Talk:Gregory Bovino

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I added the following text:

−

+

On May 29, 2026, during the [[Delaney Hall#May 2026 hunger strike and inspection visits|Delaney Hall hunger strike and protests]], Bovino posted on [[X (social network)|X]] expressing support for the ICE agents at Delaney Hall, saying "Give them hell" and attaching an image of himself performing a [[Nazi salute]].

This was removed by ElijahPepe.

WP:SELFSOURCE says Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, so I do not see why this is absolutely unacceptable without a reliable source according to Elijah.

Therefore per WP:ONUS I am advocating for re-addition of the sentence and source into the article. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You are interpreting the image. Bovino didn't say he was performing a Nazi salute, that was an interpretation that you yourself concluded from the image. Regardless, this has nothing to do with his tenure as commander-in-chief of the Border Patrol. There is a source on some of what he's been saying about the events at Delaney Hall, so use that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this sounds uncivil, but are you seriously suggesting we cannot interpret this image to be a Nazi salute when he selected an image of himself making a gesture that pixel for pixel resembles a Nazi salute? If it is not WP:OBVIOUS that he is making a Nazi salute (perfectly matching the article's description of what a Nazi salute looks like) in this photo, then please provide other reasonable explanations for what this gesture could possibly be. If it is really as ambiguous as you say, it should be easy to give alternative theories on what he could be doing in this image. Is he waving? Is it a high five?

And I'm okay with moving it into a different section, the Public image section should be fine. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am literally saying that you cannot interpret any images without a reliable source backing them. This is the basis for WP:NOR, which must especially be followed on BLPs per WP:BLPPRIMARY. It doesn't matter what I think about what gesture he was making. No reliable source is reporting that was a Nazi salute. It is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy to use an image and try to draw your own conclusions on a biography of a living person. There's no discussion to be had there, you cannot include that on the page. That is a bad enough problem when it is an interpretation that carries neither positive nor negative connotations. It is another problem when it is attached to a genocidal ideology.

For what it's worth, WP:OBVIOUS doesn't mean what you think it means, it doesn't excuse what is a violation of NOR, and it isn't policy. OBVIOUS is about making statements that are intended for a general audience. The examples are about describing a subject as broadly as possible, rather than assuming that the reader already knows about the subject. Perhaps you meant WP:FACTS, which is still not policy and still does not allow for this whatsoever. FACTS is about pedantry in trying to cite statements that are obvious. This is not immediately obvious; most people wouldn't even know where that claim came from.

As far as the other claim, using a reliable source is always preferred to a primary source. There are already outlets discussing his support of the protesters, so you should be using that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

"it is attached to a genocidal ideology." Is that your description of Trumpism? Dimadick (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it was referring to Nazism. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Your reply goes into depth about why we must follow WP:NOR and WP:BLPPRIMARY, but I'm not advocating for ignoring these policies. My argument is that these policies don't prevent us from reporting an image that is clearly a Nazi salute (and cannot reasonably be interpreted in any other way) is a Nazi salute, and I feel like you haven't defended why saying it is a Nazi salute constitutes an NOR violation beyond just saying:

• It has a negative connotation (but WP:OUTRAGE applies: The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Wikipedia)
• No RS reporting has occurred (but WP:SELFSOURCE/WP:BLUE/WP:NOTCOM apply: (NOTCOM) If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH)

The essays/policies I cited aren't overriding NOR/BLPPRIMARY - they're explaining that it is acceptable to say things that meet a certain obviousness threshold even if they are not explicitly stated in the material and even if they are morally outrageous.

Let's look at these two images (and their captions) on the Nazi salute article:

No RS explicitly stated either of these individuals are performing Nazi salutes. So by your reasoning we should be removing these images from the Nazi salute article because we cannot infer they are performing Nazi salutes and therefore they do not belong on the article. Should they be removed? If not, why is it different? Simply because BLP sets a higher evidentiary standard? If that's the case, we can talk about it, but if that's the road we're going down then NOR becomes irrelevant to the conversation. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

And that's where the mistake is being made. Wikipedia is not supposed to be "reporting". It is supposed to be a compilation of information from reliable sources. There is a reason that I am not going out and finding every social media post I can to try to compile a list of views. You're not a reporter, I'm not a reporter. Leave that to journalists who can adjudicate whether that is a Nazi salute.

Again, you're misinterpreting pages that aren't even policies. WP:OUTRAGE is about making an objection based on how shocking something is. That's not what this is at all. If The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal reported that Bovino had proclaimed himself to be a Nazi, then that would be worth including. You are taking one image and interpreting it to be a Nazi salute, which is not only a BLP violation, but a serious one that can baselessly damage someone's reputation.

WP:BLUE and WP:NOTCOM do not apply. They are not policies. They are completely irrelevant here and should only be used as justification for interpreting policy. Policy itself is rather clear that this kind of synthesis is not allowed. No, an image of someone giving a salute does not mean they are giving a Nazi salute. You said it yourself, maybe it's a high five, maybe it's a wave. Maybe it's a Roman salute and not a Nazi salute. Maybe it's a gesture from the heart. One image cannot decide that, it takes interpretation, which is exactly the problem that WP:SYNTH lays out in clear detail.

Yes, a biography of a living person "sets a higher evidentiary standard". Those other images are WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments that don't apply here. I am talking about whether or not using an image as a reference to make a claim about someone giving a Nazi salute is acceptable, and policy makes it very clear that it isn't. You need an actual source. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

https://www.democracynow.org/2026/6/4/remigration_summit

A WP:DEMOCRACYNOW journalist described it as a Nazi salute (And then Greg Bovino posted on X a photo of himself with — giving what can only be described as a Nazi salute.) so I am adding the sentence back with attribution to DN. If DN is upgraded to GREL once this discussion closes, perhaps attribution can be removed from the sentence. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The last section of this page has just one sentence attached to it, that sentence stating what is already discussed earlier in the page. I propose that it be removed as unnecessary. TorahRight (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe that section is there because it was a compromise in an edit dispute. There are sources that would support its inclusion, they just have yet to be included. Once I finish rewriting Todd Blanche, which will likely happen after I read a book about the Department of Justice that is coming out tomorrow, I'll take a look. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Add a section about his critiques of the second Trump admin for being too soft on immigration after he left and potentially running for president in 2028 ~2026-31194-84 (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gregory Bovino/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: H2so4aq (talk · contribs) 04:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Failed good article nomination on June 9, 2026

Upon its review on June 9, 2026, this good article nomination was quick-failed because:

it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria,

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. The Public image section is a single sentence, and is marked with an Expand section template.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. --H2so4aq (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

at the bottom it says its a fan website and not associated with him ~2026-35470-79 (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)