Talk:Tony Garza

Issues with this article

Primary sources, unreferenced content, needs better secondary sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed primary sources such as law firm, press release; the SMU source can be kept for the present but the bigger overall problem with this article is that it needs more WP:SECONDARY sources to establish WP:NOTE -- that is, please explain why this subject is worthy of being in Wikipedia other than being a US ambassador and marrying a wealthy Mexican lady. That's the key -- references are needed, otherwise much of the rest of this article should be trimmed substantially, and possibly put up for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this article is improved by simply removing the sourcing, however. It's appropriate to use press releases or corporate sources for information within a wikipedia article. As WP: NOTE explains, secondary sources are used to establish the notability of the subject. This does not mean that every source in the article must be secondary in order for it to be considered properly sourced. I agree that the article is probably rather too long, especially all of that play-by-play of his career, but the subject was U.S. ambassador to Mexico for 7 years. He's not THAT notable, but he's certainly notable enough for an article.Flyte35 (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

More secondary sources will make this a stronger article, won't you agree? Right now, the article does not do justice to the subject; there is a quote from Bush, praising him, when appointing him for a post, but it was not in a national paper, but a local one. There are sources that he married a high profile lady. Unless we can find more secondary sources, that's the story -- former US ambassador, high profile marriage. Content about where he went to school, or his law background, or county posts -- let's keep that out because it begins to look like a resume of sorts. I bet there is more information from Spanish-language sources in Mexico which can be included.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course secondary sources are better, and you should feel free to add better sourcing, but there's no need to remove the existing sources if they're reliable. I think it would be fine to remove the content you don't find relevant or useful (and there's a lot of it here). That would improve the article. Flyte35 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

When almost all of an article is based on primary sources there is a risk of original research since essentially Wikipedians are saying X is important, Y is important, and not reporters or neutral peer-reviewed sources, and it can begin to look like an advertisement for a politician or resume perhaps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, there's no "risk" of original research here. Original research means the use of facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. That's not what's going on with this article. All of the sources don't have to be secondary to be valid. He's notable because he was ambassador to Mexico. That's not debatable. Where he worked and where he went to college and stuff are basic bio material. It's not original research if it's a press release or his official bio at his law firm. It's fine, as I said, for you to remove content you find objectionable, but you're removing basic biographical information now, which is not an improvement.Flyte35 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not understand fully about the concept of original research. It can take a while to learn, but what might help is if you take a look at the previous version of the article, before the trimming -- really look it over -- with fresh eyes, (really do this: most likely you'll skip this step because you think you're smart, because you think that I'm not smart, and because you think that you know more than others here, and perhaps you are unwilling to learn from others here, such as me -- so I repeat -- really do this step) and you would see the two referenced facts about the subject being a US ambassador to Mexico, and the high profile marriage, and the rest of the article was resume, unsourced claims about lesser positions, his education, and so forth, with "sources" pointing to the subject's own website, a law firm. What's the problem here? The original research is that all this pseudo uninteresting information is important enough to include in this encyclopedia. It is not. It is boring. The research was done by Wikipedians, not reporters; it originated with wikipedians, not reporters. This information can be found elsewhere such as the law firm website. Reporters did not dwell on this information or publish it because they knew it would cause readers to roll their eyeballs. Trust reporters to cue us in here about what's important. And we can all improve this encyclopedia here by simply following Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a policy that exists. This is basic bio information and the fact that the source is a press release from or an official bio from a law firm where the subject works does not make the information unreliable. If the information can be found elsewhere that's great. You should feel free to find better sources. But you're not improving the article by deleting all of the (admittedly not well sourced) information and turning it into a stub. Flyte35 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policy about original research is clear and says Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. What is not clear about that? The original research is that this subject deserves a whole page of text. (earlier comment removed) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please top with the personal attacks. That is not productive. Listen, I understand what you're trying to say, but it really just doesn't seem your edits are improving the article. Original research refers to sourcing and conclusions, not to what biographical information should be included in an article. Wikipedia policy about original research is clear and says "do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." That's not what's going on here. In the guidelines for biographies of living persons it says to "exercise caution in using primary sources," such as court transcripts or public documents. It does not say "all information not cited in a reliable secondary source should be promptly removed." The goal here is to make the article reliable and complete, not to gut it for its failure to provide the best sourcing possible.

I don't think this discussion we're having is really leading anywhere, however, so I'm going to stay away from this for awhile. I hope other editors will weigh in on this matter.Flyte35 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I will leave it alone as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added back some content and also expanded with additional. Information about his education and career are standard for a biography. I have restored what seems acceptable under WP:SELFPUB (we have no reason to doubt his alma mater or his marriage) and also restored notable career points sourced both in the sources that were originally included in the article and in others. In addition, I've found others - I'm rather surprised that the Order of the Aztec Eagle was not mentioned in the article, for instance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)