Talk:Joe Garcia

Image

An image is needed for the article. The Joe Garcia campaign site is up but some stuff isn't up yet in particular the "contact us" section to contact the campaign. When that is up I'll send them an e-mail to request a public domain image to use in the article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• NDN bio
• The Sun Post article
• NDN article
• Democtratic Party of Miami Dade County bio
• The Miami New Times article
• Netroots Nation article
• The Miami Herald article
• Cuba News article
• CNN article
• Progreso Weekly article
• International Herald Tribune article
• Progreso Weekly article

Links dumped from article. --Neutrality^talk 15:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

The article is about Joe Garcia, what he has done, what he has said, what is published about him. It is not about what a political opponent says about him especially if the comments are negitive. It does not matter if the comments were publihed or not. The proper place to place opposing comments on the candidates is on the article about their congressional district race not here.Callelinea (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced Material

According to the rules, "if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." That is exactly what I did by including the bit on the fundraiser.

You proceeded to add a comment from Joe that is contentious. I did not remove it. I simply added one from MDB to maintain a balance between the two opposing POVs. You have been trying to remove the comment I added in violation of Wikipedia rules, which state that "editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." The comment I added was not in violation of that rule. It is neither unsourced (I took it from the same article that you did), unverifiable (since I provided the source) nor conjectural (it's about Joe Garcia's views on foreign policy).

According to the rules, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Joe Garcia is notable for his involvement in Cuba issues and for running in opposition to the current US policies towards the island. MDB's criticism of his alliance with Charlie Rangel and others on the left who support his FP views is therefore fair game. Your objections amount to nothing more than a flagrant attempt to introduce bias into this article.Clean Hialeah (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have nothing against puting in MDB comment, but in the proper place. It should be placed in the article about the congressional race not under Joe Garcia. Just as I would not place Garcia's comments on MDB in Mario Diaz-Balart, it needs to be placed in the proper place. Callelinea (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So long as you include Joe Garcia's comments in this article. This is the proper place to include MDB's comments. If you'd like to move both sets of comments to the district article, I would not object.

My point in all this has been quite simple: both comments need to remain side-by-side in order to maintain NPOV.Clean Hialeah (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do object. You decided to mention one particular fundraiser and put Rangel's positions on Cuba. I placed Garcia's comments on Rangel's position and now you wish to add on MDB comments to tilt it to a more NEG light.. If you wish to remove Rangel's position on Cuba and only state that Rangel hosted a fundraiser then I have no problems with removing both quotes from this article. But I repeat, I stil feel that no MDB quotes on Garcia should be on this article just as I do not feel any Garcia comments on MDB should be on Diaz-Balart article.Callelinea (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I took Rangel's position verbatim from the article I included to provide context on Rangel's position. If you want to include Garcia's spin about Rangel (which is his self-serving view) then there is nothing wrong with including MDB's spin (which is also his self-serving take on the issue). If you prefer to limit it to the facts (which includes Rangel's position on Cuba) and push the comments to the district article, then I have no problem. Garcia's comments don't need to be included here (nor do MDB's). You are the one who is picking a fight on this rather inane issue. But so long as you insist including Garcia's spin without MDB's I will continue to object, because it is a clear violation of NPOV. Clean Hialeah (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well obviously we disagree on this and that is why a third party was requested to get involved.Callelinea (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally, if you read the article on Rangel, you will see it is full of quotes by Rangel but none made of him by anyone. I do not blaim you for your lack of expertise on wikipedia. Callelinea (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion: The Joe Garcia quote on the fund-raiser is relevant to the article and to the electoral race in question and is in context and, in my opinion, fits with the article and the section. However, the MDB quote does not directly reference the material in the section or article, and contains material not included in the text of the article, and should not be included. Although the quote is in response to the Rangel fundraiser, the text of the quote mainly refers to both Rangel as well as Joe Garcia as 'left-wing extremists' while the article makes no such claim. I refer the involved editors to the following guideline in WP:QUOTE: Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation. In this case there is a serious danger of misrepresentation (Joe Garcia and Charles Rangel are left-wing extremists when the text of the article makes no such claim. Thanks! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixing articles

• While 'others' were bickering about various minor points, I added the usual templates and links so this looks like the rest of the Candidate articles. I'm just sayin'.... Flatterworld (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

May 1, 2012 Modifications

Remove old link to Garcia 2010 campaign website, since it has apparently been abandoned and contains gibberish. Added Miami Herald article about his 2012 campaign published recently. Added external link to Garcia 2012 Campaign website. Need paragraph about 2012 campaign in appropriate spot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RDemarest (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

File:GarciaObama.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GarciaObama.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:GarciaObama.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Earwax Incident

On May 7th 2014, Joe Garcia picked his ear and ate the resulting effluvia on live television (C-SPAN2). The associated Youtube video has ~2.6 million views as of the time of this writing about 6 months later. The tape of Joe Garcia's crude indulgence has been the subject of much discussion, and not just on Republican hit sites. NPR, for example, discussed the incident at length during a series on interviews aired today (10/26/2014) about opposition research. New York Magazine, not exactly Fox News, ran a piece about the matter: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/rep-joe-garcia-claims-he-didnt-eat-earwax.html

Who else found it relevant enough to publish? Lets take a look:

-Time Magazine http://time.com/99049/congressman-eats-earwax-on-cspan/ -New York Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/florida-pol-caught-eating-earwax-tv-article-1.1791434 -NBC http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/S-Fla-Congressman-Digs-For-Ear-Wax-Then-Eats-It-On-TV-259109441.html -Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/joe-garcia-picks-ear_n_5316589.html -USA Today http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/05/13/joe-garcia-ear-wax-c-span-video/ -Chicago Sun-Times http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/did-florida-rep-joe-garcia-pick-earwax-then-eat-it-live-tv/wed-05142014-1200pm -UK Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2627225/Digging-lost-treasure-Congressman-Florida-democrat-caught-C-SPAN-picking-ear-EATING-IT.html

These are among the most influential and respected news outlets in the world. I have deliberately omitted results from sources with a publicized bias, like the Daily Caller. Neither did I have to look hard for these results. IMO this is the most well publicized story ever published featuring Rep. Joe Garcia (although this is merely my opinion of course and not a result of any objective review).

Eating earwax, like a multitude of political gaffes before it, could very well determine the next election in Florida's 26th district (in addition, of course, to the absentee ballot scam that lead to firings and criminal convictions for top members of Garcia's team, including Chief of Staff: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article3356556.html).

I would never argue that Garcia eating his earwax is not a ridiculous or preposterous concern. It is. But Garcia serves at the pleasure of the people of the United States, a country whose only successful impeachment of a sitting President was to punish him for lying about getting a blowjob, while letting other Presidents slide for illegally surveilling the entire nation (Total Information Awareness, Bush Jr.), breaking into the campaign offices of political opponents (Watergate, Nixon), plotting to murder unfriendly journalists (Jack Anderson, Nixon) and assassinating US citizens - juvenile US citizens (Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Obama).

Gaffes play at least as significant a role in US politics as policies do, and likely, they play a much larger role. In short, they are relevant.

So why haven't we talked about the Ear Wax?

Before I add the story, with links to the multitude of reputable sources mentioned above, I would like to invite the community to put their two cents in. I imagine there is a reason why this information is not already featured. So lets discuss!

-Why should Wikipedia stand apart from all of the outlets mentioned above in censoring this event from public reference? -If we should omit this story, on what basis should we omit?

I value and appreciate community involvement from all points of view. I will also note my own political affiliations as disclaimers:

My original voter registration was with the Democratic Party I voted once, for John Kerry, in the 2004 election; as well as for a variety of local politicians, bond issue votes, etc. I have never voted again after that election. I have never been employed by any political organization or candidate. I have never volunteered for any political organization or candidate. At this point in life, my politics lean libertarian; I support neither Garcia or any of his opponents that I am aware of, specifically or even in theory. I am not eligible to vote in FL's 26th district.

So we can hopefully avoid allegations of political conspiracy and personal bias that so often find themselves defocusing the discussion. Cheers.

Since this material would seem contentious for a WP:BLP, I'd recommend that you write up a suggested draft for inclusion and post it here on the talk page. Then we can discuss and form consensus before anything gets added to the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations against former COS

Not sure that allegations and calls for investigation against Garcia's former chief of staff (also named Garcia) merit inclusion here. The edit I removed is below -- thoughts?

In June, 2013, Miami lawyer Rick Yabor asked the FBI to investigate Garcia in relation to a phantom canidate allegedly funded illegally by Garcia's campaign staff. This investigation remains open. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Miami-Lawyer-Asking-FBI-To-Investigate-Possible-Phantom-Candidate-in-2010-Congressional-Race-210174451.html

Arbor8 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Garcia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130107012628/http://garcia.house.gov/ to http://garcia.house.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)