Talk:Robert Garcia (California congressman)

Election sign incident, voting investigation

There has been a lot of blanking of this material lately (and in fact the entire Controversies section), mainly by IP editors. The material is very well-cited, and both incidents were reported upon extensively by reliable sources, particularly the Long Beach-area mainstream newspapers. I could add additional sources beyond what is already there if that would ease any concerns, though I think there are quite enough reliable sources present already to establish notability. Those who seem to disagree, I invite you to discuss your reasoning here on the talk page rather than simply removing well-cited material. Let's work together to improve the article. Ibanez100 (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

These supposed "controversies" are manufactured by garcia's political opponent. The bussing of voters was found to be entirely legal. The pool party is not controversial and was not covered in newspapers. It's all just campaign mudslinging. Is wikipedia going to include every false accusation political opponents make? Even those found untrue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.171 (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

ALSO Notice barack obama's page doesnt mention anywhere the birth certificate "controversy". George Bush's page doesnt mention that millions of people believe he was part of a 911 conspiracy. Both those claims are much more well known, have lasted longer, and are public knowledge. Both have been beleived by many people. But because they are baseless, they are ommitted.

The claims about garcia were made by ONE political opponent a few weeks ago. They do not belong in his bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.171 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia articles are based on "verifiability, not truth" (WP:VNT): to quote, "Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true." It seems that you do not personally believe the articles that several mainstream Long Beach-area newspapers published regarding the Robert Garcia campaign sign controversy and city prosecutor's voting investigation, but as they were previously published in several reliable sources, they are verifiable by Wikipedia's standards. Likewise, you may believe that the statements you repeatedly added to the Damon Dunn article are true, but without citations from reliable sources, they are not verifiable and therefore have no place in a Wikipedia article - in fact, as I have stated before, unsourced and contentious material about living persons is in direct violation of Wikipedia's policies (WP:BLP) and must be removed immediately.

There was an article about the Robert Garcia pool party in the OC Register, which I cited. I remember at least one article in another newspaper referring to it as well and may find and add that additional citation when I get the time. As a personal observation, a very large portion of the Robert Garcia-related newspaper articles during this 2014 Long Beach mayoral campaign have either been primarily about, or at least mentioned, one or more of these controversies. The amount of press they have received (evidenced by the number of citations from reliable sources I have included) makes them quite notable in Mr. Garcia's career as a local politician. There are several other negative facts that have come to light lately about him, as typically happens during campaigns, which I have not added as I do not find them encyclopedic: they are not nearly so notable or widely-reported-upon as these. Ibanez100 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

WOULD YOU ARGUE that these accusations which turned out to be false are more prominent than the barack obama birth certificate controversy, or the conspiracy theories about 911? Certainly there are far more stories about them than about these issues. Why would these be included if those aren't? PLease reply to this question.

Also, why wouldnt we include things that got more press about garcia? Certainly there are some.

Also, to be included in an ENCYCLOPEDIA, we want something to show staying power. These are recent accusations that have not been verified

FROM WIKI's standards: News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

AND An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE WP:PERSISTENCE Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article

AND Sensationalism[edit] See also: WP:NOTSCANDAL

Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. Criminal acts[edit] See also: WP:CRIME

Articles about criminal acts,[5] particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources.

AND Verifiable Information must be realistically verifiable by others. This is generally done by citing from reliable sources.

(You have verified reporting, but it is about accusations that were not only not verified, but shown not to be true or accurate)

AND I added sources for the claims about dunn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.207.171 (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

> Also, why wouldnt we include things that got more press about garcia? Certainly there are some.

If you know of any, please do add them! I think the article in general could use some proofreading and some more detail. If there are things about Garcia that received more press than the incidents we've been discussing, absolutely those should be part of the article as well.

To address the rest, the sign controversy and March 21st voting incidents are not conspiracy theories. Multiple reliable sources verify the presence of Garcia campaign signs in difficult-to-reach locations on private property, and contain quotes from people who did not appreciate the signs. Multiple reliable sources also verify that the Garcia campaign bussed in voters, that there was an incident at the City Clerk's office, that the City Prosecutor launched an inquiry into possible voting irregularities in relation to the incident, and that the City Prosecutor later discontinued his inquiry, along with many details and supporting facts related to those incidents. These are all events that actually happened. If you believe these events did not actually occur, please find reliable sources to that effect.

An individual does not need to have been found guilty of a crime for the investigation itself to be notable; likewise, a notable investigation does not mean that the persons under investigation are guilty. Nowhere does the article state that Garcia was found to have done anything illegal (he wasn't). However, the controversies/investigations themselves are verifiable and notable, regardless of outcome, because they were widely reported upon in published articles from reliable sources, and because such sources heavily weighted their Garcia coverage toward these issues - in other words, much of the 2014 Garcia election coverage in reliable sources was related to these incidents: and not just once, but with "further analysis or discussion" as the situations developed, to quote WP:PERSISTENCE.

All material regarding the sign controversy and voting controversies is sourced primarily to major mainstream area newspapers (The Orange County Register, The Press-Telegram); secondarily to smaller, mainstream community newspapers (The Grunion Gazette, The Beachcomber); and tertiarily to well-known area news websites (LBReport.com, etc.). These are not tabloids. Furthermore, they all reported essentially the same facts about the incidents in question. I notice that you have now cited a Press-Telegram article to verify material you added to the Damon Dunn page; surely, if the Press-Telegram were a tabloid, it would not make an appropriate source for that article, either (and we would have to remove nearly every Wikipedia article about Long Beach and its politics, as most if not all of them are cited to some combination of the reliable sources I named above).

I think, essentially, you may still be confused as to what is meant by "verifiability" on Wikipedia. We may be on the same page with your phrase "verified reporting": published material from reliable sources is precisely the standard, regardless of whether we personally believe the reported-upon incidents to be true. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. I commented further on your talk page regarding the sources you found for your additions to the Damon Dunn article, and also tried to initiate a discussion on the Damon Dunn talk page. I added a second newspaper reference for the Garcia pool party as well. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, just because there is an investigation does not require Wikipedia to document its minute twists and turns, much less mention (without rebuttal) unsupported charges made by one's political opponents. This is a short biography of Garcia, not a detailed documentation of his mayoral campaign. If the incident merits any mention, it would be brief and to the point - an investigation of XXX was opened by YYY, which was then closed because nothing was found to be illegal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Without rebuttal" is absolutely untrue. The section you blanked included quotes from Garcia's campaign in regard to both the busing incident and the sign controversy. The only material I included in regard to an allegation made by an opponent was the part about Damon Dunn's letter, which was clearly described as being a letter from the lawyer of a political rival - again, this is all material drawn directly from articles published by several mainstream newspapers. If allegations made by rivals are the issue, I could rewrite to omit the mention of Dunn's letter, if that would make this less contentious?

While I understand that the incidents in question may seem trivial in the big scheme of national or world politics, such is the nature of city politics: I encourage you to read through the various mainstream Long Beach-area newspapers so that you see the extent of the coverage these incidents received. News articles about Robert Garcia are themselves weighted heavily towards these incidents, to the extent that excluding them from his Wikipedia article would be in itself a weight issue and a misrepresentation. Of course, Dunn's campaign has come out with a series of claims about Garcia (and vice versa), as is typical of any campaign, and I agree with you that political mudslinging has no place here. Speeding tickets, mortgages, etc. etc. are not of any encyclopedic value, but the sign issue and early voting controversies are on a much different level in terms of weight given to them by reliable mainstream media. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Massive undue weight and electioneering

Garcia's Wikipedia biography is not a place to electioneer for either side. I have removed massive undue weight from this article, including tendentiously-written and obviously-biased discussions of minor incidents with no apparent lasting encyclopedicity. Do not use this article as a place to make arguments for or against Garcia as a candidate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The incidents in question received extensive, ongoing coverage in several mainstream newspapers (much more coverage than nearly any of the other statements presented in this article), as evidenced by the number of in-line citations. The text is written in a neutral manner, with quotes from both sides, and extensively cited to quality sources. Please also read the discussion above. Ibanez100 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to discuss your proposed additions on the talk page before re-adding them. They are clearly biased and written inappropriately for Wikipedia. ("unwanted attention," 10,000 characters on election minutia and only 10,000 characters on everything else, repeating the negative material three separate times, etc.) You have an obvious bias against this person. Any discussion of the mayoral candidacy must be neutral, balanced and place due weight on issues, not be a detailed accounting of partisan charges made by his opponent in the election. If you attempt to reinsert them verbatim, I will request that the page be protected until after the election so that this page is not used for electioneering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this issue with you both here (above) and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#robert_garcia; when you didn't respond, I was WP:BOLD and added a new version of the blanked material that incorporated the concerns you expressed: I reduced the overall length of the material, edited it for greater clarity, removed the reference to Dunn's lawyer's letter, and changed some wording to something you might find more neutral (though I personally found it neutral already), all in hopes of working toward something we both can live with. "Unwanted attention" is a phrase quoted from a mainstream Long Beach newspaper, which I already mentioned to you on the BLP noticeboard, linked to above:

To quote from an article published in The Beachcomber newspaper (http://www.longbeachcomber.com/story.aspx?artID=4367), "Garcia's campaign has attracted unwanted attention on a variety of fronts".

When you didn't reply for a while, I figured you either found it unobjectionable or would simply edit it yourself if not. If you don't like it, how would you prefer these two issues be introduced? I thought a quote from a reliable source would be a good way to go.

However, other than your blanking of everything related to the campaign sign controversy and voter-busing incident, I like your recent edits to the article. It's now less redundant, the lead no longer has a promotional tone, and adding the mayoral campaign section was a good idea. I'll add a much-shortened version of the campaign sign and voter-busing material to the mayoral campaign section; in light of the current state of the article, I agree that even my previous version would now be too long.

As for "partisan charges", to my knowledge - correct me if I'm wrong - Dunn has never mentioned the Garcia campaign signs in his promotional materials. He did adopt the voting investigation story into his advertising, though not until after the incident was already widely reported in mainstream Long Beach-area newspapers. Again, there certainly has been "political minutiae" coming from both sides in this campaign, but these two incidents are not part of it. They both received wide, ongoing coverage in reliable mainstream sources, as reflected in the volume of in-line citations. Ibanez100 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to place your proposed edits here for discussion. For one, we do not use direct quotes in a manner that suggests their conclusion is endorsed by Wikipedia's voice, as your version does.

More to the point, none of this belongs in Garcia's biography - it is not encyclopedically significant to his life. This is a summary biography, and neither situation directly involves Garcia. Claims about someone else tangentially-related putting up signs and the fact that some people on a bus weren't registered to vote (and didn't vote) is the definition of unencyclopedic and undue weight on non-events. If they are truly encyclopedic, they will have lasting coverage long after the election is over. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.

Wikipedia is not a detailed accounting of electoral squabbling and it's even more not a place for you to try and make a candidate you oppose look bad. It's pretty obvious what you're trying to do, and Wikipedia doesn't allow it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I quote from your comments above:

If the incident merits any mention, it would be brief and to the point - an investigation of XXX was opened by YYY, which was then closed because nothing was found to be illegal.

This is now precisely a "brief and to the point" mention of the two incidents, as you requested. Given the volume of coverage these two incidents received in reliable sources, particularly the WP:WEIGHT that was given to these incidents in Long Beach mainstream newspapers in relation to the rest of their Garcia coverage, the removal of this concise, neutral, and extremely well-cited material constitutes whitewashing. Again, I invite you to read the websites of the various Long Beach-area newspapers to get some idea of the extent of coverage these two issues received. If you don't like the quote, please feel free to be WP:BOLD and change the offending portion to something you find agreeable rather than simply blanking the whole thing. I have tried at great length to find consensus with you and the IP editor (who seems to have disappeared), and while I am absolutely open to discussing with you further, this is looking more and more like you intend to simply blank the material regardless of changes made. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd disagree with your assessment. That material seems to be minutiae for a BLP. Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ibanez100: See also WP:ADVOCACY for some useful pointers. Cwobeel (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You have noted two incidents related to Garcia's campaign, and written about them in a strongly negative manner. You have not placed these issues in the broader context of the campaign, nor have you explained the relevance of these issues to Garcia's life. It is common for charges and countercharges about minor issues to be made by candidates in an election. Wikipedia does not serve as a compendium of every accusation ever laid against someone. We do not document the minute blow-by-blow details of elections. See, for example, New York City mayoral election, 2013 - it briefly describes the candidates, documents notable polls and records results. We do not get into the business of listing arguments made for or against candidates. That is not what an encyclopedia does. Given the nearness of the election, we should simply refrain from becoming an electoral battleground and leave all that material out at least until after the election, when it can be considered in context - that is, does any of it have lasting encyclopedic relevance, or was it just momentary mudslinging? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevance is that the subject of the article is a politician who is currently running for mayor, and these are two widely-reported-upon incidents that occurred during his campaign. Again (I have said this numerous times now), these are actual events that took place during the campaign, according to multiple articles in several mainstream newspapers. They are not "minute details", nor are they "mudslinging" by an opposing candidate. Insisting that events verified by multiple reliable sources were invented by an opposition candidate and did not actually occur is against WP:VNT and essentially amounts to a conspiracy theory, which has no place on Wikipedia. As for the rest, let's continue the conversation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#robert_garcia to keep this all in one place. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, detailed article discussion belongs here, on an article talk page.

Wikipedia does not have to publish anything. In my judgment, the material you desire to insert is significantly negatively skewed, places undue weight on unproven allegations and dropped inquiries about things that aren't illegal, and more to the point, literally none of it directly involves Garcia's life. Nobody has said Garcia is responsible for placing signs or busing voters. At best, it would belong in an article about the Long Beach mayoral campaign, but even that is dubious - longstanding precedent for such election articles shows that we pay no attention to minute-by-minute accountings of such minutia, even for New York City's mayoral race.

Your bias in this matter is obvious from your edits, and the fact that you have never even addressed the charges of a conflict of interest is telling. You want to make this candidate look bad because you are in favor of his opponent. That is not how we build encyclopedic biographies of people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I disregarded your personal accusations because the purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article, not engage in personal attacks. But since you are evidently quite curious, I am not in favor of either candidate. After seeing the signs high up on poles in Long Beach and reading in the newspapers about his campaign being under investigation for voting irregularities, I looked him up on Wikipedia in hopes of finding out more; finding nothing about either topic, I decided I may as well fire up my old Wikipedia account and add it myself, mostly as an exercise in summarization. As you can tell, my summarization abilities need all the help they can get. I do find the incidents interesting (obviously), or I would have chosen something else.

As you know, this diff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Garcia_(California_politician)&diff=prev&oldid=609869182) is my proposed text. Which part of the second paragraph under "2014 Mayoral Campaign" is a "minute-by-minute accounting of ... minutia"? Also, given that Garcia's notability is due to his public office, in what way does his mayoral campaign not involve his life? Particularly, if the mayoral campaign is relevant enough to have its own section in his biography, why are widely-reported-upon events that happened during the mayoral campaign not relevant? Again: what specific changes to the material in the diff would help achieve consensus? Ibanez100 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

None of it. None of it belongs in his biography.

See, for example, Eric_Garcetti#Mayor_of_Los_Angeles - a more significant mayor of a far more significant city. Though there were undoubtedly many nasty charges and counter-charges during his 2013 election campaign, we do not mention any of them - they are insignificant and encyclopedically irrelevant.

A brief and entirely-exoneratory "inquiry" into activities conducted by someone else and someone being opposed to campaign signs posted by someone else are not the stuff of an encyclopedic summary of Robert Garcia's life. They are electioneering fodder and little more - just as the fact that Damon Dunn defaulted on a mortgage is irrelevant minutia and does not belong in an encyclopedic summary of his life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Robert Garcia Headshot Official.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Prior history as a Republican

There appears to be a concerted effort by some users to hide Robert Garcia's previous history in the Republican Party. The edits are factual, have citations to newspapers, and are written from a neutral perspective. Such information is of interest to the public. There is a difference between being a member of a political party and taking active measure for the success of a political party. There have been some concerns that such edits may be biased. The user's concerns should be further explained before making additional edits. Zoof91 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to see a discussion going on, and that the edit war has ceased. I won’t take one side or another unless pinged. Please, do not continue the edit war. Both users have been warned. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: I wanted to flag this for your attention. I re-drafted the section earlier today but it appears that it was deleted entirely. Unfortunately, the justification listed below seems lacking. I don't want to engage in an edit war, so I will defer to your expertise.

I would like to propose my previous edits. As previously stated, the edits are factual, are properly cited, and written from a neutral perspective. The information is of interest to the public. As such, it's not clear how the proposed edits are biased. I'd like to get feedback or proposed edits that reflect such concerns. Zoof91 (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits, while factual, are irrelevant to the page. You can look at politicians and notable figures in the greater Los Angeles area such as Eric Garcetti and you will see no mention of miniscule notes that have been rarely mentioned in print and are not notable. It seems as though your intention with these edits is to make him look bad. Administrators have already removed your edits and you reposted them again in a new section which, again, is irrelevant to the early life section. If you and I cannot resolve this, we should continue to let administrators handle this. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense to point to other wikipedia pages as proof that these edits are irrelevant. I would argue that the facts involved in the edits have been covered extensively by a number of different press organizations, as the citations indicated. That very fact would counter your argument that the edits are "not notable."

It's disappointing to read that you think my intention is to make Robert Garcia look bad. The section was written in a neutral tone and did not contain any editorializing. Why do you think his early political involvement "makes him look bad." Wikipedia should strive to be a source of information. Deleting the section wholesale runs counter to that and seems to shut down the conversation.

I'm open to a discussion of how you think the information should be included in the section. Cheers!Zoof91 (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It definitely makes sense to point to other Wikipedia pages as proof/precedent. There is a pretty set standard that pages of living folks have pertinent and relevant information. Because what you have continued to attempt to include is minute and rarely if ever mentioned when talking about Robert Garcia in local and national media, it seems as though this information was intentionally searched for and included. I cannot understand the reasoning for that. Maybe you could shed more light on your intentions? As I said prior, if you and I cannot resolve this, we should just let the administrators handle this. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@MalcolmKincaid: Again, you’re attacking me personally by questioning my intentions. The argument that this information is rarely talked about in the media is refuted by the many articles, from various news outlets, that were cited. It appears the discussion is being shut down...Zoof91 (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: Sorry to bring you into this again, but I’m being personally attacked again. I think we need a moderator to figure out what edits should be included. Thanks. Zoof91 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s a personal attack. When I get home, I will give them a warning(when I get home on my computer and can use twinkle). HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@MalcolmKincaid: Instead of deleting the section outright, you should propose edits to the section. The section was written from a neutral POV, was verified, and contained no original research. The section does not appear to disparage the subject. You've mentioned the standards for biographies of living people. Please explain how you think the section runs afoul of the standards. Zoof91 (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoof91: I hear you. Let's both propose edits but leave the page as the administrators left it until we come to a consensus. Let's please stop continuing to engage in an edit war. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I noticed that you reverted the edit initially. Wondering if you could weigh in on this? I feel as though the edits in questions are not relevant to the page. Not sure what an argument for them to be included would be given they're not notable when it comes to this person's bio. Let me know what you think MalcolmKincaid (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@MalcolmKincaid: Just so we're clear, I made an edit to the Early life section. You reverted it initially and continue to revert it with a justification that doesn't make sense. It's unclear why the information cannot remain on the page until the dispute is resolved. How can we come to a consensus when you appear to not want the information in the page at all? Zoof91 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoof91: My initial concern was that the information was not relevant. It seems as though the administrator who removed the edit either agreed with that or wanted us to resolve the dispute before we went along with that edit. Unless I'm mistaken, you made an edit to the early life section that was the same as the edit in question but with a new subtitle. I'm not sure that solves the dispute because I don't think that the information should be included at all as its not relevant to his bio. Similar to how I wouldn't include his time as a staffer to other Democrats post-grad (read that somewhere). It's simply not relevant. Wikipedia bios are not for every single factoid about a person. Just what is notable and will get the reader a good understanding of the person. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@MalcolmKincaid: This is an article about a politician. The proposed edits are regarding previous political campaigns he ran and political groups he founded. Thus, it’s 100% relevant. These activities have been discussed in the media, so it’s not some random facts. Under your logic, the fact that he participated in student government in college shouldn’t be included. If this was an article about a sports figure or actor, then the relevancy of early political activity makes sense. But that’s not what we have here.

You’ve previously stated that the proposed edits were biased (as well as questioning my intentions). So it appears you have concerns with the information. Not liking information doesn’t mean the information is not relevant. The page should not be used in a partisan manner to boost the person. Zoof91 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoof91: I did state that, and while I stand by what I said, I'm refraining from questioning your intentions so as to not appear to be "attacking" you or violating any rules on this forum. To your initial point, Garcia has a lengthy political resume and various facts one could include here and I agree: making edits because you don't like them is inappropriate. However, seeing edits that are out of place, and not that relevant are cause for concern. Regardless, it seems as though we're not agreeing. Let's have the admins have the final say or allow other users to contribute. Cheers. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. I don't have an opinion about the content, I just enforced WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.") There is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Robert_Garcia_(California_politician). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@MalcolmKincaid: Ok, so are you arguing that the edits are biased or irrelevant? Because those are two totally separate things. I've stated my position why I believe the edits are relevant. You've conceded that "To your initial point, Garcia has a lengthy political resume and various facts one could include here..." So what facts do you think could be included? How do you justify including his involvement in student government but then exclude other political activities that happened afterwards? There's a gap in the chronology, that's what these edits are attempting to fill. Furthermore, the fact that so many different media organizations have covered the facts, over a wide period of time, is proof of relevancy.

You stated that you stand by your position that these edits are biased. Can you explain this further? You originally cited bias when initially deleting the edits, so it appears that is the driving factor in all of this. How are facts presented from a neutral POV biased?

You state the edits are "out of place." Does this mean you only have an issue with the fact that the edits are included in the "Early life" section? Would your concerns be assuaged if a new section is added to the page? Zoof91 (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoof91: Just so we're clear, you realize that I can't question your motives or make a case for why it's biased right? Because you'll tag an admin and say I'm attacking you which is against the forum policy. So I can't and won't really continue my arguments for that with you. But the irrelevance of the edits you included informed my initial argument of bias. I'm not "justifying" any other edits as I did not make the ones you are referencing, but will note that his being in student government may be relevant given the fact he was the student President of the State School (CSULB) in the City of Long Beach which he now serves as the Mayor of. It is also often brought up by CSULB. That might be the thinking of whoever included that. Don't want to speak for them though. Additionally, the idea of wanting to fill a "gap" chronologically you're referring to doesn't make much sense to me given the edits were placed at the end of the section. Regardless, I still think that the edits were pretty irrelevant to his overall bio and know that they have not been covered nearly as extensively as other parts of Garcia's life. If the point you are trying to drive home was that he was once a Republican, I think that that is pretty well covered by the language already included. I encourage letting other members or administrators contribute to this dialogue. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

·@MalcolmKincaid: So it appears, based on your responses, that the reason you object to my edits as being biased or irrelevant is due to the fact that they involve the fact that Robert Garcia used to be a Republican. The evolution of a politician's political believes or positions are 100% relevant and should be included in their biography. There is a difference between being a member of or voting for a political party and starting a Young Republicans club. Millions of people fall into the former category; far fewer fall into the latter category. Not having the detailed information on the page presents an incomplete picture of that person at best.

The bio currently has a blank spot for his political activities between his time at CSULB and his election to City Council. It's clear there were political activities occurring during that time, as the edits indicated. So the bio should reflect that. Whether it deserves its own section or should be placed under "Early life" is a debate worth having.

The edits were written from a neutral POV. There were no editorializing or commentary made about Robert Garcia's political activities, only the facts were listed. I'm not sure why you think the fact that he was a Republican is a negative thing. But Wikipedia isn't here to boost a person or be a PR outlet.Zoof91 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoof91: Your last reply reads as disingenuous and it claims a lot without providing any context; I won't get into that further for fear of it being misconstrued that I am "attacking" you. Again, the edits you made were/are irrelevant and minute. I also never said or inferred that being a Republican was a negative thing and your suggestion of that lacks evidence. Again, I suggest we leave the conversation to admins/other contributors. Cheers. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@MalcolmKincaid: If you wants others to weigh in on this topic, you’re going to need to state your position on the dispute resolution board (linked on your talk page) Zoof91 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be an effort to amplify Robert Garcia's previous history in the Republican Party. I made an edit leaving the citations where Robert Garcia was a Republican and even that he didn't lean into that designation much. But I see Zoof91 undid that edit and now that section is as long as the entire rest of the section. I did not know there was such debate on this until reading this thread. My edits were minor, but I request HurricaneTracker495 or another appropriate admin to review the history and see if my minor edits were justified. Longbeachfan89! (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Early Career

Should a paragraph about the early career of Robert Garcia (California politician), listed below, be included in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Garcia was the California Youth Coordinator for the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign He also founded the Long Beach Young Republicans in 2005. Describing himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, Garcia guided and organized the Young Republicans, which developed a charter that was recognized as an official club by the Los Angeles County Republicans. Garcia also worked as an aide to Frank Colonna when he was on City Council and ran Colonna's unsuccessful bid in the 2006 Long Beach, California mayoral election.

Please respond with Yes, Keep, or Include to include the paragraph. Please respond with No, Delete, or Exclude to exclude the paragraph. Do not engage in threaded discussion in the Survey; that is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep. This content seems well sourced, in scope, and encyclopedic. I don't see a content-based policy-based reason for exclusion. R2 (bleep) 19:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep This content should definitely be kept. It's common for a politician's early career to be discussed on the page and this information is properly sourced so there's no reason to remove it. Quorum816 (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

*Include per reasoning by R2 and Quorum816 GMPX1234 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

• Keep as per above. As long as the sources are reliable, I see no reason to remove it. Other politicians who have switched affiliations have both mentioned in their articles (to use a famous and uncontroversial example, Winston Churchill). Red Fiona (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

@Robert McClenon: How long does the Rfc remain up if a consensus has been formed?

References

US House of Representatives seat and predecessor

It appears the editing of this is locked, but Garcia is not running for the seat held by Lucille Royall-Abbard; he is running to replace retiring Rep. Alan Lowenthal, for the former 47th District that is now the 42nd District after the redistricting took effect January 3, 2022.JFLBCA (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)SoCalJay

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JustAnotherAlly. Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Robert Garcia (California congressman). (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Robert Garcia (California politician) → ? – This year, a politician also named Robert Garcia was elected to the California State Assembly This would mean that this Garcia isn't the only politician in the state anymore. I asked on the Discord and got some responses, but no clear definitive answer, so I'm making this. Here are the options that I've gathered:

1. Move this page to Robert Garcia (U.S. representative) and move assemblymember Garcia's page to Robert Garcia (California politician).
2. Move this page to Robert Garcia (California congressman) and create Robert Garcia (California assemblymember) as a separate page.
3. Move this page to Robert Garcia (U.S. representative) and create Robert Garcia (California assemblymember) as a separate page.
4. Keep this page and only create Robert Garcia (California assemblymember) as a separate page.
5. Maybe another option? reppop^talk 01:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Disambiguation only takes place when it is necessary to distinguish between existing articles, so the first step in these sorts of cases is to wait for the other article to be created (or to create the other article). The notability of the other subject has yet to be established in article form, and the existence of the other person alone isn't itself sufficient to cause this article to be moved. The creation of the other article should not normally be part of a move discussion, and would not be something performed by the editor closing this discussion. Dekimasuよ! 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've created Robert Garcia (California assemblymember). reppop^talk 04:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Robert Garcia (California congressman). The current title is no good since both are California politicians. Robert Garcia (U.S. representative) is no good because Robert Garcia (New York politician) was also a U.S. representative. That leaves California congressman unless someone can come up with something better. Station1 (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support Robert Garcia (California politician) → Robert Garcia (California congressman) per Station1. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support Robert Garcia (California politician) → Robert Garcia (California congressman) per Station1 and Roman Spinner. Theparties (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2024 (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.