Talk:George Santos

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024 (sister name)

change younger sister name Tiffany to Tiffany Lee Devolder Santos to include full name 173.72.3.91 (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Not needed. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2024

Requires copy editing and removal of text or make it more condensed. 64.189.18.53 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to tell us what. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on

Please change "filed sued" to "filed suit" under the Activity on the Cameo and OnlyFans platforms section. Danidavis (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done ⸺(Random)staplers 22:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Feds press release for Santos guilty plea

This is the part of Wikipedia that constantly makes me feel the need to have someone slap my face!

This story was obviously reported on numerous media. We have numerous sources we can get this story from, but it should be recognized that citations serve a broader purpose than merely allowing the original editor to swear that the information provided was obtained from a reliable source and allowing persons with the requisite permissions to satisfy themselves that the editor didn't just make this stuff up, but also facilitates allowing the general readership to easily obtain more details.

So what sources do we link to? The New York Times, as well as ABC News. These are commercial organizations trying to manage a revenue stream, and thus they restrict or otherwise tend to get in the way of the content. Numerous other sources will let us access the story with somewhat lesser degrees of annoyance. But what is the source we could and should have? How about the press release issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office?

That's not consistent with the alleged purpose of the citations? This source is objectionable because it's a "primary source"? We should all be wary that the Feds will spin the story to make them look good?

Sure, we should be wary of what the government tells us. We should properly be wary of all sources... I'd like to see us make some efforts to find sources that aren't putting up toll gates, but I'd also like it considered that there's a certain degree of blindness in pretending that citations don't serve the dual purpose of confirming the claims made and offering the reader a quick way to obtain greater depth about the story. If that constitutes a fundamental change to the principles of Wikipedia, then please tell me where we need to go to be having that discussion. Fabrickator (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Press releases aren't primary sources; we cite them all the time and have a special citation template for them. I think that the Times got cited because its coverage tends to come up high in people's news feeds, much higher than press releases from U.S. attorney's offices, and probably also because, after all, more than a year and a half ago it was the outlet that started this whole sordid story off with its exposé on Santos.

There's no prejudice against primary sources or distrust of the government involved. Settle down, Captain Happy. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Although your response may explain why editors often provide citations for the New York Times, I am suggesting that editors ought to give consideration to whether free access is available to a source. Being an editor can be time-consuming, but over the lifetime of the Wikipedia article, it's likely that the source will be accessed (or attempt to be accessed) numerous times. How much better if those attempts are not restricted to those readers who are signed up to view the NY Times! Fabrickator (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly add the press release ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"Activity on the Cameo and OnlyFans platforms"

What's everyone's thoughts on changing the "Cameo and OnlyFans" section heading to something more general, like "Post-congressional ventures"? Carguychris (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Has he done anything else? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure he might go to prison, at least for a while. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I have some WP:PROMO concerns with inclusion of mentioning these activities, but WP:NOTCENSORED. I would not be opposed to renaming the section to simply Post-congressional. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc, ditto WP:PROMO, also WP:UNDUE. How about "Post congressional activities" instead of "ventures"? This could encompass his sentencing. Since his criminal activities were nonviolent, there's a chance he won't go to prison, or at least not for very long; however, it's likely that he will be on probation for years, and will face some sort of ban on political or so-called "charitable" activities. Carguychris (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Another point, has he actually done anything on Onlyfans, and has this received any coverage. As right now this seems to be a bit undue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, agreed that it's WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWS may also apply. Carguychris (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

NOTNEWS seems to say we cover it, what are you seeing thats different? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The piece in the hill currently in the article is significant coverage from a high quality source[1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That is only a "Santos has said this", and is (what?) 3 months old. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be more than that and its age counts against it how? Its also far from the only one, here is some international coverage [2]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, but making a section header out of it is WP:UNDUE. If nothing else happens on the OnlyFans front for a few more months, I could see an argument being made to remove it under WP:LASTING, but I think it should stand for the time being (and I didn't intend to go down that rabbit hole). @Horse Eye's Back, NOTNEWS was a sidetrack on my part. After thinking it over some more, I no longer think it applies. Carguychris (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:LASTING may also be a sidetrack, I don't see how a notability guideline would apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to go down that rabbit hole either. Carguychris (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Its not a rabbit hole, it doesn't exist. You can't go down an argument that can't be made competently in good faith. Its as irrelevent as the moon. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The section is due, but I would agree that it should probably be called something like "Post-congressional ventures" or "Post-congressional career" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I like "career", potentially a better fit if he winds up taking a normal job or is placed in some sort of program as part of his probation. Carguychris (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Fatima Alzira Caruso Horta Devolder

His mother’s name is incorrectly stated to be Fatima Aziza, due to a misspelling in the source article that has since been corrected. Change Aziza to Alzira. ViolentToddler (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)