Talk:Mike Garcia (politician)

Gun positions

this deletion seems to be improper.

1. The Gun Owners of America is not some "random interest group". It's a notable organization with a Wikipedia article
2. His voting record is certainly encyclopedic. Of course, congressmembers vote hundreds of times per year, so not all votes would be notable and encyclopedic, but votes on major legislation on hot button issues is certainly encyclopedic.

Where is Matt? (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There are many interest groups for all kinds of issues. We don't typically include these types of scorecards unless an independent source has covered them. For instance, if a newspaper article mentioned a particular scorecard or ranking for a member of Congress. And as for votes, it's not for us to decide what qualifies as "major legislation" or "hot button issues." Because members of Congress take so many votes, we must rely on coverage in independent sources to let us know which votes are notable. Again, if a newspaper or another independent source of similar quality covers a politician's particular vote on an issue, that's a sign that's it is noteworthy to include here. But a roll call vote isn't enough. Marquardtika (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the General notability guideline requiring independent sources to establish notability for an article with editorial content decisions. Obviously the subject of this biography passes notability with WP:POLITICIAN.

If the information presented passes verifyability, and it is deemed important, then it belongs in the article. And yes, it is for us [Wikipedians] to decide what qualifies as "major legislation" or "hot button issues." Wikipedia has an article called Gun violence in the United States, so Garcia's position on this issue is certainly notable. Where is Matt? (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability is different than noteworthiness. Yes, of course Garcia is notable. But everything he does isn't noteworthy. We rely on coverage in independent sources to establish WP:DUEWEIGHT. Whether or not someone or something (such as gun violence) has a Wikipedia article isn't relevant. What's relevant is what independent sources say about an article subject in relation to any particular issue. If Garcia's views on guns are noteworthy, they will have been covered in independent sourcing. Marquardtika (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you -- I was searching for the word "noteworthiness".

The references that were in the paragraph in question are independent of the subject of this article, and that's what counts in making sure we are compliant with WP:DUEWEIGHT. Where is Matt? (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources here are gunowners.org and a roll call vote in the U.S. House. Neither is an adequate source. Surely independent and reliable sources have covered his record--we need to find and use those. Marquardtika (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you think they are inadequate, but if you don't like them, we can add the template {{Better source needed}}. The sources referenced have not been deprecated, and are not WP:PRIMARY to the subject of this bio article. Where is Matt? (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Not being deprecated isn't the standard for inclusion. If you don't believe me that these aren't the types of standalone sources that we use to build articles for members of Congress, I suggest posting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics to get some more feedback. Marquardtika (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Since you cannot point to anything showing that the sources cannot be used, I'm inclined to re-insert the paragraph with the template {{Better source needed}} to let editors find better sources. If there is no policy against using these sources, there is no reason to suppress useful verifiable encyclopedic information. Where is Matt? (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I've disputed the content, so the responsibility for achieving consensus rests on you, the one seeking to include disputed material. Marquardtika (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC regarding gun positions

Should Mike Garcia's position on guns be included in the article based on the known references?

• Gun Owners of America's 2020 rating of him
• Gun Owners of America's 2022 rating of him
• his vote on the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

For the context, see this paragraph deleted pending consensus Where is Matt? (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It would help if you can find sources that go more in depth on Garcia's position on gun control. The ratings and voting record here may be important to some readers, but it is difficult to judge how important they are to Garcia's life and career as a whole. Senorangel (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

We go with the references we have. It has already been acknowledged that the references we have are not in the top tier. The question is: are the references we have sufficient for inclusion (with a possibility of adding the {{better source needed}} template). There is no question about the validity of the references, and the references are WP:SECONDARY to the subject of the biography, albeit not WP:SECONDARY to the information they convey. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Corrected Business Experience at Raytheon

• Specific text to be added or removed: From 2009 to 2018, Garcia worked as a business development manager at Raytheon Intelligence, Information and Services, one of four business segments of Raytheon.

This should say: From 2009 to 2019, Garcia worked as a Senior Program Director and VP of Business Development at Raytheon’s Space and Airborne Systems business unit.

• Reason for the change: He worked at Raytheon through 2019, and in a different role and unit than what is currently listed

• References supporting change:

https://www.electmikegarcia.com/who-is-mike-garcia-chapter-5-the-businessman/ https://signalscv.com/2019/04/saugus-resident-declares-congressional-bid/ 67.161.247.150 (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  The first reference is a primary source (please see WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF) and the second reference mentions After 25 years [...] and an executive at Raytheon,[...]. The AP (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Please keep the edits I have now made twice this evening

Why are you refusing to allow my edits that allow this politician's very concerning behavior to be shown publicly? Have a look here: https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/legal-complaints/crew-files-ethics-complaint-against-rep-mike-garcia/ Please -- there are only a few weeks left to the election, and this Wiki page presents a significantly and inappropriately distorted and whitewashed version of his biography. Erica Frank, MD, MPH, FACPM (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We need a better source than a press release from an advocacy group. Anyone can file a complaint. Did anything come of it? Is there coverage in reliable sources? Marquardtika (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- here, from Politico, July 10 2024: "One month after Garcia sold the stock, the committee, which was then led by Democrats, released a scathing report on Boeing. Garcia also failed to disclose the sale by the required 45-day deadline, filing the paperwork only after he eked out a 333-vote win in November 2020. Ethics groups filed complaints, but Garcia has not faced any disciplinary action." Erica Frank, MD, MPH, FACPM (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That article says Democrats are trying to make this a campaign issue, and that "Garcia has not faced any disciplinary action." Marquardtika (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)