Talk:George Santos/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Where was he born?

The article states his date of birth, but not his place of birth. Where was he born? 15:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Mksword (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

He has claimed the Queens neighborhood of Jackson Heights in the past, but as with his date of birth we will not include any place of birth unless it comes from a reliable source independent of him as he can no longer be trusted for even personal information given his claims about his ancestry. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Good policy. This is going to be a very difficult article to create, mainly because Santos lies about pretty much everything in his background. We will have to wait for the NY Times and other reputable sources to check this out. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

His house.gov website indicates he was born and raised in Jackson Heights, Queens. Do we consider that a RS? Potentially not due to artistic license on the same page ("George perused a long path to success, starting in import & export sales, customer service, corporate Hospitality to building an extensive capital markets career covering real estate, bio-tech, M&A, capital introduction for Private Equity firms and managing General Partner and Limited Partner relations"), but it's important to flesh this point out with respect to WP:ABOUTSELF. Samp4ngeles (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think for WP:ABOUTSELF we can say using his house.gov website might violate 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim (born and raised in NY helps him run for office in NY). While normally this sourcing would be okay, we have specific reasons here to be skeptical of a biography his office might write since he's told self serving biographical lies in the past. Additionally, 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity also probably applies since his office might write his house.gov biography and there is reasonable doubt in the authenticity of information Santos's office writes about his biography. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Notable absence of this sort of information on his official bio. Might be something to watch, though. Samp4ngeles (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible ties to Russia

Hmm, interesting. [1] [2] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those are considered reliable sources. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"The Daily Beast" is not a reliable source? TheScotch (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, in the DB's case, there has not been any consensus yet on whether it can be considered reliable or unreliable. As a result we are advised not to use it for contentious statements about living people, which this article is chock full of. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In Santos's own words, he has traveled to Russia (and stayed in luxury hotels in Moscow) "many times." Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z515nwATf88 76.190.213.189 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Other sources have recently begun reporting on the Intrater connection, and Vekselberg's name is now in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we have a quick consensus for inclusion of Santos's COVID claims?

Per a request that we do so. It's reliably sourced now and hardly trivia ... if it goes, then so should every other health claim he's made. Nor are the sources given—New York and the Semafor website—the "B-team". Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Covid is quite significant, a lot more than say a cold. Also it gives an indication that not everything he says maybe a lie. 08:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It goes without saying that not everything he says is untrue, as that would be impossible. If he said it, and it's corroborated, we should simply state it as a confirmed fact, like we do for anyone else whose claims check out. Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• This should be excluded. It's clearly trivia. If he says the sky is blue, we don't need to recount that he told the truth on that one occasion. Getting COVID-19 is not notable. Falsely claiming to have a brain tumor might be. And the COVID thing has not gotten much airtime in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 19:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's about more than him having it ... you are correct that by itself that would not be notable; a lot of people have had it. But Santos is claiming (now) that he was one of the earliest COVID cases in New York City ... after having previously put it at slightly later times, he now says his positive test was March 11, 2020, 10 days after the first case was reported in the city, when there were only 16 cases citywide. Somehow I think he'd have mentioned it earlier than he has. Somehow I think it might have been reported at that time, or he would have made a big deal of it in his congressional campaign (such as it was) later that year. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing the relevance of this. Perhaps he was untruthful, or perhaps not. We don't need to recount every lie or truth. Otherwise, we'd be here all day. Neutrality^talk 23:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't really matter. It looks like there's a consensus in favor of having it in the article in some way. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Of course there isn't. Neutrality^talk 05:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Three editors for, one against. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  (1) We don't count heads. (2) Reasoned arguments are needed to achieve consensus for inclusions. "It was reported on" is not a reasoned argument for inclusion. Nothing shows biographical significance as to this particular claim. (3) That goes double for BLPs. (4) Other editors, both above and below this section, have expressed concerns about article length. Neutrality^talk 22:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  If Santos was one of the first hundred or so people to get covid in NYC, that's pretty notable, right? Especially since he has talked about it. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  (1) If three-quarters of the editors in a discussion support something, that is usually considered as having reached consensus. (2) See below; it's more than just "it was reported on". We have left out plenty from this article on that basis without anyone raising discussion here. (3) Sort of redundant if you've already said "nothing shows biographical significance" ... where else would one find such material other than in a BLP? (4) I cannot find the section of BLP that says the length of the article is a criterion for inclusion, and in any event I don't see this being more than a paragraph. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Horace Mann claim

Daniel Case, I'm aware that it's a false claim. The sentence says that he "claimed" in 2019 to have attended PS 122 and IS 125 per the source. The source also says that he said that he attended Horace Mann School. I've replaced "claimed" with the neutral "said" and re-added Horace Mann. There's no RS for PS 122 and IS 125, either, so we should list all three or move the sentence to the Educational claims section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that the elementary and middle school claims have been neither proven nor disproven, so we can't yet say they're false. Horace Mann has been conclusively disproven, so we can confidently describe it as false. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Another editor agrees. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Time at MetGlobal/HotelsPro

The information about his time working from MetGlobal did not match the information in the sources, so I modified it to this:

The New York Times verified that, sometime after 2013, Santos worked for HotelsPro, a subsidiary of a company called MetGlobal. In early 2016, Santos moved to Orlando, Florida, where HotelsPro was opening an office. He registered to vote and changed his driver's license to his Florida residence.

The New York Times sources themselves have slightly conflicting information, so this part of his career could use additional or better sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Donations from FTX execs

Is this worth including in the article somewhere? It’s rather interesting, considering that two of the biggest unanswered questions of late have been “where did Sam’s money go?” and “where did George get his money?” How serendipitous it would be if the answers to these questions turned out to be connected. 2600:1014:B073:74B0:F8C5:A9CD:DB3B:AF66 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw that, too, and I agree it's a raised eyebrow (since as the article also notes, there is nothing that Santos has ever said that makes him out to be particularly interested in crypto) but as the article is not alleging any of the FTX execs' donations were illegal (and given that there's plenty of contributions to Santos that presumptively meet that standard, that's saying something), for now I don't think we need to include this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Half agree, it may say something, but until RS do its a bit trivial. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

We may now have an angle that gets this into the article. This Newsday article today shows that they may be connected to Santos's discreet support for Michelle Bond, a crypto industry lobbyist and girlfriend of FTX exec Ryan Salame (who naturally gave her a lot of money). Bond made it into the article yesterday when I added a mention from that Times article about the $365,000 in unitemized expenditures about the $800 discrepancy between what she said she got from Santos and what he says he gave.

Apparently Santos took the money to support Bond, who entered the 1st district Republican primary race at the very last minute and raised eyebrows with the similarly large amount of money ($3 million) she raised, loaned herself and was willing to spend in a race she ultimately lost to Nick LaLota (who said he was more annoyed than he let on that Santos, the establishment candidate in his race, was supporting an insurgent candidate against him, a serious breach of political etiquette). Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Uadla Vieira

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Santos's former wife, Uadla Vieira, should be included at least in the infobox. She is cited in multiple sources, including:

• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/01/george-santos-planned-an-engagement-dinner-to-a-man-while-married-to-a-woman-report
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/does-he-even-really-need-glasses-lying-george-santos-clings-on-6sx6xqgrc
• https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-george-santos-time-in-orlando-20230209-rrzt7wawrbfpdhr6547shtswem-story.html
• https://abcnews.go.com/US/promised-green-cards-catfishing-threats-santos-boyfriends-left/story

All other members of congress have their spouses' names in their infoboxes. Attempts to cleanse this article of this information based on WP:BLPNAME are tenuous, as the marriage was not a "single event", and there is already a lot in the article relevant to this marriage:

He did not publicly acknowledge his marriage to a woman, a Brazilian national, until it was reported in December 2022; that month he told the New York Post, "I dated women in the past. I married a woman", adding that he was "OK with my sexuality. People change."

Records show that a filing to dissolve the marriage in May 2013 was withdrawn in December. Four months later, Santos filed a family-based immigration petition on his wife's behalf; it was approved in July, typically seen as a sign that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services believes the marriage is valid. His wife filed for the removal of conditions in July 2016 and was granted her green card in October 2017. Five years later, she became a U.S. citizen.

Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there any other members of Congress where the name of a former spouse is kept secret? Ann Teak (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Consider WP:BLPNAME. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME supports the inclusion of this information because reliable sources reference Uadla Vieira by name. According to WP:BLPNAME:

The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

First, BLPNAME is not the only policy in play here. We start with BLPPRIVACY, which is primarily worded with birth dates as a concern, but clearly is not meant to be confined to just that information—in fact, it specifically mentions "full names", such as that of Santos's ex-wife (who should not have been named in this section hed, either).

It suggests that we publish full names when "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public."

Neither condition can be reasonably said to have been met here. A few of the many sources that have in some way discussed Santos's marriage have mentioned her name. A few.

Nor can any of those sources which have published her name be in any way described as "linked to the subject", mooting the "can be reasonably inferred" part of the inquiry.

Also note, at BLPPRIVACY, the next graf:"Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified"

Now, to BLPNAME ... it is being highly selectively quoted here. I find the omitted portions not only constituting more of the policy but also more directly relevant:

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated ... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

A couple of weeks ago, The New York Times wrote, for the first time in the blizzard of Santos coverage they unleashed two months ago, an article about his marriage, which finally became notable in depth for the purposes of this article because a complaint had been filed about Santos's marriage with Congress, suggesting what many of us had said about it from day one: that it seemed to have been a Green Card marriage. I was able to write a whole subsection for the article that I'd been waiting for, at long last.

And you know what? It doesn't mention her name. Because you can discuss the aspects of the marriage that the complaint-maker found significant without it. It's not essential to that discussion, it isn't necessary for the reader to understand the relevance of the marriage to the allegations about Santos, and thus her name is not relevant.

And guess what else? The Times gets through its entire article without naming her once! I have this weird idea that they had the same discussions, the same concerns we are expressing here ... and came to exactly the same conclusion. (And as far as I can tell, none of the paper's earlier coverage, linked above in apparent support of using her name, has mentioned her name either).

By contrast, there are plenty of other people associated with Santos who do not perhaps meet our notability standards but whose names I have seen fit to mention in the article ... Pedro Vilarva, Tiffany Santos, Tiffany Bogosian, Nancy Marks, among others, all because they've either been mentioned in more than one aspect and/or have spoken on the record to the media about Santos and his life.

As for the argument that we should mention her name because every other article about a member of the U.S. Congress lists their past and current spouses, well, that's OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, basically, which doesn't carry anywhere near enough water to override BLP on this issue. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case That's WP:MISUSE of WP:BLPPRIVACY. It says, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" -- not "Wikipedia includes full names or dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". A full name alone is not private information. In any case, Uadla Vieira's information has been widely published by multiple WP:RS, including in Europe and South America. It is more widely published than many spouses or former spouses of members of Congress listed on their Wikipedia pages. See additionally:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20230125065335/https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/lucia-guimaraes/2022/12/filho-de-brasileiros-eleito-para-a-camara-dos-eua-e-um-personagem-de-ficcao.shtml

Your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't relevant. It's just a Wikipedia essays and is therefore not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. It also refers to creation/retention/deletion of articles -- not sourced material within articles. So, this is also [[WP:MISUSE].

Your speculation about the intent behind the New York Times leaving Uadla Vieira's name out of an article also isn't relevant to Wikipedia policy or guidelines. What is most relevant is that multiple RS cite her name -- and it adds value. That value is the reason that every other member of Congress has names of spouses and former spouses listed. Uadla Vieira is also hardly "loosely involved" and not particularly "low-profile", as you yourself have written a lot about the marriage:

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

Samp4ngeles (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to play the "policy page doesn't specifically mention it, so it's not relevant" game, I would direct you to pay renewed attention to WP:MISUSE, which says nothing about BLP. I would argue, in fact, that to apply to BLP (which does have subsections on limitations on its application) is itself a misuse (METAMISUSE?)

I am pleased, however, that you have said nothing attempting to refute or rebut my point that her name has not been widely published (and "multiple" does not mean "widely", given the many sources that have written about Santos, even when narrowed down to just those that have mentioned his marriage). So I shall take that as acceptance of that argument and consider any attempts to respond to what I have said to be frivolous.

Nonethless, this argument

What is most relevant is that multiple RS cite her name -- and it adds value. That value is the reason that every other member of Congress has names of spouses and former spouses listed.

is particularly insipid. It conflates—or rather attempts to conflate—consistency and conformity with other Wikipedia articles with informative value to the reader. We don't, especially if there is a significant BLP issue involved, include information just because it's included in every other article about something similar. (And, Emerson's remark, clichéd and overused though it may be, comes to mind ...)

You continue to fail to distinguish between Santos's marriage (undeniably relevant, as you note, or I wouldn't have written that subsection) and the name of his ex-wife (which isn't relevant at this point no matter how much time and energy you put into trying to make it so). I would further add that she is not a spouse but an ex-spouse, which to me requires giving her privacy interests here even greater weight.

Since you seem to feel we have nothing to gain from considering whether ethical principles similar to ours in the gathering and dissemination of information, as practiced by one of the world's most respected newspapers, I will call your attention to what I also said above that addresses your argument: that if the Times was able to write an entire article, longer than the corresponding section we have in the article, about Santos's marriage without mentioning his ex-wife's name, then the judgement that that information is not relevant is a sound, valid and logical one. Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

So, that's nonsense that WP:MISUSE has to explicitly mention BLP, particularly because WP:MISUSE is an essay, but in any case your citing of these policies is WP:MISUSE.

You are also applying a very narrow yet undefined definition "widely". You seem to imply that "widely" is defined as "numerous", but there is of course no such definition or requirement. Uadla Vieira's marriage to George Santos has been covered widely, on the basis of extensiveness, geographic coverage including, in terms of aspects of the marriage, and indeed in terms of numerosity. The coverage is far wider than that of former spouses of many other politicians. Take, for example, Darrell Issa's ex wife, Marcia Enyart. Even if evaluated solely in terms of numerosity, there has been enough coverage to justify wide coverage. Here are just 10 examples:

• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/01/george-santos-planned-an-engagement-dinner-to-a-man-while-married-to-a-woman-report
• https://web.archive.org/web/20230222193847/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/does-he-even-really-need-glasses-lying-george-santos-clings-on-6sx6xqgrc
• https://web.archive.org/web/20230228235334/https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-george-santos-time-in-orlando-20230209-rrzt7wawrbfpdhr6547shtswem-story.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20230301223010/https://abcnews.go.com/US/promised-green-cards-catfishing-threats-santos-boyfriends-left/story?id=96797395
• https://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/george-santos-lud-zu-verlobung-mit-seinem-freund--waehrend-seiner-ehe-mit-einer-frau-33124568.html
• https://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/us-abgeordneter-und-hochstapler-mit-frau-verheirateter-george-santos-lud-zu-verlobungsfeier-mit-mann-ohne-dessen-ja_id_183752263.html
• https://veja.abril.com.br/mundo/o-que-ele-sempre-buscou-foi-fama-e-poder-diz-ex-namorado-de-george-santos/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20230125065335/https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/lucia-guimaraes/2022/12/filho-de-brasileiros-eleito-para-a-camara-dos-eua-e-um-personagem-de-ficcao.shtml
• https://piaui.folha.uol.com.br/an-avalanche-of-fibs/
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-santos-hid-marriage-woman-230930789.html

Your claim that privacy interests of ex spouses carry additional weight compared to current spouses is incorrect, as that is nowhere in WP:BLPPRIVACY. WP:BLPPRIVACY also applies to the subject of the article (i.e., George Santos), rather than relatives.

And again, your assumptions about the New York Times article and supposed "ethical principles similar to ours" aren't relevant to whether inclusion of Uadla Vieira by name meets Wikipedia's standards.

I would ask you to be less dogmatic, particularly in a case like this when coverage of Uadla Vieira has been sufficiently wide -- and wider than that of many other articles for other members of Congress -- to meet Wikipedia’s requirements for inclusion of a spouse/ex-spouse. While it's noble to try to apply some sort of ethical standard used by the New York Times, it's not helpful to use uncodified policies or guidelines to achieve consensus. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Your claim that privacy interests of ex spouses carry additional weight compared to current spouses is incorrect, as that is nowhere in WP:BLPPRIVACY. WP:BLPPRIVACY also applies to the subject of the article (i.e., George Santos), rather than relatives."

You are, again, incorrect. The intro to BLP states, quite clearly:

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article

You could have done other things, more productive to Wikipedia as a whole, besides cataloging these links to other sources mentioning her name. Especially since the list you put together works against the point you're trying to make.

• Two of those sources (The Times and the Orlando Sentinel) are paywalled, so I can't verify the use of her name.
• Two are in German. Three are in Portuguese. Those might be relevant in the equivalent discussion for the Wikipedias in those languages, not here (And I would note that while there are articles on Santos in those Wikipedias, neither of them mention her name).
• One, the ABC News article, 404s.

So, out of all those sources, you're left with Vanity Fair and Yahoo!Finance, really. Hardly "widespread".

And could you point me to where there are explicit "requirements for inclusion of a spouse/ex-spouse"? Because in all the time I've been editing Wikipedia (which is a lot), our policies on content have generally leaned towards outlining or describing what we do not need to include, or should not, not what we must.

If you really want to prioritize what is in articles on other members of Congress, can you find for me an instance where a) a member of Congress was possibly involved in a Green Card marriage, for which both of them could be prosecuted (and the spouse potentially denaturalized and deported) if that was investigated and turned out to be the case or b) the member's ex-spouse was not only not notable but had declined all overtures to speak about the marriage or even at all to the media?

Lastly, sticking just to this article, can you identify any passage in it where you believe not using her name makes the section about the marriage less comprehensible?

If I am being dogmatic here it is because BLP is dogmatic. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Daniel Case, skip including the name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The Times and Orlando Sentinel are also available through wayback, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Same as the ABC link. Anyhow, fixed it above. The point is, Uadla Vieira has been widely covered. The fundamental privacy concern is moot because Vieira's full name is published on many RS, not to mention even more RS, as well as on other continents. With respect to the language of the sources, please familiarize yourself with WP:RS, which says, "These sources can be in any language, not just English or Simple English."

The fact that the name is not in infoboxes in other languages is irrelevant (perhaps even cultural). We would of course expect articles about US members of Congress to be more robust than articles in other languages.

Your points here are fallacious:

If you really want to prioritize what is in articles on other members of Congress, can you find for me an instance where a) a member of Congress was possibly involved in a Green Card marriage, for which both of them could be prosecuted (and the spouse potentially denaturalized and deported) if that was investigated and turned out to be the case or b) the member's ex-spouse was not only not notable but had declined all overtures to speak about the marriage or even at all to the media?

WP:BLP of course mentions nothing about implications of a) using the name of a person involved in a Green Card marriage or any sort of legal issue, for that matter, or b) using the name of an ex-spouse if they had declined all overtures to speak about the marriage. Again, this amounts to WP:MISUSE on your part, or at the very least ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines. WP:BLPPRIVACY does say, "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it," but that is with regard to date of birth. And in any case Uadla Vieira is, by definition, WP:N based on the information above. But of course you know that. So, what matters here, particularly with regard to privacy issues, is whether the subject has been widely covered, which I have spelled out in detail above.

I agree that BLP is dogmatic to a degree, but it's also reasonable and you're trying to apply your own standards that aren't Wikipedia's and which runs counter to WP:COLLAB. Samp4ngeles (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

And you are making mighty convolutions and contortions to try to make the unjustifiable justifiable.

You contradict yourself. You tell me that MISUSE, a 12-year-old essay that is not policy, applies to BLP even though it's not mentioned save in one example statement. But then you insist that BLPPRIVACY only applies to dates of birth. Your choice of a broad or narrow interpretation is apparently dictated by which is better at getting you to your desired outcome.

You misapply policies. Of course RSes can be in any language, I never disputed that and I very much resent your attempt to make it seem like I was making that argument. The point is that coverage that mentions her name, in English, which is a good indicator for what constitutes "widespread" coverage for an article in the English Wikipedia, is skimpy.

You insist she is notable "by definition". Well, then, let's take a good look at WP:NBASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." There is no dispute that passing mentions of someone's name only, with no other information, are trivial.

Further down, there is WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" Now, I know you'll then turn around and say, but that's for whether we have an article on that person, not whether we include her name in an article about another person. To which I would remind you again that it was you who advanced that notability argument, which has no bearing on the applicability of BLP to the latter scenario, once we decided that she is not notable.

Nor does practice elsewhere in articles on the same type of subject hold any weight against a core policy. A lot of our articles about airplane crashes in recent years have included photographs of the planes involved, thanks to the many planespotters around the world who have taken pictures of them at some time before the accidents and uploaded them to Commons under free licenses. But that practice alone would not justify the inclusion of a fully-copyrighted photo of a plane in an article about a crash where no free image of the plane exists on Commons.

I also note (and this is not irrelevant here) that this article comes under not just one but two contentious topic areas: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, as noted in the box at the top of the page, and BLPs in general. It therefore behooves us to be as cautious in our editing as possible, and especially as regards BLP.

GGS understands my point. Based on the standards of every other BLP-related debate I've been involved with, there is absolutely no reason why this would even be up for this kind of protracted discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No one has suggested that Uadla Vieira needs her own article, so let's hope you're not suggesting that WP:NBASIC or WP:INVALIDBIO are standards for inclusion of Uadla Vieira's name in this article. To be clear, the proposal here is simply to put Santos's ex-wife's name in his infobox. Her name has been published widely, and according to WP:BLPPRIVACY there is no privacy issue Uadla Vieira's name because it has been widely disseminated. Contentious topic considerations do not, as you suggest, require some higher standard, but they do require adherence to Wikipedia guidelines/policies as including Uadla Vieira's name in the infobox would.

Your suggestion that English-language coverage carries more weight is chauvinistic and, as explained above, directly counter to WP:RS. Samp4ngeles (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LGBT claims

@Daniel Case:. Several reliable sources have publicly disputed that Santos is LGBT. (Or at least similarly cast significant doubt upon the claim.)

This is an exceptional case - and I think we should operate under the assumption that nothing he claims about his personal life is credible.

I'm fine with it remaining in the body... but not the lead. KlayCax (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

We discussed this above (it may have been archived now; this one was) and the consensus is that Santos is gay, as reading through the article should demonstrate, with commentary from others, including former romantic partners, reliably sourced. Some people in fact thought it was downright insulting to question his sexual identity, as The Daily Beast did, simply over the fact that he didn't disclose his seven-year marriage to a woman until after it was over, on the rather antiquated grounds that "he's married, thus he can't be gay". As a result, we aren't using any of their reporting as a source on this article (at least). Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Scrolling through the archives it seems one of the few points of consensus amongst editors has been most editors tend to agree he is gay and the reliable sources establish that. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

white supremacist "OK" sign

In the subsection "Post-2022 campaign" in the first paragraph it states: "Three weeks later, during the votes for Speaker of the House, Santos was photographed flashing the white supremacist "OK" sign." WP:SNOPES has found that this is un proven. However, the sentence in the article portrays it as a fact. This sentence needs to be corrected and/or removed. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly I think it's better off just being taken out entirely. There was always, if you look up above (or in the archive ... I think it's there now) debate about even including this, and with a few months time it has steadily diminished in relevance. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree to just remove it. Especially given that making it a hate sign was just a way to troll. It’s best to just ignore and not feed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox charges

I am trying to add charges to the infobox, but it's not showing up. Can someone please fix? Thank you! Pennsylvania2 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure we ned them, they are still only charges. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

He's been famous for a while but only just became a representative

Seems dishonest to describe him like he wasn't involved at all before he ran for office, because that's untrue 2001:56A:7D81:BF00:6DB6:61A9:9DD4:E0C8 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Has he? Any news sources form before the election? Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what this comment means, exactly. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, what I meant was that we need RS to establish notability before he won. Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he had run in 2020. But we don't consider opposing candidates who don't win notable simply by virtue of that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake

The word expulsion is misspelled as explusion at the end of the 4th paragraph. Someone should fix that 50.83.141.115 (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Caucus Membership

Has he joined any congressional caucuses? There is a NYT article about ties to the Freedom caucus, but it does not say that he joined. [3] His website has it blank, but then says to email them to know which ones he is on. [4] 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no requirement that members of Congress make public any caucuses they're on, as they're informal groups with no official standing. If Santos isn't making that information public in a way that we and readers can verify, then we shouldn't have it in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I wanted to see if I missed something when looking for that information. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Where is the psychology to better explain this man's motivations?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As someone who has been proved evidentially to be a habitual liar, who has committed crimes, used fraud and deceit, and has shown no lack of remorse or contrition, why has Santos' strong traits of a sociopathic personality disorder not been added to the article. There are quite a number of articles about this man's well documented behaviour

• GEORGE SANTOS IS A SOCIOPATH!
• George Santos is a ‘sociopath’, fellow New York Republican congressman says
• George Santos and the fascinating psychology of compulsive liars
• Inside the mind of a fabulist

All these are reliable secondary sources that state that his behaviour and personality fit well within the defined scope of behaviors of sociopathic or psychopathic disorders. The fact that he can't feel shame or even appear shocked at being unmasked for all the lies he has told is a trait that needs more explanation.146.199.128.212 (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The first one, at least, is not reliable in WP-land (headline sort of hints it). Per WP:BLP, what text do you suggest adding, to what section? Rule of thumb is that any speculation on his mental state should probably come from medical professionals. Otherwise it's just gossip. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the above, we do not use pop psycolalys in BLPs. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

+1 to both of the above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I knew that would be the standard answer because that's how Wikipedia works. Quickly it pounced on that it can't be said he's "is" a "sociopath". Yeah I know that only a formal psychometric assessment can put that to bed. But what is important to report is that he has been called a "sociopath", see what I did there? That's what WP:VERIFY means, it doesn't have to be true only that "reliable" secondary sources have reported it. OK the National Enquirer is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination but the Guardian are Independent. Besides nationally broadcast talkshow hosts are now saying it openly eg At 4:01, Jimmy Kimmel calls Santos a "serial liar, sociopath" on YouTube. Is the The Atlantic also now no longer a reliable source? What Psychology Can Teach Us About George Santos? It's clear he has been called a sociopath based on his behaviour and evidence.146.199.128.196 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, we can say "he has been called a sociopath", not that he is one (which seemed to be what the OP suggested). We can only deal with the question as asked, not second guess what it really was. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I read the Atlantic piece when it came out and decided it was too generally about the mentality of fabulists in general, with a couple of specific examples from Santos's many statements, to offer anything that would add to this article. Upon rereading, that opinion is unchanged.

I am also not impressed that he's being called a "sociopath". That epithet is thrown around far too casually today for it to be meaningful in any way, unless it comes from a medical professional qualified and experienced to render such a diagnosis who has personally examined Santos at length (Jimmy Kimmel? Where'd he get his medical degree?).

Also, really, since it refers to an actual mental condition described in the DSM, using it this casually is ableist, and we really shouldn't encourage that level of abusive language if we can help not doing it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This page already smacks heavily of campaign oppositional research given the distribution of content. Dumber things have gotten through the editing process here, but suggesting he's a sociopath would absolutely shatter suspension of disbelief even if it were true. 69.74.248.66 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

please remove "alledged fraudster" this is a biased addition and unecessary. 2601:188:CF80:5C50:A9C7:F865:F1B3:7341 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Please place edit requests in "Please change X to Y" format. In any case, alleged fraudster is appropriate language as the subject of the article has faced allegations of fraud but has not been convicted of them, hence "alleged". Estar8806 (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Time to spin off the section on the 2022 election?

I had been thinking of posting this after Easter in any event, but after Iamreallygoodatcheckers tagged the article over its length this morning, I feel my hand necessarily forced, so I will do it.

I think (and have been thinking for a while) that with the amount of material on last year's election in NY-3 we have in the article, we could address its length by starting a separate article on that election itself, i.e. 2022 New York's 3rd district congressional election. According to the section lengths in the banner above, that section as is amounts to a respectable 22.5K, more than enough for a credible article, and of course a standalone article on that election could include more material about things not directly relevant to Santos but very relevant to that election such as the lengthy and hotly contested Democratic primary for the nomination and New York's wild redistricting ride last year that led to that primary and, arguably, Santos's election (If nothing else, I have decided, this year later I will be starting Harkenrider v. Hochul).

Doing this and leaving a rump behind here would help shorten the article. I have also thought that maybe in time an article about the 2020 NY-3 election could and should be created, but I don't think now is the best time to discuss it ... perhaps more will emerge about that race that will bolster the case.

I will be tagging that section for a proposed split. If there is no serious opposition, I will start the article in draftspace by the end of the week. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There having been no objection, I will be doing this soon. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Late to the party, but this seems fair to me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this should be done. I've just removed much material about the 2022 election that is trivial for this biographical page, but would belong on a dedicated article, that can be retrieved from the page history. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case: 69.118.237.29 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  OK, and ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship

Is there any evidence that Santos has been an American citizen for at least seven years (as required by the Constitution to hold a seat in the House)? Do we know for sure where he was born? TheScotch (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

As noted in the article, he has reportedly claimed dual citizenship to a friend in the past. This page for him on the National Republican Congressional Committee's website now says he was raised in Jackson Heights, Queens; it previously said he had been born there as well.

Even if he had been born in Brazil, being taken to the US as a child below a certain age would have allowed him to claim citizenship at 18(?), and that would have been more than enough time. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

He would only become a citizen automatically by operation of law if he was living in the United States as a permanent resident in the permanent legal custody of at least one parent when that parent naturalized. Details here: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/i-am-the-child-of-a-us-citizen 2600:1700:3041:9290:4951:C120:E29F:56E1 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I do think increasingly it looks as though, however, that his U.S. citizenship is not in doubt ... two states at least have let him vote, and the Brazilian court documents give "American" as his nationality. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, anything Santos or the Republican Party merely claims hardly constitutes evidence. I don't think your response addresses the question. TheScotch (talk)

I merely said the article reports that he has claimed this; it might well be true given that no one seems to doubt his parents are Brazilian-born and thus natural citizens. Per our article, someone born outside Brazil to a Brazilian citizen is automatically a citizen themselves if one of three conditions apply. Two are plausible for Santos: his parents being on file with the local Brazilian consulate, or him having gone back to Brazil (as we know he did) and confirming their nationality before a federal judge.

As for his U.S. citizenship, I think the balance of probability is in favor of it since he was able to register to vote in two states, and usually citizenship is verified for new registrants. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Proof of registration is not proof of citizenship. Anti-immigrant, etc., activist, Kris Kobach found applicants registering to vote in Kansas who lacked, i.e., only having taken the oath swearing them in, before they became eligible to vote. Local registrars may not know that documents presented to confirm citizenship could be false. Activist (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Local registrars can verify citizenship documents with the State Department. New York's online version of the form (the same as the paper version given out by county BOEs save for print identifying specifically the county in question and giving its address) requires submitting the last four SSN digits or your DL number (and if you check the third box saying that you don't have either, but say you are a citizen, expect a phone call and a discussion to find out what alternatives you have (and if you do this at the registration deadline you will probably wind up having to vote an affidavit ballot)). Both of those can easily be verified in data bases that clearly state whether the person thus identified is a citizen or not. What Kobach found IIRC was the result of a mistake made when those people got driver's licenses (and does not show that those people presented false documents to register, only that a bureaucratic mistake was made).

Also, as I noted above, the 2013 Brazilian summons gives "American" as Santos's nationality. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• For God's sake, you two, this is all WP:OR. And for your information, there are jurisdictions in which non-citizens can vote on certain issues. So just cool it and wait for sources directly on point. EEng 11:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's why we're discussing it here; I don't think the article can say one thing or another about his citizenship unless the usual RSes discuss it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

After reading the page, nothing shows that he or even his parents have any legit claims on US citizenship. Some clear facts are needed. There's also a problem with grammar in punctuation throughout the page. PB1967 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Grammar in punctuation"? Surely you meant "grammar and punctuation" ? (I hate to do that, but if you're going to make that kind of mistake that's absolutely the last context you want to do it in). At any rate, that's the result of a heavily edited page on a breaking, developing story where things are changing rapidly and a lot of editors are getting involved. At some point, when things have somewhat settled down (whenever that happens), the article would benefit from being printed out and subjected to a hard-copy edit with a red pen.

As for the citizenship question, the key phrase you used is "clear facts are needed". We know too little to state things definitively one way or the other. His birthplace has never been independently established ... if as Santos has said he was born in Queens then the question is settled. If not ... well, the media have so far shown little interest in looking into this, and until they do we can't say anything.

I feel the fact that he was allowed to register to vote in two different states supports an inference that he is a citizen, for reasons I've gone into elsewhere on this page ... but that's OR and we can't use that inference in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I keep saying it: there are jurisdictions in which noncitizens can vote on some issues. As for "grammar in punctuation", see WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. EEng 21:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

New York City did pass a law last year allowing non-citizens to vote but only in local elections (i.e. for City Council, say, not Congress), but it was struck down and in any event it would not have taken effect until this year. I don't know about Nassau County or Florida; frankly I rather doubt they've even seriously considered the idea. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, in the name of God, why are you still going on about this when it has no prospect of contributing anything to the article? EEng 05:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, first, because what you had previously added to this discussion was not entirely correct; second, because I think having had this discussion here might be productive if and when the issue is discussed by reliable sources and we can include something more about it than we already have. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What was not entirely correct? EEng 19:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the implication that Santos might have been able to vote despite not being a citizen. As his registered address last fall was in New York City, and the law that would have allowed non-citizens to vote was struck down before taking effect (and it only applied to local elections, and in any case wouldn't have gone into effect until this year), the mere existence of those laws elsewhere in the US does not suffice to explain why Santos might have been able to vote while not being a citizen. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't explaining why anything. I simply said (a) that there are jurisdictions in which noncitizens can vote on certain issues (which is true) and (b) that this entire thread is a colossal waste of time because it's all OR (which is also true). EEng 19:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You are, on the face of it, right that without a reliable source there's no way any of this gets in the article. But ... I see this thread as serving the secondary function of deterring responsible editors (which there are likely to be more of since I've had to keep the page on semi-protection) from innocently adding something about it to the article, as this way they'll look at the talk page before editing, see this thread and say "OK, thanks". Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That assumes they can get through it and stay awake. EEng 07:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, won't argue with you there ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of blogs speculate about his citizenship, but I haven't seen it in what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. Ann Teak (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• This whole discussion about him possibly not being an American citizen is extremely far fetched. Not being a citizen is one of the extremely few things that would actually invalidate his election to Congress. After all of his other extensive lies have been made public, it is extremely unlikely that a reporter or political opponent hasn't already done research into the question of citizenship, and if there was any smoke there, it would be public knowledge by now. Whether or not he's a dual citizen is a different matter though. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Jesus Christ, more OR and speculation on speculation. I'm in an ornery mood so I really have a mind to archive this whole mess. EEng 19:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  • @User:EEng Not sure why you're attacking me when I agreed with you that the discussion was pointless. However, it doesn't matter, it is against policy to archive any active discussion, so I have no idea why you're threatening to do so. While you haven't made any personal attacks yet, you are getting close to it throughout this talk page. Maybe you should just avoid editing when you're in an "ornery mood". JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

    I'm always in an ornery mood. And please learn proper use of indentation markup (not that you're the worst offender on that score, but since you pissed me off with the RfC I'm just itching to give you a hard time about something). EEng 20:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

    • I know exactly how to use an indentation mark. I want the bullet point to appear at the start of my comment so that it is clear where my comment starts. I don't want an unnecessary amount of empty space between the bullet and my comment. Lots of people edit talk pages like that. I stand by my statement that you shouldn't edit when you're in ornery mood. I will also never understand why people get upset about getting more community input on a debate when Wikipedia is supposed to be a community and collaborative effort. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

      No, actually, you manifestly do not understand proper use of indentation markup, as explained in this diff [5]. And as for getting more community input on a debate, the RfC you recently and so inadvisedly opened stands at Strong oppose; Strong oppose; Oppose; Strong oppose; Strong oppose; Oppose. So have you had enough community input yet? EEng 06:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

      • Is indentation really that important? Seems off-topic here. Ann Teak (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

After the above ocean of blather, the answer remains, "No." As far as any Wikipedia contributor blathering here knows, there is no public evidence that "Santos" has been an American citizen for the past seven years. TheScotch (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, by a preponderence of the evidence, unless either 1) the location of his birth is established or 2) the naturalization of one his parents is, the clear presumption is that he is not in fact a U.S. citizen, no condition obtaining that would establish that. Staying here for decades as a non-citizen doesn't age you into citizenship, not any more at least. Current text is completely silent on this issue and I should think it is at least possible to clearly state the birth location. Lycurgus (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Except for the fact that, as noted, no independent reliable source has given one. In one of his campaign pages, it says he was born in Jackson Heights. But, that probably came from him, and for obvious reasons, we do not consider George Santos to be a reliable source even for this sort of information which is ordinarily noncontroversial.

No other source has given a birthplace. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

So checking, the Naturalization Law of 1795 is apparently still in effect and that implicitly makes anyone with 5 years residence a citizen. I suppose the only thing that can vacate that is if the border is crossed illegally which didn happen if his parents got residency. Still the article ought to say clearly whether or not he was born here. Lycurgus (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it's not enough just to live in the US for that time; you have to formally apply and prove that you lived in the U.S. for those five years. Daniel Case (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/the-everything-guide-to-george-santoss-lies.html says he was born in Queens, implicitly in '88/'89. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

But that hasn't been independently confirmed or documented. No one's seen his birth certificate; no one's seen any Certificate of Citizenship. The only source for that is his campaign page, and since he made many other claims on it that turned out to be untrue, we have no reason to believe any word on it, including "and", "of", "for", "but" and "the". Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That's why I reported it as hearsay although the rag in question puts it in a section which is supposed to be the only known to be true facts about him. The reason this individual is a phenomena is because he's not the only fabulist. Not sure there's a difference between shoddy thinking of the mag, industry, and the perp, other than degree. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That page has been around since the first week of the story, when a lot of the media hadn't fully understood the contours of the story and that the only source for his birthplace might be suspect since it arguably came from Santos himself. (And maybe it's just someone thinking like, well, should we be surprised that some grand poseur like this came from Queens?) Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well ... it seems that Vice has finally addressed this at some length, although without resolution, due to a slipup by Santos's campaign staff on the question. I have added a paragraph on it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The mentioned sources seem to all be gossip or pure speculation, not reliable evidence about his citizenship; you haven't seen most people's birth certificates, that's not a good reason to assume it's true. It seems to me that what you're looking for is to make him look bad, which is what he already has done himself with his lying and ethics violations, substantial parts of this article. But besides that, this focus on citizenship to me reeks of the birther movement conspiracy theories. If there is good evidence of lies about his citizenship (which would surprise me since elections authorities let him in office), non-gossip sources will highlight it, and only then does it make sense to include text about it. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Candidates for office in New York, as far as I know (and I have done my share of collecting petition signatures in this state) do not have to provide proof of citizenship when they file for office ... the Board of Elections is more concerned with whether you got enough valid signatures by the deadline. It has always been assumed that you wouldn't be doing this if you weren't a citizen (There's only one case, IIRC, where someone got elected to Congress as a naturalized citizen not having met the seven-year requirement, and he was open about it so they delayed his swearing-in a few months).

Now he also did seem to get two states to let him register to vote, so then he might have been verified. And if that marriage was allowed to go through, that might also be proof since ICS would have verified his citizenship.

But that requires speculation and original research we can't put in articles. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I think it's safe to say he's a U.S. citizen. The New York Times and The Hill both seem to think so. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

But it would still be nice to have proof one way or the other ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but the NYT is right that in order for his former wife to apply for citizenship Santos had to have citizenship. The immigration court would have checked his citizenship. His claim to Brazilian citizenship is still unverified and this does not effect that. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

At the end of November, following hie election victory, hie -> replace with his 198.38.10.216 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks for noticing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is his indictments listed under personal details but Menendez’s are not?

Wiki biased? No… 2600:8805:A985:4300:4D5A:69A1:74E5:6B38 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Huh? There are no indictments mentioned in George Santos#Personal life. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Santos name

How many different ways are there to pronounce his last name, and do we need to include them all? 142.163.195.205 (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is a difference (slight) in Portuguese. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

can't we just pick one? the one he uses? 142.163.195.205 (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

He probably pronounces it differently depending on which language he's speaking. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I lean keeping it. He's bilingual in Portuguese and (I think) still claims Brazilian citizenship, so having the Portuguese pronunciation seems justifiable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's never been clear whether he actually is a Brazilian citizen, though. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat related: why does the article not say where Santos was born. Presumably, in Brazil. So what was his pathway to citizenship? He just up and decides to move to New York after legal troubles in Brazil? What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cubedo (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, that has been a question all year.

We don't say where Santos was born because, as I noted on this page 10 months ago, other than him saying he was born in Queens on one of his campaign pages, there has been no source giving a birthplace, certainly not a reliable one (As the House Ethics Committee diplomatically put it in their report today, Santos's testimony is "of low evidentiary value"). So in the absence of that, we don't know so we won't say.

His citizenship ... ahh, we started discussing that before 2022 was even over. If you read the "early life" part of the article, there seems to be no dispute that he was living in New York and attending local public schools during the late 1990s ... one of his acquaintances from that era, the lawyer who represented him in the Pennsylvania bad-checks case, vouches for that and no one has questioned her credibility on this issue. Whether he was with his mother in Brazil during the fin de siécle period, when he has rather preposterously claimed she was heading a finance firm at the World Trade Center on 9/11 yet seems now to have been in Brazil the whole time, has not been investigated. We do know that he finished up his schooling with his GED (why he had to go that route, again we don't know) in New York around 2005 and then seems to have gone with his mother to Brazil again for the late 2000s (although whether he lived there or just visited for long stretches, people down there are unsure, according to The Washington Post article cited). By 2011 he seems to have returned.

Absent any evidence that he was born in the US, we cannot say for sure that he is a US citizen. I would note that since he has been able to vote in two states, and his still-mysterious first marriage was accepted as legit by ICS, official authorities that do not have to release this information seem to have treated him as a citizen. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)