most likely malicious. 24.115.185.247 (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. The characterization of AFPAC as white nationalist appears to be well-sourced, both in this article and the AFPAC article. Removal of that information would need to be supported by reliable sources that contradict this published information. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Attempts to whitewash
Multiple new accounts and IP users have attempted to remove reliably sourced content on Gosar's links to white nationalism, such as here and here. Not sure if some kind of protection on the page is necessary, but vandalism has been rampant in the wake of recent headlines. Nmi628 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Specifically the sub-section titled "Attendance of America First Political Action Conference" is heavily whitewashed by IPs in its current form. Specifically, Fuentes' twitter is being cited as a reliable source to WP:COATRACK lots of irrelevant information whitewashing Gosar. Additionally, all references to AFPAC being a white nationalist conference have been removed, despite them coming from reliable sources (ABC, Washington Post, CNN and others all use this language to refer to the conference) as well as references to Fuentes' white nationalism and his explicitly racist comments at that conference (e.g. claiming that "white people are done being bullied" and must "fight"). Lastly, the conference is described as "a [sic] American Nationalist" event, language only used by Fuentes himself and not repeated in any reliable sources. Wikipedia should be wary of users employing weasel words to whitewash white supremacy, and I'd ask that a confirmed user remove the obvious whitewashing and bad faith editing from that section. I suggest that the section be restored to its previous language in this version, before the IP accounts started vandalizing. Nmi628 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been edited a decent bit since you made this edit request, the only specific request outlined was a reversion to an old revision which no longer really makes sense, so I'm closing this edit request for now. Feel free to re-open it if you still have specific changes you want to be made. Volteer1 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The current version definitely looks better, although I think it's important to specify that it is a white nationalist conference in the lead, not just "far right." AFPAC has been described as "white nationalist" by most reliable sources I can find, such as here or here or here. Alternatively, we could also describe the conference as "tied to white supremacy" as the Washington Post says, if that's slightly more NPOV in your estimation. But regardless, it seems a disservice to readers to exclude ties to white nationalism and/or supremacy entirely in the lead when it's clearly reflected in the body. Nmi628 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The recent edit by Jorm is perfect and fixes the whitewash issue in the lead. This looks resolved, thanks. Nmi628 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

How were my edits 'not improvements'? Please explain this. Beaneater (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Because you changed facts to weasel words, when the sources are explicit. Jorm (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by my edit. Some speakers have ties to white nationalism. Some statements which were made which could be construed as white nationalist. But the organization rejects very fervently accusations that it is a white nationalist conference. When Wikipedia describes it without any qualifier as a 'white nationalist' event, it effectively takes the side of its critics in making an accusation which they unequivocally reject. I do not look to 'whitewash' the event but we must be more careful to avoid bias. So I propose that the article state that the conference has been described by many sources as a white nationalist event, without Wikipedia itself making that accusation. This is a very contentious label. Beaneater (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Are there reliable sources that say it is not a white nationalist conference? Are the sources in agreement? If they aren't in agreement, then maybe you have a point. Otherwise, we are simply reporting what reliable sources say.  We don't need to be weasel-y about it. Jorm (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the Washington Examiner here describes Fuentes as a holocaust denier, not a white nationalist. And The Hill here only describes Fuentes himself as a white nationalist, not the event as a whole. And Steve King referred to 'Judeo-Christian tradition' many times; that is hardly a phrase used by white nationalists. Regardless of who uses of the phrase it is still contentious and actively rejected, we should attribute it. If it were billed as a white nationalist conference, that would be a different story, but the organizers go to great lengths to distance themselves from such ideology. Beaneater (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , The Washington examiner is not a reliable source and Steve King is absolutely a white nationalist, no matter how many people call him "judeo christian", as if that means anything. You do not have consensus to change the language. Jorm (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Washington Examiner is not unreliable, it is just biased towards the right-wing. And he himself referred to 'Judeo-Christian' tradition, even on the stage of AFPAC which is supposedly an anti-semitic event, and was cheered for it. But I agree, there is not consensus or enough discussion, right now it is just us two arguing. I will wait for more editors to pitch in before trying to restore my changes. Beaneater (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The event had a Filipino woman and a black man speaking as keynote speakers and it had Jewish attendees plus Nick Fuentes himself is half Mexican, it is clearly unfair to label the event as white nationalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:154:4080:1660:D556:2764:FF8B:6F2F (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another IP/low edit user vandalizing the article's lead and section on the white nationalist conference. I've restored reliable content and removed the self sourcing. Nmi628 (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The argument on this matter wasn’t even close. Unless any more information comes up to dispute the fact, it seems in order to remove “White Nationalist” from the AFPAC convention, and instead label it by its non abbreviated title, “American First Political Action Conference”. This isn’t a political forum for you to argue your personal definitions of whiteness, per standards, a white nationalist convention wouldn’t have had an honorable speaker reference “Judeo Christian Values”, would not have invited an Asian female speaker in an interracial marriage, nor would they have invited a black journalist to be their speaker. The event was counter culture, sure, but the accusation of white nationalism seems cleared on this page.

Nate Rybner 22:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , it does not matter who spoke at the conference about what. Reliable sources describe it as white nationalist, so Wikipedia will describe it as such. Caius G. (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Some reliable sources have and other reliable sources haven’t. Even if it was a white nationalist conference, then it should only be sourced in its independent article since it has that.  It seems defamatory and disrespectful to insist a sitting honorable member of congress is a white nationalist, which this article insinuates.  This isn’t about politics, this is about portraying an unbiased truth.
 * Nate Rybner 21:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Are there any reliable sources contradicting the descriptor? The fact that some RS did not mention it is irrelevant to whether it is a white nationalist conference. I'm not sure what the meaning of your second sentence is: it is also sourced in this article (Daily Beast and Washington Post), if you believe the description to be undue (e.g., WP:COATRACK), then I'd disagree but you can of course make that argument.
 * I don't see how it insinuates that he is a white nationalist. The reason why it is being mentioned in the lead is that it was widely covered by media. If you want to expand the lead/article so it covers other things in more detail, you can do that. Best, Caius G. (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2021
82.0.141.4 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC) i request that either the designation of paul gosar being a far right politician is removed or the sources used to substantiate the point are more pertinent. The sources used to portray mr gosar as a far right politician are inaccurate and don't even suggest that mr gosar is far right.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Current sourcing is fine. It put him alongside other far-right provocateurs, the far-right Republican from Arizona was the much-touted surprise guest at an counter-CPAC event for example. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Numbers USA mislabeling
Numbers USA is not "anti-immigration," which is a phrase that is not cited in the link ascribed, they are an "immigration-reduction" organization per the link used as the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.209.13.145 (talk • contribs)
 * Removed for this and other reasons. 15 (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Numbers USA absolutely is "anti-immigration" as the preponderance of sources on that page show.--Jorm (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Irrelevant Information in the Lead
Gosar's boycott of Pope Francis' visit over climate change is one of the most irrelevant factoids I have seen in a congressman's lead, same with his siblings opposing him politically. Additionally, most reliable sources with me being able to list dozens of other random articles on him that make no mention of him being "far-right," the only major ones I could find being  which are far less reliable than the aforementioned sources and much more partisan. The actual reliable sources simply state that he only had a meeting a single time with one far-right individual, who he later denounced, not that he is far-right. Bill Williams 03:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have fixed The actual reliable sources simply state that he only had a meeting a single time with one far-right individual, who he later denounced, not that he is far-right. soibangla (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate it. Bill Williams 03:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I still removed some irrelevant factoids about pope francis and his siblings. You can add back what I removed about his views on abortion and other major topics, I just took that out not because it's irrelevant but because it wasn't sourced, but please feel free to add it back sourced, since I'm sure he oppose abortion and those other things. Bill Williams 03:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And I have reverted you. I do not agree with your reasons for deleting sourced content. Jorm (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Soiblanga actually helped out and added the more reliable sources I was looking for. What I just removed was irrelevant factoids that do not belong in the lead. His siblings' opposition, boycotting pope francis' visit, and being the "most controversial" arizona representative when there are 435 representatives in congress and only nine arizona districts are all irrelevant to the lead. His opposition to abortion, marijuana ACA, and gun control are not sourced, but I'm sure you could find sources and add them to the article. The sources for his support for conspiracy theories does not call them far-right conspiracy theories, just "conspiracy theories" so that is not sourced either, and one of those sources is an opinion article anyway. Lastly, the source linked does not call the conference "white nationalist," only the individual who organized it, which is what I wrote instead, and he also distanced himself from Fuentes' support for violence, which deserves to be next to the fact that he spoke at a Fuentes event and denounced the racism there. The Daily Beast is stated on perennial as "a biased or opinionated source" and cannot be used as a source for this claim, but I'm sure there are sources calling the event white nationalist. I just want sources that back up the claims, I am not denouncing them. Bill Williams 03:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * could you help get sources for these, sorry to ping you but you did add better sources for the "far-right" part of the article. Bill Williams 03:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(stuff before it that is currently in the lead)... Gosar has stirred controversy for his extremist views,  including supporting conspiracy theories and having ties to white nationalist and anti-government groups, such as the Groypers, Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Multiple sources:

Gosar opposes the Affordable Care Act, abortion, gun control, and immigration. He has been a strong ally of former president Donald Trump, and voted to overturn the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election that Trump had lost. Gosar later attended the America First Political Action Conference - its organizer, white nationalist Nick Fuentes, spoke approvingly of the 2021 United States Capitol attack - but Gosar distanced himself from Fuentes after the event, criticizing "white racism" and stating "there's no room for violence."
 * how is this as a repacement to the current text in the lead? His opposition to endangered species protection and marijuana legalization is vastly overshadowed by the other views far more covered in the media. The pope francis and sibling information is trivia irrelevant to the lead, not actually notable to his life. I additionally reordered things to put what makes sense together, adding citations for what he opposes and putting it with what he supports, and removing redundancies. I also clarified how Gosar reacted to Fuentes and what Fuentes believes, overall improving the wording. Bill Williams 05:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I added this to the article to replace the current text in the lead (keeping the far right part and other stuff beforehand). Bill Williams 00:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"Far-right"
Three sources are listed for the claim that Gosar is far right, while all other reliable sources that mention him do not state him to be (to list a few). Only a single other current congressperson in the U.S. House is stated to be far-right in their article lead (Marjorie Taylor Greene), and frequently when a reliable source mentions her, they call her far-right, such as when I simply google her, and there are even eight other sources listed in her own article lead. Gosar and Greene are not comparable based on reliable sources' mentions of them. Bill Williams 01:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Both Gosar and Boebert are members of the Freedom Caucus, "generally considered to be the most conservative and furthest-right bloc within the House Republican Conference." They're far right. soibangla (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is completely meunsourced OR, considering there are 45 members of the Freedom Caucus, and every single one of them is not considered far-right by reliable sources... Bill Williams 01:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not using it in the article, I'm using it on this Talk page to prove you're wrong. soibangla (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What? We are discussing what should be in the article, which again you are putting UNDUE information in the lead. Yes, he is associated with far-right theories and people, but he has not specifically endorsed all of their far-right claims, denouncing some of them, and that is one reason that the vast majority of reliable sources do not regularly refer to him as far-right. Yes, some of them do, but not the majority most of the time, so such a controversial claim, which again is only on a single other representative's article, does not belong in the lead. Bill Williams 01:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We are discussing what should be in the article Exactly. smh soibangla (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the same OR logic you are using, the Squad are the most liberal members of the Democratic party, and along with the House Republicans you call far-right who opposed Biden's agenda, they too voted against it. And if you want to use some sources that WP:PERENNIAL states should not be used for controversial claims, you can visit. Either way, multiple sources directly call them far-left yet that is still not in the article because that is not what they are called by most reliable sources the majority of the time. Bill Williams 02:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * . Here are at least 3 other reliable souces referring to Gosar as far-right. There's enough backing to put it in the lead and tbh, your comparison of the Squad seems clearly motivated by your partisanship.128.54.68.247 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can find literally hundreds describing him simply as right wing. Just because a couple (almost exclusively WaPo, NYT, and MSNBC in terms of major coverage) call him far-right does not necessitate it unduly a few words into the article. Your personal attacks on my "partisanship" is nonsensical when you are the one pushing for a POV statement a few words into the lead. Bill Williams 20:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By my read of the multiple sources you provided at the top of this thread, none except Maddow (which I would never use as a source) describe any slant of his political views. They are silent and neutral, so that does not mean they contradict the reliable sources that characterize him as far-right. soibangla (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , would you care to respond to my comment? soibangla (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are also dozens of sources that will describe Majorie Taylor Greene as simply a "firebrand" or "controversial" or etc. Those don't *contradict* other sources's depiction of her as far-right, and it doesn't here either. Your argument here is what's nonsensical.128.54.174.96 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Does this mean AOC should be branded "far left" in her article's lede, since her policy statements and associations are farther left than her colleagues?174.0.48.147 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'm quite serious. The AOC article is a hagiography, but does point to her membership in "the Squad" which is defined on the WP page as "well known for being among the most progressive and left-wing members of the United States Congress." Ergo, farthest to the left, thus "far-left" according to the logic above. Why then, the double standard. Mention this guy is far right, but it's being used in the first sentence as a pejorative rather than a description.174.0.48.147 (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If RS call her far-left, I agree. soibangla (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They have on numerous occasions, so by all means add that to her article if you truly believe that it belongs there. Bill Williams 20:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find such reliable secondary sources and by all means add them if you truly believe that it belongs there. soibangla (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I already provided multiple reliable sources, but it doesn't belong there, so please refrain from bending my words to make foolish statements. Calling her far left a few words into the lead would be UNDUE. Bill Williams 22:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not bending your words to make foolish statements, but asserting so skates close to a personal attack. Also, his denial of ties is WP:MANDY.soibangla (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "They have on numerous occasions, so by all means add that to her article if you truly believe that it belongs there" was me and "Feel free to find such reliable secondary sources and by all means add them if you truly believe that it belongs there" was you turning my words into your own statement. That is not a personal attack but a summary of what you did. Additionally, WP:MANDY does not apply because he publicized his support for those ideas, while alternatively Gosar has publicized his opposition, e.g. "opposing 'white racism'" and saying, 'there's no room for violence' to them in addition to denying the ties. Bill Williams 22:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not "bend" your words. I demonstrated your audacity at asking me to do something on your behalf. If it's the point you want to make, then you do it. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, stop bending my words to make your claims. I literally stated that she should NOT be called far-left in her lead, but that she has been called far-left by reliable sources on multiple occasions, so according to your logic, far-left belongs in her lead. Bill Williams 23:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * she has been called far-left by reliable sources on multiple occasions Show 'em if you got 'em. soibangla (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * is what I already cited above and you can find others online, I do not want to waste time arguing about this, my point is that she has been called far-left by reliable sources and she is stated to be one of the most liberal Democrats out there, and again according to your claims, all of the Tea Party Republicans are far-right, so your claim would mean that every Squad member is far-left. Bill Williams 23:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But Politico doesn't explicitly call her far-left, now does it? Just like ABC News doesn't explicitly say Gosar has ties to Groypers. But I'm not aware AOC has ever spoken at an antifa gathering, know what I mean? you can find others online So show 'em. smh. soibangla (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It literally calls her far-left by stating that she is part of a group of far-left people. If I said that you are part are a member of a tall group, that means you are tall. Bill Williams 01:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Literally? No. Just like ABC doesn't literally say Gosar has ties to Groypers, though he clearly does, based on their reporting. But of course AOC's on the far left, which Politico makes clear, just not so far left as to be aligned with antifa or radicals associated with violence. She's not in the Weather Underground or Symbionese Liberation Army. By contrast, Gosar gave a keynote before a group that participated in the J6 attack, as did Oath Keepers, to which he also spoke and was qouted to say "We are in a Civil War, we just haven’t started shooting yet." Taking all the reporting into account, to say these ties are "alleged" is ludicrous. soibangla (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * False. Ties implies he has clear ties to them. Making a single speech to them is not described as clear ties in the article, because it isn't. If he gave a single speech to a group of Alternative for Germany members, does that mean he has "ties" to them, i.e. is somehow interested in German politics? No, because a single speech is meaningless in the lead that is composed of his entire life. Bill Williams 03:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Censure in lead
I've added the censure to the Actions section. Should it be mentioned in the lead? Schazjmd  (talk)  21:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking it might need to be since he's only the 25th in US history to be censured, and it's just short of expulsion. soibangla (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Maker of Attack on Titan music video
Do we know who did it? Seems doubtful Gosar actually did the face edits himself, so probably some staffer.

Also wondering if anyone's watched enough of AOT to know the names of which chars he swapped their faces out for congresspeople faces.

Gosar's face appears to replace that of a sword-wielding woman, which is a transgender swap. WakandaQT (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of that information seems necessary for the article, and if it hasn't been discussed in reliable sources it could be WP:OR. --Pokelova (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

title of AOT song
despite you saying in summary it was fine to mention it was the OP (instead of a clip) in special:diff/1055807080 all you did was completely revert the edit without incorporating those changes you said were acceptable.

Rather than me guessing at how much extra info you deem acceptable, could you just make that edit yourself, or give some verbal guidelines at what you're objecting to including?

AOT uses several opening theme songs (I think two per season) so specifying it is the first half of season 1 ("Feuerroter Pfeil und Bogen") seems helpful to me.

The song (albeit sung in Japanese) was playing throughout Gosar's video so knowing the title of the song makes the lyrics accessible and provides further context to what song/video he was interposing himself and others on. WakandaQT (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, allow me to be very clear. Saying it was the OP is fine (though I would go with the Japanese title "Guren no Yumiya", it's more recognizable). Changing the wording to say that he was merely going to "hit" AOC is not fine. I have seen your post on AOC's talk page, regardless of what you think such a sword attack would do to a titan, all the reliable sources refer to killing. --Pokelova (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

removed committee assignments
Do we have a total or list of names of what was removed?

https://gosar.house.gov/about/committees-and-caucuses.htm which I assume hasn't been updated yet mentions two:
 * 1) House Committee on Natural Resources
 * 2) House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Were there any others? Not sure how current that is. WakandaQT (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The link to the anime
Should we not post the link to the actual anime video somewhere? Here is the link: [redacted link] Topjur01 (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to do so. --Pokelova (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea, to allow people to look at the original opening and what changes were made to it. WakandaQT (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased introduction
As of this talk entry, the opening paragraph summary of the censure is:
 * On November 17, 2021, Gosar was censured by the House of Representatives and stripped of committee assignments for posting a video on social media depicting the murder of congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and violence directed at President Joe Biden.

This is frankly biased, as it does not contextualize the visuals and violates Neutral point of view. As it stands, it could be misread to be as severe as real life violence. Two important details are missing: It is animated with faces pasted on, and those being killed or threatened are giants of mythical proportions. I would change it myself, but I don't want to get into a tiring edit war. So here is a proposal for a change, and I would like to try to build a consensus on the exact wording:
 * On November 17, 2021, Gosar was censured by the House of Representatives and stripped of committee assignments for posting an animated video on social media depicting the murder of a mythical titan with congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's real world face pasted on, and violence directed at a titan with President Joe Biden's face.

Thoughts? -- sarysa (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the ”animated video” is linked to the video on wikicommons not a page about anime. 131.193.137.95 (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do need to change that part slightly as the entire video goes back and forth between real world border footage and face-pasting animation from Attack on Titan. However, the focus of the censure is entirely on the animation + face-pasting sections. -- sarysa (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The word 'murder' does not belong here imho. I am trying to find the murder in the video. In which second of the video is the murder? Topjur01 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Change from “murder” to “killing”?131.193.137.95 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Do an internet search of the story and the headlines and news text mention "murder" and "killing" of the congresswoman. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The "title of AOT song" section in this talk page dabbles in that a little, but I've seen the anime and attacking the nape of the neck of a titan as depicted results in instant death. Whatever the wording is, to be NPOV it must represent death. -- sarysa (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I slightly edited the wording, but this is quite frankly the most significant thing ever about him in the media, and clearly belongs in the lead. Bill Williams 20:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * About the most accurate wording of kill, anime, video, attack: There is a lot of discussion and changes to the wording of "killing" and "anime" and "video". Maybe the most accurate phrase is the one from CNN that says that he "posted a photoshopped anime video" ... "showing him appearing to kill" AOC "and attacking President Joe Biden." CNN source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/politics/gosar-anime-video-violence-ocasio-cortez-biden/index.html

Topjur01 (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see that this has already been followed. Disregard my message. Topjur01 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Using the verbage from this CNN article, I have edited the paragraph slightly to give proper context. -- sarysa (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutral description of anime video
The most neutral description of the video is the language on Congress.gov which reads: "This resolution censures Representative Paul Gosar for posting a certain video on his social media accounts that depicts violence against Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and President Joseph R. Biden."

This is the description of the video which must be used in this article. Any other description of the video (aside from direct linking to the video, which contributors seem to be averse to doing) would be less than neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hizoner (talk • contribs)


 * No, that's a primary source, we go with secondaries soibangla (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Congress is not a neutral source in general. Everything, including the wording, is to be assumed partisan. -- sarysa (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The current " for posting on social media a photoshopped anime clip depicting him killing a giant with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's face[12] and attacking a character with President Joe Biden's face.[13][14]" description is satisfactory and good enough for the lead. Bill Williams 20:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Alleged Ties to Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Groypers.
Supposed ties to Groypers are completely originally researched and not source. He spoke at a conference where some of them were present, but only turned that into "ties" to the Groypers, not any reliable source. If you could find one reliable source claiming he has ties to them, that it not meaningful for the lead compared to the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, who sourced have stated that he has ties to on numerous occasions. And again, these ties are "alleged" because he has repeatedly denied having any ties to them or agreeing with them, stating that only they agree with some of what he believes, and denies having met with them the single time that the sources allege, requiring "alleged ties" not just "ties." Bill Williams 22:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Supposed ties to Groypers are completely originally researched and not source is false. I just provided an ABC News source reporting he gave the keynote address to a Groypers audience in April. Did you not see the ref and my edit summmary? soibangla (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And does that source claim that he has ties to them? No, it does not, meaning once again that is purely ORIGINAL research. Again, the audience was not entirely composed of Groypers, so your logic would necessitate that every single person is a sexist, racist, homophobic etc. because some people in their audience were. Bill Williams 23:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He "spoke Friday night at the America First Political Action Conference" Who are they? "Attendees are members of the "America First" movement and supporters of Nick Fuentes, also known as Groypers.". And he didn't merely speak there, he gave the keynote! soibangla (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He gave numerous other speeches on numerous other occasions, are you going to state that he has ties to every single group in existence? No, because the SOURCE does not state "TIES" of his to the Groypers, so it should not be included. Bill Williams 23:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In the full context of his associations with related organizations, yes, this connection stands out from every single group in existence. KEYNOTE ADDRESS! soibangla (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, give me a single reliable source that states "Gosar has ties to the Groypers" instead of your original research where you found that he gave a speech to them one time in an article that never claims he has ties to them. Bill Williams 23:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be improper to characterize him as a member of Groypers because he gave a keynote at the conference, but the fact he gave the keynote is objective evidence of ties to Groypers that needn't be explicitly stated as such. He didn't just get lost and wander in and somebody shoved him onto the stage. soibangla (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Him making a single speech to a few of their members is completely irrelevant for the lead. He has made numerous speeches in his lifetime and it does not state that he has ties to numerous other groups of people, and once again, the source does not claim that he has ties to them, just that he made one speech one time to them, so please stop making unsourced claims. Bill Williams 23:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * he has repeatedly denied having any ties. Reliable sources vs. WP:MANDY: which wins? soibangla (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "investigation has shown that X publishes white nationalist talking points" vs "Gosar later criticized 'white racism'" don't go too well together. Bill Williams 23:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources allege that he has ties to them, but he denies that he does, and considering their only claim is that he supposedly spoke to them once, that is not enough to remove "alleged ties" and just put "ties." Bill Williams 23:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

meme
'Replace anime "clip" with anime 'meme'. more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Based47 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The majority of sources do not describe it in that way. --Pokelova (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the most accurate description is that it is an "anime clip" because that is what it is. Bill Williams 05:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Far-right" in lead vs. body
"far-right" does not belong in the lead unless that is considered a significant enough insult to shove in there according to BLP, considering any reader who clicks on that will immediately see "Historically used to describe the experiences of fascism and Nazism, today far-right politics include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views" when no reliable source describes him as a single one of those things. The only one even close would be racist, which no reliable source refers to him as, considering when he went to a "white nationalist" conference he then denounced "white racism." There is no genuine reason to put "far-right" a few words into the lead when only a few reliable sources even call him that, especially considering the term does not accurately describe him whatsoever, while his actual positions on issues are already listed in the lead, e.g. abortion, ACA, etc. Bill Williams 19:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do believe it belongs in the body under political positions, which is where I put it before Soibangla reverted me. It was not in the lead until a few months ago, and it should not be there now. Bill Williams 19:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What you just did, after saying days ago "you can keep far right," does not encourage me to AGF. soibangla (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly argued without any justification, and then went "HAHAHA" or "you are wrong" on multiple occasions, so please refrain from accusing me of having bad faith. I want readers to understand what is going on, i.e. I have a good reason to make these edits, because not a single reliable source describes Gosar as hating gay people, black people, Jews etc. which is what "far-right" article says in the lead if someone clicked on it. It is completely misrepresenting of Gosar to compare him to actual far-right people such as Hitler by putting that a few words into the article, making it a BLP violating. Bill Williams 20:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly argued without any justification is flatly and patently false, as is multiple occasions. I and others have noted your pronounced and repeated tendency for IDHT, and you said far-right could stay in the lead pending future discussion, yet you came back and removed it without discussion. soibangla (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I discussed it, you never responded after some time, and you never provided a justification as to how it complies with BLP to put a hyperlink to "far-right" a few words into the article that effectively calls Gosar a Nazi when not a single reliable source describes any of his positions as those in the far-right article. Just because a few of them described him that way, that means it can go in the body with appropriate explanation, but putting it a few words into the article when most sources rarely describe him that way is a BLP violation for being undue. Bill Williams 21:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, please point to the "others [who] have noted your pronounced and repeated tendency for IDHT" on this talk page. I know that you just did, and have repeatedly, but if you are referring to what one other editor said to me on that other talk page, he mistakenly took me for someone else and then personally attacked me until he realized he was referring to the wrong editor. Bill Williams 21:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lie. You have been practicing IDHT on that other page for several days. That has not changed just because there is something else you were accused of and did not do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * False, please provide any evidence of that, and please do not join a random discussion that you have no involvement in to personally attack me unless you are going to contribute something. I edited, was partially reverted, and partially restored the edits to the WSJ article in the body, meaning I made a single partial revert, and that does not qualify as disruptive editing but your accusations certainly qualify as personal attacks. Bill Williams 17:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, considering more editors voted for my stated position in the RfC than yours, I fail to see how I am acting alone against the will of numerous editors as you continue to claim. Bill Williams 17:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for that. Just go to Talk:The Wall Street Journal and search for "IDHT". You will find that it repeatedly appears in resposnes to you. If you disagree with that characterization, do it on that page and not on other Talk pages where you hope nobody will catch you, then complain when people do catch you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Far right should not appear in the lead (especially in Wiki voice) unless it is a universally applied subjective descriptor. This sort of topic has been repeatedly discussed at BLPN.  The problem with such a label it's very subjective when something changes from "right" to "far-right".  It's not clear that all sources would agree and it becomes a contentious label.  If an agreement can't be reached here I would suggest bringing this up at BLPN.  Springee (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Censure in lede
It was the first House censure since 2010 and only the 24th in American history.[16]

In my view this sentence belongs not in the lead but in the body. MOS:LEAD tells us that the lead exists to summarize the most important points of the rest of the article; this sentence would not be among the most important points to summarize, even if it appeared later in the article (which it currently doesn't). Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Being the 24th occurrence in a 230 year history makes it exactly a once-per-decade event. That on its own is notable, and it would take a lot of even more notable events in Mr. Gosar's future to demote it from the lede. -- sarysa (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact of the censure can be in the lede. This sentence shouldn't. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the context is necessary as some/many/most readers may not be aware of how uncommon censure is, and thus its significance. It's one step from expulsion. soibangla (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Censure is not at all comparable to expulsion, which only occurs for serious crimes, while Gosar posted an edited video on Twitter, which is not a criminal action. The last expulsion occurred 20 years ago after the representative was "convicted on ten counts including bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion." That said, I can understand leaving the sentence on him being the first since 2010 etc. in the lead, since it is a significant act. Bill Williams 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say or suggest they were comparable. Please note that I have not as yet participated in your pending ANI matter before engaging me again. soibangla (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No clue what that has to do with anything, are you somehow threatening to complain about me in an ANI if I reply to you on a talk page about a matter currently under discussion? And yes, you literally said "it's one step from expulsion" which is comparing censure to expulsion and saying they are close. Bill Williams 23:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, most of our readers don't know most things written in the body of this article. That's presumably why we've written those things in the body. Most of the things in the body are not explicitly restated in the lead. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 09:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022
Paul gossar does not live in Flaggstaff. He Lived in Bullhead and is or has moved to Lake Havasu. I see you locked your propaganda. This is why Wikipedua is not a source. Never gas and never will be. I hate seeing you crap when I try to do actual research. Can’t get a simple thing like a poc of my rep so I know what he looks like without Wikipedia putting in a false narritive. By the way here is a source for you, a reliable source as it were.

Addendum. You ONLY use wikipedia links as sources and not any external link at all? I knew this was a waste of time when I started by fuck! And your captcha phrases are sex terms! I am not typing that!

https://www.12news.com/amp/article/news/local/arizona/arizona-rep-paul-gosar-shifts-residence-to-mohave-county-in-new-district/75-d05967a4-9875-48df-bbc0-ceb074f1ddbf 24.156.61.55 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Currently, the source for his primary residence is . Perhaps it hasn't been updated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)