Talk:George Santos

Article is too long

At the time I'm writing this, the article is 16002 words long. Per WP:SIZERULE, please trim the article, because I highly doubt a split is needed. Some1 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

A while back I had suggested splitting off at least the sections on the criminal allegations against him, maybe some sections of his life. These discussions are in the archives. I had sort of been hoping with the news about him at a lull, it would be easy to do this ... But then ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Without looking at the article again, I bet there's a lot that was added via WP:RECENTISM that can be cut. I'd do that before splitting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is bloated and has WP:PROSELINE issues; it reads more like a diary than it does a biography. Some1 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You should see (and weren't you involved in this at some point?) what it looked like back in summer 2023 or so, before we began cutting back some.

A good chunk, I agree, can be moved to articles about the 2020 and 2022 elections in New York's 4th congressional district, the latter of which I think someone started in draftspace. I had also opposed creating a separate article on all the alleged campaign finance violations at the time since Santos hadn't even been charged, much less convicted at the time, and as I said "Bad stuff about George Santos" was basically a POVFORK that violated BLP. But, since his guilty pleas are all in the past now, that's a different story. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I was involved for some time, but not in adding all of that. At a glance the article looks much better now, but I'll leave it to others (like Macoroni below) to note if too much was cut. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, I took it down to about 7,900 words. I will be removing the tag. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. It reads great now! But now there's this phrase "Marks's guilty plea in October" but the identity of Marks is never introduced. Also, RedStone Strategies is mentioned without introduction too.

Macoroni (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I restored a little bit on Nancy Marks and RedStone Strategies to the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I also suggest that we restore some of the deleted content about FOPU and his evictions, because it helps establish "his criminal history [and] the existence of lawsuits against him" as mentioned in the lead. I've posted a drastically trimmed-down version of each deleted subsection in my sandbox. Haven't decided whether these are a better fit in "Early career" or "Investigations and legal issues". Carguychris (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Nothing's really happened since that initially came up, though ... I don't think it's of continuing relevance. As I indicated in my edit summaries, a lot of those things really aren't anymore. I would support bringing the FOPU stuff back if, say, New York state indicts him on charges related to that, as some people have suggested it should do.

As for Marks, I think we can make a case for her independent notability (there are articles about her exclusively) and create an article about her where we might be able to put some of this stuff, too. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I decided to WP:BEBOLD and post the trimmed-down versions of the Evictions and FOPU sections. I concede that there hasn't been a lot of continuing coverage, but I think these events help make the case that Santos does not have a squeaky-clean history.

Regarding your other point, I completely agree that Marks deserves her own article., and I've believed this for some time. Enough has been written about her independently that WP:JUSTONE should not be an issue. Carguychris (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"Convicted felon" in lead

Seems a bit strange to call him a convicted felon in the lead. A bunch of people are convicted felons without it being a thing to put in the lead. 51.175.135.101 (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

True, but his convictions make up a significant section of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Slatersteven, and I think it's important to describe him this way because Trump only commuted his sentence; he was not pardoned. Thus, he remains a convicted felon. This distinction is often lost on people unfamiliar with presidential pardons. Carguychris (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if pardoned, he would still remain a convicted felon. The conviction remains on record; only the courts can overturn a conviction. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right. I haven't finished my coffee. Carguychris (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Just want to note "convicted felon" is a tautology. To be a felon in the United States, one must be convicted. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but not all users are from the USA, and so may not know felon means convicted criminal. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but "convicted felon" is my grammatical pet peeve. WP:CONVICTEDFELON makes the same tautology argument, and it's not unique to the US. Also MOS:CONVICTEDFELON does apply and strongly discourages the phrase on a BLP and recommends we describe the crime and its relevance to the BLP. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Remove "convicted felon" from the short description and first paragraph, and rewrite the first paragraph as follows:

George Anthony Devolder Santos (born July 22, 1988) is an American former politician. He served as the U.S. representative for New York's 3rd congressional district from January to December 2023, when he was expelled from Congress during investigations into false statements and alleged criminal activity during his 2022 congressional campaign.

This clearly establishes that he was investigated for criminal activity and falsehoods, and that this was crucial to his expulsion from Congress, but without the kludgy and objectionable "felon" language in the initial paragraph. This leads smoothly into subsequent paragraphs that describe the charges, investigations, and guilty plea in detail. Carguychris (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

He was convicted, this does not say what he was convicted of. Also that is an essay, not policy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:CONVICTEDFELON is an essay, MOS:CONVICTEDFELON is a guideline, or a set of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Consensus is generally against "convicted felon" as a label in the first sentence of an article, especially a BLP, unless there is local consensus to make an exception, which has not really been discussed.

To be clear, Santos lies and crimes go in the first paragraph of the lede, but just probably not the exact phrase "convicted felon." It is not a request to remove content, but to improve the encyclopedic tone of the article.

I'd propose changing the current lede:

• George Anthony Devolder Santos (born July 22, 1988) is an American former politician and convicted felon. He served as the U.S. representative for New York's 3rd congressional district from January to December 2023, before he was expelled from Congress.

To something like (Option A):

• George Anthony Devolder Santos (born July 22, 1988) is an American politician who served as the U.S. representative for New York's 3rd congressional district from January to December 2023, when he was expelled from Congress after felony charges were filed in federal court and it was revealed he lied about his biography. After pleading guilty to wire fraud and identity theft, he served four months of an 87-month sentence before receiving a commutation from President Donald Trump.

If we really wanted to be specific and include his crimes in the first sentence, I think fraudster and politician is much better than politician and convicted felon.

Least change (Option B):

• George Anthony Devolder Santos (born July 22, 1988) is an American fraudster and former politician. He served as the U.S. representative for New York's 3rd congressional district from January to December 2023, before he was expelled from Congress.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Then (per MOS) we shoudl say what he was convicted of. "pled guilty to wire fraud and identity theft". Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

How about this (Option C?):

George Anthony Devolder Santos (born July 22, 1988) is an American fraudster and former politician. He served as the U.S. representative for New York's 3rd congressional district from January to December 2023, when he was expelled from Congress amid investigations into false statements and criminal activity during his 2022 congressional campaign.

This is an amalgam of Option B and my initial version. I removed "alleged" because the criminal activity was subsequently proven in court. The specifics about his sentence and commutation seem awkward and redundant in the first paragraph; the information can be found in subsequent paragraphs. Carguychris (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Why not say what he was convinced of, per the examples in MOS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Because I'm trying not to repeat what the 4th paragraph says. How about "convicted fraudster"? Carguychris (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

South Shore Press

This Prison section should be edited. George Santos wrote a weekly column for the South Shore Press https://southshorepress.com/author/george-santos That he was able to continue writing from Prison. His complaints about the conditions were covered in his weekly column. That is materially different than "it was reported that he had written a letter complaining about prison conditions to the south shore press". Why not explain that he complained in his weekly column and use the actual column as the source?

Prison

After Santos had served a month, it was reported that he had written a letter complaining about prison conditions to the South Shore Press, a Long Island news outlet. He specifically cited mold and an air conditioning problem that took a long time to repair, and said prison officials had not taken those complaints seriously. He later complained after prison authorities put him in special housing, which he characterized as solitary confinement, due to what they told him was a threat to his life. Lomac92 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I have amended the text to reflect that he said this in a column rather than a letter—the sources are both now paywalled, although you can still see that information.

However, we should not link to Santos's column. It may well be published in a reliable source, but it's still a first-person account, which under WP:PSTS makes it a primary source. That alone, regardless of what some editors may have been allowed to let themselves think, does not preclude its use, but ... this is a first-person account from a person whom a range of reliable sources, as indeed extensively documented in this article, have demonstrated beyond any doubt cannot be trusted for any claims about himself that are not otherwise corroborated by a reliable source. Early on after all this broke, for instance, we took out his birthdate because it only appeared in campaign materials produced under Santos's direction and we therefore considered it unreliable. We still do not list a place of birth because the only source for it being Elmhurst was Santos's own campaign literature in 2022 (and, conveniently for Santos, the hospital he claimed to have born at closed down in the mid-1990s).

If George Santos stood in front of me and swore on a stack of Bibles that two and two made four, I'd take a pair of those Bibles in each hand and count them all several times before I'd believe him on that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2026

~2026-15594-40 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
I need to add some Promotional Content

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Name of ex-wife, again

I noted that it's back, article-body and infobox. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive347#George_Santos:_Name_of_His_Ex-Wife (2023), and consensus was to remove it. Unless circumstances/consensus has changed, I still think that's the way to go, it does not add "significant value" per WP:BLPNAME. Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I am unsure it adds anything we need to know. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, I put "Who is Uadla Vieira, ex-wife of George Santos?" into Google's AI, and got "Public Profile: Despite the massive media scrutiny surrounding George Santos's political and legal troubles, Vieira has kept a remarkably low profile and generally avoided the press." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I was the editor who originally removed it. I remain convinced that it adds little to the article and violates WP:BLP because reliable sources indicate that she has consistently stonewalled the press. I cannot find any evidence that circumstances have changed; all of the Google and DuckDuckGo search returns from WP:RS are 3-4 years old, and all the recent ones are obvious AI slop and/or clickbait gossip sites. Carguychris (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven@Carguychris Per

"In 2020, Santos said he was living with a partner named Matheus Gerard, whom he has subsequently called his husband. Santos says the couple wed in November 2021. In April 2026 Santos told Meghan McCain that the couple were expecting to become parents later that year."

I think we should remove Gerard's name too. Santos' say-so isn't good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 Carguychris (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree, as I did during that discussion, since she has as noted assiduously avoided the public eye, and there is nothing to be gained informationally by adding her name. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems there's agreement. I'm not sure how the infobox is best handled. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Exclude any claim of his, and exclude out-of-date information; it does ot matter if he was married, only that he is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)