Talk:Beto O'Rourke/Archive 1

Untitled
Please leave the sentence "Both the Feuille and Sanders families are greatly affluent in El Paso" alone. It is of importance to the article, and should not be thrown out. If you feel it may be better placed in another section or article, feel free to move it. As well, it should be noted that there is a significant difference in the sentences "Despite the treat of being recalled O'Rourke continues to strongly advocate the use of eminent domain in conjunction with the plan." and "Despite the threat of being recalled O'Rourke continues to support downtown revitalization." Read the article on the downtown plan here.

I would also like to note that as far as I can tell, Beto's wife Amy attended the Willams college in Rhode Island. NOT MASSACHUSETTES. But then again, I could be wrong.

And yes, his father was tragically killed in a bicycle accident which prompted Beto to run for office. Somnabot 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Eminent Domain
O'Rourke has never stated that he is a proponent of eminent domain; he has also never been quoted as saying that. 5pts 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read through the transcripts from the El Paso City Council meeting held on Feb. 15, 2006 at the Plaza Theater. O'Rourke clearly argues in favor of allowing imminent domain to be implemented downtown specifically in the areas nearest to the Magoffin home, and in the Segundo Barrio. Outside of City Hall, the May 27th debate held at Ay Caramba! Restaurant between O'Rourke and Carmen Felix of the Southside Housing Development Corp. was specifically fueled by the proposed use of eminent domain. Although I must concede that he has never been quoted as saying "I am a proponent of eminent domain." verbatim, one may reasonably conclude that his actions have spoken louder than his words.


 * As a side note, please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Somnabot 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Bots For Political Gain
It is curious this page continues to be changed by new members of Wikipedia who lack any other edits. Furthermore, I note that the common "correction" to this article, is the changing of words specifically in the sentence:

"Despite the threat of being recalled O'Rourke continues to strongly advocate the use of eminent domain in conjunction with the plan to redevelop downtown El Paso."

User:5pts rewrote this sentence to read as follows: "Despite the threat of being recalled O'Rourke continues to strongly support downtown revitalization."

Likewise, User:Paseno rewrote this sentence to read as follows: "Despite the threat of being recalled O'Rourke continues to strongly advocate downtown revitalization and supported a motion at a July 10 City Council meeting to put a moratorium on using eminent domain for a year after the plan is adopted."

Although semi-correct in detail, the moritorium vote is brought up later in the article as it is chronologically ordered. The only reason to change this sentence is to specifically incline a pro-candidate bias by dodging any issue that presents a less-than correct action.

I'm getting tired of cleaning up politcal jargon left by people with an agenda. Somnabot 15:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bots for Political Slander
The writer of this page is obviously slanted against O'Rourke. The recall petition fails, but it is because poor people are scared. The ethics complaint is thrown out, but all the slanderous, unproven details are included. The writer is also sloppy. O'Rourke was born in 1972, not 73. His wife did indeed go to Williams in Massachusetts. And Cook did not "vote for O'Rourke" at Tuesday's council meeting. How could he as the presiding officer? I wish there were some way to correct the record, as it is entries like this one that cause people to hold as suspect the material they find on Wikipedia. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.242.5.141 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * I appreciate your help in improving the Beto O'rourke article. The "slanderous, unproven details" included are sourced, unlike what little you have added. If you consider the article to be sloppily written, please, by all means, register with Wikipedia, and begin to clean the article up. Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not the place to attack or promote politicians. Remember that retaliatory behavior is not considered to be acceptable within the Wikipedia community. Please stop. If you continue to act in an uncivil manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you for your understanding. Somnabot 19:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kern Place Kerchiefs (KPK)
If there is any reference to the KPK paragraph, please include the appropriate citations. This paragraph is entirely plausible, but associating a politician with a "juvenile street gang" is a bit 'faux pas'. For the time being, I have moved the paragraph to the Miscellaneous section of the article, and added the tag where appropriate citations may be needed. The KPK did exsist as did the "Black Widows." The sad thing is that the there doesn't seem to be any known membership records from either group. Somnabot 23:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP, "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." Such material is potentially libelous and could lead to a lawsuit against Wikipedia.  Do not put the material back in unless you have reliable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FreeKresge (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Why isn't there anything on the Iron dome vote?
According to the NewYorker Beto O rourke was one of four members of the USA congress to vote against a resolution to provide extra funding to Israel during the 2013 war for the Iron dome missile defense system. It looks like the issue made headlines when it happened and he was going to have some trouble with AIPAC in the next elections. But here I can't find anything about it.


 * Find a reliable source, and then add something about it. Ratemonth (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And AIPAC has never been a force in El Paso politics. Finding a reliable source that says this would affect him in the next election is unlikely. But please do add something about his vote on Iron Dome. Ratemonth (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Beto O'Rourke. 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 tag to http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_18308621
 * Added tag to http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_21941396/beto-orourke-has-large-early-lead-over-barbara
 * Added tag to http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_20687030/new-reyes-ad-attacks-orourkes-character
 * Added tag to http://www.elpasotimes.com/election/ci_5897513
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927225026/http://www.landgrabopponents.org/pdfs/CitizenComplaintForm.pdf to http://www.landgrabopponents.org/pdfs/CitizenComplaintForm.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_20736581/16th-congressional-district-race-beto-orourke-ousts-eight-term-u-s-rep-silvestre-reyes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Beto O'Rourke. 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/20160310001831/https://el-paso-county-elections.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/files/000/000/730/original/845_REPORT.pdf?1456890033 to https://el-paso-county-elections.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/files/000/000/730/original/845_REPORT.pdf?1456890033

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beto O'Rourke. 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/20110710184418/http://elpasoinc.com/readArticle.aspx?issueid=264&xrec=4774&usg=AFQjCNFSnn6Ttew7MNl3_cNlwpzfGp7Ntw to http://elpasoinc.com/readArticle.aspx?issueid=264&xrec=4774&usg=AFQjCNFSnn6Ttew7MNl3_cNlwpzfGp7Ntw
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://newspapertree.com/news/3300-o-rourke-in-national-headlights-over-12-words-in-drug-war-resolution

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Added reference
Hello, I noticed that one of the references about Mr. O'Rourke's parents was a dead link. I added a link to his father's obituary in the El Paso Times, which provides this information. Siegele (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN
What source verifies he returned to El Paso in 1998? My removal of the content was reverted. If it is to be re-added can an in-line reference be added to verify it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition. Would it be OK for me to format that reference or would that be me violating the discretionary arbitration which would cover this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Arrest
When I added the content I didn't see it was in the earlier section, as the 1998 time frame was within the 1995-2005 time frame chronologically in the biography. When I caught my error there was an edit conflict when it appears you reverted my addition of multiple reliable sources. Is it OK if you make the following changes to the early life section:

In 1998 O'Rourke was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Anthony, Texas. The charges were later dismissed in 1999 after he completed a court-recommended DWI program.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm against using a partisan source like the Washington Free Beacon. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Time, The Hill, are not "partisan source"s though. Also I had no idea what a DWI (DUI is the term more commonly used in California) was until I looked it up, therefore spelling it out and providing a wikilink would be helpful.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are not. It's already cited in there, so what's the need with the change? If DWI is not spelled out in the text, it absolutely should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * About usage of partisan sources. I see that Huffington Post is utilized as a source in the article; it can be reasonably believed that it too is partisan. Same can be said about BuzzFeed News, a news source which in 2014 was less trusted than both The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Glenn Beck Program. Therefore if partisan sources are a concern, then let us work together to find better sources for this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Arrests??
Why are arrests listed? Why not just convictions? Arrests without a convictions or judgement of any sort could also be 'police mistaken identity' Msjayhawk (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Because an "arrest" in the United States requires "Probable Cause" which means that there is at least some quorem of evidence that supports that someone committed a crime. The "mistaken identity" argument is used by virtually every criminal that faces arrest and trial for a crime. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post fact check of Beto's denial that he tried to flee the scene
In the recent debate between Cruz and O'Rourke, O'Rourke denied that he attempted to "flee the scene" from his DWI. The Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler wrote today that O'Rourke's denial was a false claim. The Washington Post is a reliable source. The fact that O'Rourke did not tell the truth during the debate is an incident that should be included in the article. It is significant. It is part of the current election campaign is a very recent incident that needs to included in the article. One editor keeps removing it with the argument that me and another editor are not acting in good faith, which of course doesn't respond to the fact that O'Rourke attempted to deny he attempted to run years ago. That denial was not years. The denial was just a few days ago and it should be included because it is significant--even the Washington Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler thought so.--CharlesShirley (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're already arguing in bad faith if you are presenting the conflict as one of simply adding whether the WaPo rated his comment in the debate as true or false, rather than what has explicitly been called out in edit summaries as undue weight given what was previously two simple and neutral sentences were now a stand-alone subsection and a full paragraph, replete with non-encyclopedic and obviously intentionally incendiary weasely details, e.g. small-town local newspaper-esque burdensome details of how the arresting officer described O'Rourke. Your non-neutral stance in this matter is further shown even in the, again, obviously intentionally incendiary section title you chose to make as the heading for this discussion. Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP for more on this matter. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your focus is not the content of the edits, but whether I am arguing in "good faith". That's missing the point of the discussion. O'Rourke lied during the lastest debate. He was called out for it by The Washington Post.  You deleted all of the additional information. That's is not a discussion it is railroading the other editors.  Beto commits a lie during the Cruz debate and he is fact checked by the Post. It is significant and should, in some form, be in the article.  You have not addressed that because I assume you don't have a good response to these facts.  The fact that Beto lied during the debate and then he was busted by the Post is significant and should be included in the article.--CharlesShirley (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit has been objected to. It should stay off the page until the discussion on the Talk page has ended. I've briefly looked for mention in other sources but haven't found anything so far. Also, IMO the Wikipedia text misquotes Kessler: who found that police reports from the incident corroborated the fact that O'Rourke had attempted to leave the scene. Kessler's article says: The police reports show not only that O’Rourke was highly intoxicated but that a witness to the crash said he tried to leave the scene.. I usually don't have a problem with Kessler's fact-checking but in this case I'm wondering why Kessler didn't notice that the police report does not mention any damage to the passenger side of O'Rourke's vehicle (scratches, paint transfer at a minimum), and that the driver of the truck O'Rourke's allegedly collided with doesn't seem to have noticed the collision. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post is a reliable source, probably one of the most reliable. As a Wikipedia editor, you can question Kessler's article but it does not change the fact that the Post is a reliable source.  That is a fact.  Also, JesseRafe and you do not get to decide that since you simply do not like what the reliable source--Glenn Kessler of the Post--you get to demand that the fact that O'Rourke did not tell the truth during the debate be removed from the article.  JesseRafe makes the false claim that this is old news.  That is simply not true.  It is new information because O'Rourke stood up in front of the Texas Senate Debate crowd and falsely stated that he did not try to run from the scene of his DWI.  As the Washington Post and Townhall and The Hill and Houston Chronicle and New York (magazine) and Texas Tribune and Dallas Morning News and FOX News and Time (magazine) and Texas Monthly have pointed out the police report that was filed at that time of Beto's DWI crash clearly indicates that Beto attempted to flee the scene but a bystander stopped him.  Now, Beto was asked about it during the debate, about a week ago, and he denied it.  The Washington Post, a reliable source, called him out and called his denial "FALSE".  This is new significant information that should be placed in the article.  Wikipedia is not whitewashed.CharlesShirley (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Was O'Rourke charged with trying to leave the scene of an accident? Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

So the current version is completely non-neutral as it dorsn’t even say that he crashed, just that he got a DUI. The sources say he crashed his car into another car. That is obviously relevant and different from just receiving a DUI. And we have a sentence on him apologizing. But nothing on the fact that he has falsely claimed not to have tried to leave the scene. We have other fact checks in this article. Why not this one? Reword my entry, I don’t care, but omitting it entirely is not neutral. Tucsontammy (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Was he charged with crashing into another car? As is well known witness accounts vary wildly sometimes with direct opposite accounts.  The witness said he crashed into another car.  The report does not mention any evidence of a crash.  The witness said he tried to leave.  When the officer arrived he was sitting in his car and did not resist arrest.   Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We stick to facts and sources.  Volunteer Marek  00:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Right we do stick to fact and reliable sources. The reliable source, The Washington Post says that he denied that he attempted to flee the scene during the Cruz debate and the reliable source says that his denial is false.  Those are the facts folks.  You can dislike the facts all you want. You can pick apart what you believe the police report says, but in Wikipedia it is clear that we follow what the reliable source says and that reliable source, the Wash Post, disagrees with your interpretation of the situation. So this is what we have here: we have a significant fact about Beto (he did not tell the truth during the debate) and that significant fact is being whitewashed out of the article.  Give a reason to leave out this fact: the Wash Post fact-checker called his claim false.CharlesShirley (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Gandydancer (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What you quoted above is absolutely true, except it is beside the point. Your quote does not, in any way, disprove the fact that Glenn Kessler, the fact-checker for The Washington Post, called Beto's denial of fleeing from the scene a false statement.  These are all facts. Kessler, a reliable source, called Beto to the carpet for a false statement.  Kessler works for a reliable source, the Wash Post.  Beto's comment at the recent debate with Cruz was called false.  Also, you, Gandydancer (and Marek and JesseRafe) can complain all you want about what conclusion Kessler came to but as Wikipedia editors (and not reliable sources) you cannot substitute your personal opinion about what the police report says for what Kessler says.  If I have to judge two sources against each other (which is what I'm doing as an editor) I look at Kessler and the Post on one hand and I look at your personal opinion and I know which one is given the ONLY weight on the manner of whether Beto told the truth of not during that debate the other night. And that weight is given to Kessler and the Post--not Wikipedia editors giving their personal opinions on what happened years ago.  The fact that Beto's claim at the debate was called false by the Fact-Checker at the Post (Glenn Kessler) is significant and should be in the article.  Also, not only did the fact-checker bust Beto on the falsehood The Washington Post has written a non-opinion article pointing out that Robert Francis O'Rourke engaged in a hit and run. See: John Wagner & Jenna Johnson. Beto O’Rourke DWI episode in 1998 included car crash and alleged attempt to flee, The Washington Post, August 31, 2018.  If it is left out then Wikipedia is being whitewashed.CharlesShirley (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have much of a problem with Kessler's fact-check, but I'm not sure what you're looking for. There isn't a section on that debate (and that's a good thing) that you could stick that in, and if we were to have a list for all the untrue or partly true things people have said in all their articles, we'll never get done. Now, there is mention of the accident, of course, and it might fit there--but that's a matter of discussion, and what needs to be discusses is if one mention by one fact-checker about one statement of his about something from decades ago is worth mentioning there. But what we are NOT going to have is a section called "Lies"--and I think, given what JesseRafe said above, that I should have a look at what you were actually trying to do. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're not going to do this. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, Robert Francis O'Rourke (RFO) not telling the truth in the debate is significant and should be included in the article. There is a reference to the Cruz/RFO debate in the article currently.  The debate reference outlines the closing question for each debator, which is not as informative for the reader as RFO's denial that he ran from the scene of his DWI. Also, this article does have quotes from fact checkers.  In the Political Views section (Immigration) the article glowing quotes Politfact to criticize Cruz's complaints about RFO's immigration and gun control POV.  Also, in the 2018 Senate campaign section (Funding) the article quote Politifact has rated his political donation claim as true.  Even though I only want to put in one fact checker quote there has been a decision to put in two fact checker quotes that support him. Apparently, the only fact checker quotes in this article are ones where RFO gets a glowing rating. I don't want to jam the article full of fact checker quotes, just one.  What needs to happen is that the RFO's denial of running from the scene of his DWI at the Cruz debate needs to be in the article. Based upon this discussion the most logical place is in the section 2018 Senate campaign (Debate).  That's where it fits and is appropriate. No need to expand the Early Life section. But once again his denial during the Cruz debate that the police report states that he attempted to run from his DWI and The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler called him out about his denial. A denial, by the way, that contradicts the Post's report which you can review here: Beto O’Rourke DWI episode in 1998 included car crash and alleged attempt to flee.  There are legitimate reliable source reporting that goes against what RFO said during the debate and this article's account of the debate focuses on the closing question.  He did not tell the truth and this article only focuses on the non-substantive closing question.  Leaving out RFO's denial of his hit and run during the Cruz debate would be whitewashing the article.CharlesShirley (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this content has to do with John Faso, but I don't see why it shouldn't be included here. There's a section in our article on the debate ( based on your comment above you may have missed it--Beto O'Rourke), and based on the preponderance of sources, arguably the most notable thing to come out of the debate were the PolitiFact/WaPo fact checks on Beto's DUI comments. This content is certainly more WP:DUE than the current content about the candidates' comments about each other's parenting, etc. PolitiFact is a WP:RS that is used all over the pages of politicians--for example here, and here, where you yourself (Dan Eisenberg), just added a boatload of PolitiFacts about Rick Scott (all finding things he said to be false, same as the Beto fact check). I don't really see a rationale for omitting a neutrally written and concise description of the DUI events other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT because...Beto-mania? Incidentally, if Beto were a Republican, I have a suspicion this nothing burger would have made its way into the article by now. Marquardtika (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support — CharlesShirley (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Are there any policy-based reasons for excluding this concise, neutrally written reflection of reliable sources? If people are concerned about WP:WEIGHT, it's odd to me that we'd include the following section on the debate without including the ensuing PolitiFact/fact checker coverage: "The first of three scheduled debates with O'Rourkes's Republican opponent Ted Cruz took place on September 21, 2018. The candidates disagreed sharply on every topic of discussion including gun rights, immigration, marijuana legalization, the 'take a knee' controversy, and other issues including the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. At the close of the debate asked to 'say something nice about each other,' O'Rourke praised Cruz's parenting. Cruz returned the compliment and went on to compare O'Rourke to Bernie Sanders saying he 'admired [his] willingness to stand up for socialist beliefs and high taxes even though he knew it must be unpopular,' to which O'Rourke replied 'True to form.'" If people are concerned with PolitiFact or the Washington Post fact checker being sufficiently reliable or noteworthy in the context of U.S. politicians, there are a lot of content removals that will need to be done across the 'pedia. Marquardtika (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert Francis O'Rourke's (RFO) attempt to flee and his denial of it in the debate has become part of the ongoing campaign discussions in the Texas U.S. Senate race. For example, Texas Monthly (a magazine from Austin that leans left) has brought up RFO's denial of his attempt to flee his DWI. See How Brett Kavanaugh Is Being Used Against Beto O’Rourke, Republicans are taunting the news media to treat O’Rourke’s DWI with the same vigor as the allegations against the U.S. Supreme Court nominee by R.G. Ratcliffe, October 3, 2018.CharlesShirley (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored Kessler's comments in the debate section. I added one sentence only.  Kessler's factcheck is significant and should be included. I trimmed down Kessler's conclusion to one sentence to avoid undue.  --CharlesShirley (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on October 5, 2018
In the polls and news coverage section, Ipsos VP Chris Jackson is incorrectly quoted. This is in quotation marks so it's us quoting him:

""...unusual since Republicans usually have the momentum advantage in Texas. It demonstrates how Democrats are mobilized. This election is going to be really competitive and its going to be very hard fought.""

The source has this:

"And that’s what’s interesting, he said, because Republicans usually have the momentum advantage in Texas.

"It demonstrates how Democrats are mobilized," said Jackson. "This election is going to be really competitive and its going be very hard fought.""

So there are differences.


 * 1) The phrase "unusual since" does not appear in the source.
 * 2) Everything after that until the word "Texas" is the Texas Tribune using its editorial voice to introduce what it's about to quote Jackson as saying. There are no quotation marks in the article around that sentence so Jackson didn't say it.
 * 3) The rest of the quote from Jackson as we have it doesn't contain the "said Jackson" break that the Tribune has. It's unlikely but it's possible they broke up the quote like that because he said something else in the middle and they chose not to quote him. That means we shouldn't join the two sentences together because Jackson might not have.

To be honest, Jackson's stuff doesn't add a whole lot to this article. The preceding sentence says

"Questioned regarding their likelihood of voting in the midterm elections, more Democrats than Republicans reported the likelihood that they would turn out."

The stuff from Jackson, including the Tribune's grammatically incorrect use of "its" rather than "it's," just restates this while adding nothing new. As long as the words "by the polling firm Ipsos" and a comma were added after "Questioned," we could just stop at the end of that sentence and drop the rest. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't see the need for an edit here. The meaning is essentially the same, regardless of how you attempt to slice it. To assume one said anything in the middle between two sets of quotes is just that- an assumption that needs reliable proof. The only difference I see is in terms of style and convention. the omission of "Jackson Said" effectually renders a tone more appropriate for an encyclopedia than for a newspaper. Also, the rules with respect to quoting sources in journalism prohibit intellectual dishonesty, so the odds are extremely against that being the case, if anything. I see the request for edit as being as politically motivated, therefore I would be inclined to deny it. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with 71.91.178.54 that there is no need for a edit here for the same reasons cited. USN007 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ The OP is right, we do not usually paraphrase quotations. See Quotations, which says "If not used verbatim, any alterations must be clearly marked".  I have tweaked the quote to remove the word "unusual" as that's not the word Jackson used, "interesting" means something different. Fish +Karate  09:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that 71.91.178.54 is USN007. Luckily there are others for Fish and karate to find consensus rather than just socks agreeing with themself. DMacks (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Page protection requested
To any admin reading this: Request page protection as an article relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You can request it at WP:RFPP. Admins can do it, they're not the only ones who can request it. I'm an admin, but I'm too WP:INVOLVED to do anything but request here. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just placed a request for full protection. Wasn't sure about the level. If the admin handling the request thinks it's too high, will they apply a lower level or just decline the request? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Dumb page is locked and can't make correction to the reference "[12]" regarding "160,000" doors knocked. It's 16,000; check the article. Danedition (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Endorsements
I have returned the Endorsements section which was removed without comment. I have worked on many articles of people with a political life and it is common to include endorsements. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018
Misspelling of a proper name: "Bash" is correct. This is how the name is presented in the footnoted article [72], which is naming well-known CNN commentator Dana Bash (pronouced Dan-a Bash):

CHANGE "O'Rourke agreed to attend the town hall meeting, moderated by Dana Bush, alone.[72]"

TO "O'Rourke agreed to attend the town hall meeting, moderated by Dana Bash, alone.[72]" Jaddorf (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! Kuru   (talk)  02:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Update or unlock
Does this still need locking? If so, which I doubt, please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.156 (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/aug/22/silvestre-reyes/beto-orourke-arrested-1990s-burglary-and-dwi/ No mention of his burglary arrest and dwi 50.207.118.210 (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC) https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/aug/22/silvestre-reyes/beto-orourke-arrested-1990s-burglary-and-dwi/No mention of his burglary arrest and dwi
 * Exists as the third paragraph of "Early life and education". Kuru   (talk)  19:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Denial of communion
The Catholic Church hasn`t yet denied him communion because of his strong support for abortion rights? I think this should be mentioned in the entry.193.136.242.246 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source to cite for this? Closeclouds (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beto_O%27Rourke
Why isn't the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_O%27Rourke and the title Robert O'Rourke? E.g. the actual name of the person. Is Ronnie_Ray_Gun a wikipedia entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.218.138 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For the same reason the page is at Ted Cruz and not "Rafael Cruz": WP:COMMONNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Progressive?
On the basis of Washington Post opinion piece, and the many WP:RS it cites, I am changing


 * Political analysts[who?] consistently classify O'Rourke as a progressive or liberal Democrat.

to


 * Political analysts classify O'Rourke as a progressive, liberal or centrist Democrat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-this-progressive-texan-cant-get-excited-about-beto-orourke/2018/12/05/641c7f0e-f8b9-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html Why this progressive Texan can’t get excited about Beto O’Rourke By Elizabeth Bruenig Washington Post December 5, 2018

As Zaid Jilani pointed out at Current Affairs, O’Rourke’s congressional voting record signals skepticism about progressive priorities. “While the Democratic base is coalescing around single-payer health care and free college, O’Rourke sponsored neither House bill,” Jilani wrote, “During his time in Congress, he never joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus.” Instead, O’Rourke is a member of the New Democrat Coalition, a centrist caucus with Clintonian views on health care, education and trade.

Where it comes to Medicare-for-all, O’Rourke has been carefully unclear about his stance: A Politico article from July notes that, at least for a time, he had sworn off using the terms “single payer” or “Medicare for all,” instead using the less-specific, policy-neutral phrase “universal, guaranteed, high-quality health care for all.” His campaign website remains unclear, stating that he aims for achieving universal health-care coverage “whether it be through a single payer system, a dual system, or otherwise.”

O’Rourke’s other progressive-ish policy positions tend to follow along these lines....

--Nbauman (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018
In the last sentence of the paragraph for Endorsements under the 2018 Senate Campaign section, the name "Khalid" links to the wiki page for the name itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid) when in fact the source is referring to the singer Khalid who, like O'Rourke, is from Texas, and indeed has their own wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_(singer). This link should be updated to point to that page. AFSeabrook (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for spotting that! Kuru   (talk)  15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018
CHANGE: A fourth-generation Irish American, his family always called him "Beto". TO: He is a fourth-generation Irish American whose family always called him "Beto". OR: "He is fourth-generation Irish American, and his family always called him "Beto". REASON: To correct dangling modifier, an amazingly common problem now that so much writing is being produced by illiterate millennials. 96.245.118.215 (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2018
Change "His father served in El Paso as County Commissioner and then County Judge.[a][11] He was a political associate of former Texas Governor Mark White,[12] and served as the state chairman of Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns.[13] A long-time Democrat, he switched parties in 1991 and ran an unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for U.S. Congress.[11]" to "His father, Pat Francis O'Rourke, served in El Paso as County Commissioner and then County Judge,[a][11] was a political associate of former Texas Governor Mark White,[12] and served as the state chairman of Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns.[13] A long-time Democrat, Pat O'Rourke switched parties in 1991 and ran an unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for U.S. Congress.[11]"

I am requesting this change of adding in specificity for Pat O'Rourke because I think that especially with, "A long-time Democrat, Pat O'Rourke switched parties in 1991 and ran an unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for U.S. Congress [11]", it can become confusing about who that sentence is referring to. First, the sentence is separate from the previous sentence where it specifically states "his father". Second, both Pat Francis O'Rourke and Beto O'Rourke were Democratic politicians so for someone unfamiliar, it could be confusing as to who is being referred to in this sentence. Third, because the topic sentence of this paragraph starts with "Robert Francis O'Rourke", so someone not reading the entire paragraph closely could miss that the sentence here is not referring to his father, not him. Fourth, because the reference list entry for [11] is even titled "Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas)", anyone who cannot tell that the sentence is referring to the father would be more confused/misled by the reference list title, so it makes sense to make this section more specific so they are not misled by the reference list or any other factors. Naggok (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pending-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Dolotta (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Campaign pledges & #2 recipient of oil/gas industry campaign cash in Congress
These facts should be on the page, not hidden from the public.

Beto's the #2 recipient of oil/gas industry campaign cash in the entire Congress (second only to Ted Cruz). https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2018&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U …

"O’Rourke broke a campaign promise. During his campaign, he signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, which required that candidates not take any donations exceeding $200 from fossil fuel PACs or individuals in the industry. The pledge was endorsed by 16 environmental groups... at a time when climate change is more threatening and immediate than ever... there were 24 oil executives who made donations to O’Rourke’s campaign, totaling $35,125. According to this data, Beto broke his pledge at least 25 times. Sophie Weiner in By Accepting Oil Money, Beto O'Rourke Broke a Promise to Environmentalists, Splinter (10 December 2018)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Om777om (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems highly misleading. He didn't receive money directly from oil or gas companies, or from any political action committees associated with them. He got individual contributions from people who work in the oil and gas industry. There are a lot of those individuals in the state of Texas. So, this is criticizing him from receiving individual donations from citizens of Texas, many of whom happen to work in the oil and gas industry. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The claim he took PAC money appears to also be misleading as per an AP fact check. You’ll save a lot of time by sticking to reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

DWI arrest
I don't see any good reason for repeating "DWI arrest" in a single paragraph. Once is enough.- MrX 🖋 02:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Once works for me. Repetition is boring -- among other things. O3000 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019
In section: Political career >> U.S. House of Representatives >> 2016 Reads: "Personally, he has given himself a term limit in the House, and he promised not to serve any more than 12 years in the Senate if elected.[67]" Should read: "He had given himself a term limit in the House, and promised to not to serve more than 12 years in the Senate if elected.[67]" as he has retired from the House and lost his bid for Senate. Rb121917 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Or just get rid of the whole bit about term limits, it seems like a thing a politician would say to get elected and is not a particularity interesting bit of trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rb121917 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Yeah, I adjusted it. O3000 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Support for single payer legislation
In the "Political views" section, under the "society" subsection, the claim is made that O'Rourke "supports single payer legislation." This appears to be false based on his own comments on the subject which are quoted in the article cited at the end of the sentence in question, where he specifically opposes removing private insurance companies from the health insurance market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeHerczeg (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

He announced for President on March 14, 2019.
His announcement for President was March 14 at 6am. NOT March 13th.

That's the official announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.128.24.145 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019
Please add O’Rourke’s arrest record in the personal information section article: Robert O’Rourke was arrested in 1995 for burglary in El Paso Texas. Robert O’Rourke was arrested in 1998 for a DWI.

This is because he’s running for public office and it is public information that should be known to everybody.

https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/aug/22/silvestre-reyes/beto-orourke-arrested-1990s-burglary-and-dwi/ Nballstar (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's already in the "Early life" section. And his WP:COMMONNAME is "Beto", not "Robert". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

His foreign policy record
The last sentence of O'Rourke's foreign policy section is a highly partisan jab at American foreign policy - it uses AlJazeera and RT (Russia Today) which are both state owned agencies as sources. " This of course ignores the United State's role in destabilizing those countries in the first place.[157][158] " is the quote in question, which is basically irrelevant to understanding what O'Rourke's policies and ideas on latin american countries are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turik99 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree. I've removed that sentence per WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019
I would like to edit the first sentence of the second paragraph under the "social issues" section of this page. It currently reads "On healthcare, O'Rourke supports single-payer legislation and universal health coverage, but disagreed with House and Senate proposals." This seems to be untrue. In fact, in the article cited following this sentence, O'rourke's stated reason for not supporting the legislation is that it would remove private health insurance providers from the health insurance market. In other words, he opposed the legislation *because* it would implement a single payer system. Moreoever, his recent comments, for example in this New York Times article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/us/politics/beto-bernie-sanders-age.html suggest that he would prefer some other route to universal coverage. As quoted in the above article, O'Rourke states:

“I think that’s one of the ways to ensure that we get to guaranteed, high-quality health care for every single American,” he said of “Medicare for all” in Washington, Iowa. “I’m no longer sure that that’s the fastest way to get there.”

Therefore, I would propose to change this sentence from:

"On healthcare, O'Rourke supports single-payer legislation and universal health coverage, but disagreed with House and Senate proposals."

to

"On healthcare, O'Rourke supports universal health coverage. While he has expressed support for the idea of a single-payer system in the past, he has recently spoken out against House and Senate proposals to implement a single-payer healthcare system, and has expressed misgivings that "medicare for all" is the best approach to achieve universal coverage." Herczeg (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Made some additions myself as well. --MrClog (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 27 March 2019
Please remove "Category:Catholics from Texas" per WP:EGRS. This is unsourced and not in the article. Thank you!!! 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EGRS, living subjects may be classified by religion if they have self-identified accordingly. Per this article in the Houston Chronicle, O'Rourke identifies as Catholic. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CATV, there must be a WP:RS and supporting text within the article in order to retain the category. Please add the text and citation. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I am not so sure that is a very strong self-identification. He says he was 'raised Catholic' which is a lot of people, but he doesn't seem to be professing a current practice or belief. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He also refers to it as "my religion" in the present tense, which seems strong enough to meet the requirement. I've added the quote (it is in the immigration section, where it seemed to fit best, given that the quote was regarding a march he helped lead). If a consensus develops that it isn't strong enough, another editor can modify it. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Did not remove category, but did add supporting text per talk. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good, thank you! 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The last name O'Rourke
Did all of his ancestors have the surname O'Rourke? Even though it's sourced from his own words that he's part Welsh, this keeps getting deleted. His actual Irish fraction is about 12.5%. There are other stuff in there than Welsh, but Welsh is a good start. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

2nd semi-protected edit request, 27 March 2019
Under the heading "Social issues", a direct quote from O'Rourke in Wikipedia's voice mentions "", which is a non-neutral political slogan. Please reword this sentence to 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - The wording is a direct quote, so I enclosed it in quotation marks. It is referenced to a source that may not be reliable, so it could be replaced with something from a better source.- MrX 🖋 11:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019
Add to the end of the section on "immigration " under "Po;litica; Views": In an interview with Chris Hayes from NBC News in Feb, 2019, O-Rourke indicated he would tear down the wall between El Paso and the southern US border, since, he i feels that fencing has forced migrants to the most inhospitable areas of the southern border, "ensuring their suffering and death.”

Anzodep66 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Anzodep66 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC) Anzodep66 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Added, after some grammar and other small fixes. MrClog (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Arrest Record
According to public records, Mr. O'Rourke admits to his arrest under Texas Penal Code 30.02. According to the actual text of the penal code, this would be a state Felony, not a misdemeanor. I corrected the page to reflect this fact. Here is the full text of the penal code Sec. 30.02:

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:

(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault;  or

(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation;  or

(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.

(b) For purposes of this section, "enter" means to intrude:

(1) any part of the body;  or

(2) any physical object connected with the body.

(c) Except as provided in Subsection (c-1) or (d), an offense under this section is a:

(1) state jail felony if committed in a building other than a habitation; or

(2) felony of the second degree if committed in a habitation.

(c-1) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if:

(1) the premises are a commercial building in which a controlled substance is generally stored, including a pharmacy, clinic, hospital, nursing facility, or warehouse; and

(2) the person entered or remained concealed in that building with intent to commit a theft of a controlled substance.

(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if:

(1) the premises are a habitation;  and

(2) any party to the offense entered the habitation with intent to commit a felony other than felony theft or committed or attempted to commit a felony other than felony theft.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 8, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 727, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

Amended by:

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 338 (H.B. 1178), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2017.

Link to the statute: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.30.htm

Thetruthspeaker09 (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Your personal research about Texas law is not important. That's not how we cite information on Wikipedia. Do you have a source saying O'Rourke was charged with a felony? No, you don't. Closeclouds (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Closeclouds I disagree. I find that it is extremely important and significant to society, if it shows that the individal "could" have been charged with a felony but skated because of some sort of political, racial, or other privilege. Your position is like stating that Rosa Park's arrest isn't important to American History. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't show anything. You didn't have a real source, so it was just your opinion, which is incredibly unimportant. Closeclouds (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I refactored the above comment to make it a bare URL rather than a ref. As Closeclouds said, you need an actual reference that he was charged with a felony, just using primary sources to draw conclusions is WP:SYNTHESIS. One of the reasons you'd read about on that link is that by relying on synthesis of primary source documents rather than published secondary and tertiary sources, different conclusions can be drawn. As my understanding of the facts are he hopped a fence, I don't see any cause to think he committed a felony by the above statute as it doesn't strike me as he was "'in'' a building". You see why we need probative sources and not armchair speculation? JesseRafe (c) 12:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

JesseRafe WP:SYNTHESIS dosen't apply here. The reason why is because citing a reference body (which is what a Penal Code would be) to support a widely known fact that has no reasonable contention to the contrary in the respected community (the fact that Burglary is a felony and the legal community has been long standing in treating it as such) It finds that it is not original research to state obvious facts and the incontestable Public Record. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what WP:SYNTHESIS is. "Everybody knows" is not a source. If you have a reputable source to show that O'Rourke was charged with a felony, cite it. If you don't have one, you don't get to blend sources to arrive at a conclusion. HowlingMadHess (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An arrest does not make a person guilty of anything, and police officers are not judges (and the cited Politifact source specifically and repeatedly refers to both cases as misdemeanors, and the cited WaPo article doesn't use either the word misdemeanor or the word felony). He was apparently never found guilty of anything in the fence-jumping case – not a felony and not a misdemeanor. It doesn't really matter which law the police officers cited for his arrest, and police officers are not experts on interpretation of the law. They do not have the authority to make a determination on whether someone is guilty of breaking any particular law; they only have an obligation to act within the scope of their knowledge and authority, which is limited. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hypocorism "Beto" in the lede
Howdy all! Concerning the use of the hypocorism "Beto" in the lede, the Manual_of_Style/Lead_section states:

Since "Beto" is a hypocorism (a diminuitive) for Robert/Roberto, I believe the example of Botticelli above (bullet 2.2) should be followed. It's not a common English hypocorism (bullet 2.1) but it is also not a nickname that is "other than a hypocorism" (bullet 3). Of course, if people want to discuss and vote on which formulation is best, I say discuss and vote.

Option 1, which follows bullet 2.2 above:


 * Robert Francis O'Rourke, known as Beto O'Rourke, (born September 26, 1972) is...

Option 2, which follows bullet 3 above:


 * Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke (born September 26, 1972) is...

Or, of course, some other option I haven't put here.

What do you folks think? TuckerResearch (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Or, here is option 3, which still follows bullet 2.2 above, recently done by another editor:


 * Robert Francis O'Rourke (born September 26, 1972), known as Beto O'Rourke, is...


 * Which, I think, is better. TuckerResearch (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling "Beto" a "hypocorism" for Robert is a stretch when this isn't used all that often for that name, especially compared to Bob, Bobby, Rob, or Robby. I fully support option 2 as a result. Stating one's last name in opening sentence is also very needlessly repetitive for no good reason. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I sort of agree, it's not an English-language diminutive, but it is a Spanish-language/Spanglish one. So I also sort of disagree.  Here in Texas, I know lots of Anglos with Spanish nicknames, like calling a Michael "Miguel," and Spanish diminutive hypocorisms, like calling a Frank "Pancho."  Which is why I think the Botticelli example above fits best.  It doesn't bother me any to have "O'Rourke" mentioned twice.  But I get your trepidation.


 * Anybody else want to comment? TuckerResearch (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If one were to count this as a diminutive, then it actually would be more comparable to the Tom Hopper example listed above. The Botticelli sample is more for people who take on names (other than nicknames) not officially part of one's identity (i.e. Mark Twain for Samuel Langhorne Clemens, Stormy Daniels for Stephanie Clifford, Triple H for Paul Michael Levesque). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, I sort of agree and sort of don't. "Sandro" is a diminutive of "Alessandro" in Botticelli's case.  The true way this should be formatted is probably like Ted Cruz's page.  His name is Rafael Edward Cruz, but "Ted" appears nowhere in the lede.  Many people are confused when you tell them "Ted" is a hypocorism/diminutive for Edward.  Based on the Cruz example, the lede should probably not even mention "Beto."  So weird.  I wish more people would give their input.  But, it is such a little thing. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I quit. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Addition to first section
Can we add that he is an American businessman ‘of Irish descent’ to the first section? There seems to be a lot of confusion about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Los026 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What confusion is there? He's of about 12.5% Irish ancestry, with the rest mostly being English, German, Scottish, and Welsh. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, to self-correct, it's 18.75%. In any case.... All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"The only black Republican in the House of Representatives"
In the sentence "Allegheny College bestowed the 2018 Prize for Civility in Public Life to O'Rourke together with Will Hurd, a Texas Republican and the only black Republican in the House of Representatives", I removed the italicized bit about the only black Republican, since I couldn't (and still can't) see what it has to do with O'Rourke. The user who had added the phrase originally, without an edit summary, promptly reverted me, still without an edit summary. I have mentioned this post on their page, so perhaps they'll weigh in here. It's not a big deal, but it's nice to know the reasons for these things. Might there be a relevance that's hidden to me? Bishonen &#124; talk 22:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Could have waited 10 seconds if you wanted me to address this. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I just took it out. It wasn't relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Brain-drain – really?
The article currently says "O'Rourke wanted to address 'brain-drain', or the exodus of youth caused by lack of opportunity, so in 2000 he co-founded Stanton Street Technology Group, an Internet services and software company." The claimed reason for founding the company sounds to me like politically promotional POV phrasing. Ultimately we do not know the internal state of mind of people; we only know what they say and what they do. This is about a profit-making company, not a charity, and the reason that most people found companies is to make money, not to address social ills. Can we please just delete that or at least present it as something he and his campaign have claimed rather than as an unquestioned fact? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. It sounds as if the writer is claiming to be in O'Rourke's head (and to find campaign material there). I've removed the flattering motive and kept the fact. If anybody would like to restore the brain-drain thing in a neutral way, feel free. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC).
 * Read the sources. "Brain drain" was a major issue in El Paso and a phrase commonly used there. He said that was the reason he started the magazine. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he said. You have restored the brain-drain text, "O'Rourke wanted to address "brain-drain", or the exodus of youth caused by lack of opportunity", thereby restoring the implication that Wikipedia is in O'Rourke's head. We should avoid that. What makes you think I and/or BarrelProof haven't read the sources? Bishonen &#124; talk 10:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC).

Narrowly lost
There's been a bit of slow motion edit-warring over the use of the word narrowly describing the loss to Cruz. Not having an opinion, I looked at sources and found rather a lot using the term and therefore restored it.  O3000 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Its best to leave out disputed subjective descriptors of the margin and post the undisputed numerical margin. Users may form their own opinions whether it is large, medium, small, solid, impressive, surprising etc. -Jeff  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.228.187 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, we use reliable sources, not your opinions. I listed eight. Please read WP:BRD and self-revert your edit. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you I removed my opinion that 2.6% margin is "solid" and yours that it is "narrow". There is no longer opinion in the statement of election result -- just the raw numbers. --Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.228.187 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't make decisions like what is narrow. We use reliable sources. They have repeatedly used the term narrow. The reason they use the term is that the relative closeness in this particular race was highly surprising. That's why it has received so much coverage. It is clearly WP:DUE as well as sourced by a large number of WP:RS O3000 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources is one of many criteria. If the statement can be written more precisely (the numerical margin) while omitting vague subjective qualifiers (narrow) then it should be. IMO election margin doesn't belong in the intro paragraph at all. A subsection handles specifics of the election and quantifies the margin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.228.187 (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Our opinions don't matter. I placed a welcome message with links on your talk page. Please learn to sign your edits and to indent threads. Also, study up on Wikipedia principles and guidelines. We use reliable sources, not our own opinions. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Precision matters. The exact value is known to be 2.6% from reliable sources. Please explain your rationale for writing a subjective term like "narrow" rather than the exact and "reliable source" value of 2.6%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.228.187 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What matters here are our principles and guidelines hammered out by tens of thousands of editors over a decade plus, which you continue to ignore in favor of your own personal ideas. I explained my rationale over and over. It is what reliable sources state, and we follow reliable sources whether you like them or not. Your editing is becoming disruptive. WP is built upon consensus. And, please learn to sign your edits and to indent threads. Your lack of signing is causing edit conflicts. O3000 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Every source on Earth agrees the election margin was 2.6%. If you have reliable sources with different results then we can revise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.228.187 (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave you eight sources for how RS describe this. How many would you like? Are you actually going to force me to start an RfC over one word? O3000 (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that "narrowly" is the preferred wording of for the lead. It is supported by numerous sources. The detailed percentage, especially with descriptors like "solid", are not appropriate for the lead.- MrX 🖋 03:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a preponderance of RS that state the margin was 2.6%. The article should state the margin with precise non-objective language or not state it in the lead. This avoids the appearance of political motivation to call the race closer than it was by omitting the actual number. Thanks Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.228.187 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How do we get moderators involved to intervene on the edit warring? The disputed language is "lost" vs "narrowly lost" vs "lost by 2.6%". All have preponderance of RS except that "narrowly" is subjective while the others are precise, factual and indisputable.
 * Of the four editors who have edited this material, you are the only one who thinks we should include the percentage in the lead. You have simply not made a compelling argument. "Narrowly" is a descriptive word, which make the article interesting and readable.


 * Also, please indent your comments (see WP:INDENT) and sign your posts by typing four tildes ~ at the end.- MrX 🖋 01:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

If we leave it saying "lost by 2.6" eventually it's going to get deleted by someone arguing it's trivia. The word "narrowly" is objective, and isn't going to look like trivia to as many editors. Closeclouds (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that including the senate election margin in the lede is trivial. There's a section within the article to permanently record that detail in the record. But if the community insists on describing the senate election margin in the lede then it should be in brief and precise terms. Subjective descriptions do not belong in politically sensitive articles. Thanks for considering. --Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.228.187 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I also believe that narrowly should be removed. It is by definition a subjective word and no matter how many sources use it doesn't change it to become objective. Sources often use subjective words like "Stunning victory", "Dramatic upset", etc. doesn't mean they should be included in a wikipedia article. Also I checked other 2018 candidates pages with similar or even closer margins such as Andrew Gillum, Stacy Abrams, Martha McSally, Patrick Morrisey, etc. and none of them use subjective language in describing the race. Kidboogaloo (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of editorial discretion. The definition of narrowly is not "a word that is subjective". It is an adverb that is commonly understood among speakers of English.- MrX 🖋 23:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the definition of subjective. If you don't believe this is true, please tell me the "observation or reasoning" that would lead one to using the word Kidboogaloo (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in debating the meaning of "subjective". Multiple reliable sources use the word "narrowly" and I'm not aware that any reliable sources have expressed a contrary view, which means that our use of the word is appropriate. I can't help but notice that there are dozens of other adverbs used in the article, yet no one has tried to remove those as "subjective" or "imprecise". - MrX 🖋 11:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What are the adverbs you're referring to? I've skimmed the article and can't find them. Also, there are many reliable sources that do not use the word "narrowly", would you like me to link them? Kidboogaloo (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

- MrX 🖋 21:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:PUFFERY like "Stunning victory" or "Dramatic upset". It is simply a comparative. And, I don’t see anything in the definition that states it is always subjective. In this case, it is the objective view of WP:reliable sources. Presumably, the word is used in this election because a little known Democrat in a red state came within “striking distance” of beating  the sitting Senator for Texas who was also  the runner-up for the Republican nomination for President in 2016. The Guardian called it a “phenomenal achievement”. You may disagree with the use of the word here; but that’s the word predominantly used by reliable sources. And we use reliable sources. It also adds context to that election without using puffery like phenomenal achievement. O3000 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The definition of subjective is "not upon observation or reasoning" and the definition of narrowly is "By a narrow margin; closely". Therefore, unless there is an observable number (i.e 3%) where the margin goes from narrow to not narrow then it is subjective. I also disagree about it not being puffery, I think it's introducing bias in favor of the subject where it is not necessary. Kidboogaloo (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We cannot use words like this based on our own opinions. We certainly can use them when used by reliable sources. The Hillary Clinton article uses narrowly three times. WP even says Adams narrowly defeated Jefferson in 1796. There is no policy or guideline telling us to avoid adverbs. O3000 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There might be no rule to explicitly avoid it but the question becomes why add it? I (and I'm sure the others who were making this edit) believe it only adds a pro-Beto bias to the lead of the article Kidboogaloo (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because reliable sources have added it, and it adds to the understanding of why people are still talking about the subject of this article. It's a very mild word for such a surprising result. The only bias I see is your insistence that a well-sourced word be removed. O3000 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You think it is surprising the result was so close and think the word "narrowly" mildly explains this. That's your bias which is being incorporated into the article. I think that it's surprisingly large considering it was the most expensive senate campaign ever, but I wouldn't want to put that in the article because I acknowledge it's a bias. I'm done going back and forth about this but hopefully someone higher up on the totem pole can see this and correct it Kidboogaloo (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's what reliable sources think. And we don't have totem poles here. We have consensus. O3000 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Good to see opinion removed and Beto's senate election result described in precise factual language that cannot be disputed. --Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.228.187 (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019
Change "narrowly defeated by Ted Cruz" to "defeated by Ted Cruz". Narrowly is too ambiguous and seems tilted. 24.28.110.31 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Yes Done. Political opinion from news media does not make fact, consensus or not. Numerical results of the election are factual and undisputed and do not need consensus of opinion added. --Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.228.187 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is well covered by reliable sources and has been discussed at length. You would need change change the current consensus. O3000 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox picture
Thought I'd raise this here before even thinking about editing the page.

It seems to me that the infobox picture of O'Rourke is due a change. The current pic is 7 years old and needless to say he looks a bit different. Even this pic below might seem suitable but welcome other suggestions. Thoughts? 88.215.17.228 (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)




 * I think this makes sense, and the picture you have chosen isn't a bad one. I would prefer a better, more head on photo if one existed, but if this is all we have with the correct rights we need, I think a picture like this better reflects what a reader will want to know about how the candidate looks (e.g., that he looks older than this in real life). So I am for the change, but if a better image comes along that is both current and more head on we should consider making the switch to that one. 2600:8801:C000:4C3:5DA8:842E:51A3:5A57 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll be changing the article to a similar picture to reflect O'Rourke's current appearance. Display name 99 (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Not fluent in Spanish
The text "is fluent in Spanish" (under heading Education) should be changed to "has a basic working knowlege of the Spanish language" because it's obvious from interviews such as the following that he is not fluent: https://youtube.com/gbSNkwZViMg

Mmhugofan (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable secondary source not your own evaluation which would be original research. O3000 (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Fine and dandy, but every native speaker will tell you he's nowhere close to being fluent. Whoever wrote that NY Times article has no idea what they're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.243.21 (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is he described as "fluent" in Spanish?
Citation for fluency does not even mention "fluency." Its title even argues that he "Tries to Trick Hispanics Into Thinking He's One of Them"

Navarrette, Ruben (2019-02-22). "Beto Tries to Trick Hispanics Into Thinking He's One of Them". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 7 March 2019. Paulasiri2 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're right, that's a terrible source to include in a BLP. I've removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree it is misleading to say he is "fluent" - he definitely has advanced proficiency but still makes a lot of errors when he talks, for example in a news video filmed in 2018 where he speaks competently on complex political issues but makes some basic mistakes in masculine/feminine agreement and conjugation of verbs (like the verb "depender"). This video pretty clearly demonstrates his proficiency level is advanced but would not be considered native speaker level. Even though he is described as "fluent" by some news sources, the current sources listed for that fact are a facebook livestream video from his wife which does provide information about how he learned Spanish but not any evidence of him speaking, and an article that simply states in passing that he is fluent in Spanish but does not provide evidence or background information. Sarahwarmker (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Your interpretation of Beto's ability to speak Spanish is original research. The article contains a citation from a New York Times article saying that he is fluent in Spanish. We use what the reliable sources say. If you can find other reliable sources that say that he isn't fluent, we can take that under consideration. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification on original research. The LA Times just published an article called O’Rourke busts into Spanish at debate, then Booker and Castro también that does detail the same types of errors I was describing, that would support characterizing him as less than fluent. ---Sarahwarmker (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , that article does say that he made a few mistakes in his Spanish during the debate. However, it doesn't say that he isn't fluent. After all, maybe those mistakes could be chalked up to the anxiety he was experiencing during the debate. Of course, that would be original research too. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A couple things: any native speaker of Spanish will tell you that his command of the language is not advanced, it's basic and not fluent. Now, if we find some Spanish-language publications which say this, will that be sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.243.21 (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019
Please change As of March 2017, O'Rourke's wife, Amy, operates the business. to O'Rourke's wife, Amy, operated the business until June 2017. because neither Amy nor Beto own Stanton Street as of June 2017. 66.208.115.166 (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 13:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019
His name is Robert Francis, listing his name as Beto in the heading is misleading and plays into the fact that he is appropriating Latino/Mexican culture 2601:58B:200:54E7:44B4:E7B1:1C6A:20B5 (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: What? Saucy[talk – contribs] 02:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please refer to him by his given name, Robert. His name is not Roberto, the 'Beto' is family misnomer, since he isn't Hispanic, he's White Irish and has no Hispanic blood, and it is obvious he is trying to get the Hispanic vote by misappropriating their nicknames. RB turned me off of him just for that - if his is disingenuous with his name, and by extension his genetic history, what else is he going to be less than truthful about? Regardless I believe the name used for him should be his given name, and not a family nickname, as some one pointed out above, it is in wikis own rules to use the formal name, and to point out other names called but not refer to the subject throughout the article by nicknames. Please correct this, or if no one wants to I can do so myself. 2001:569:BC37:1E00:5990:C5F3:9C50:ABD1 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as soon as you correct "Ted Cruz" to "Rafael Edward Cruz". "Beto" is this politician's WP:COMMONNAME, much as "Ted" is for the guy he lost to in last year's senate election. That's the rule we follow. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ending his campaign for the Presidency
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50268843 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.98.203 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Fleeing
The following material has been repeatedly inserted into the article: The police report indicates that when police arrived O'Rourke attempted to flee from the scene.

This material should not be included based on coverage in a single questionable source and the fact that it appear to be cherry picked from the source. , since you keep inserting this material after having been reverted multiple times, please explain how this material meets WP:DUEWEIGHT and wait for consensus to form before inserting it again. - MrX 🖋 01:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In the edit summary you commented that the Texas Tribune is a "questionable" source. That is absolutely false.  The TX Trib covers Texas politics exclusively and they partner with the New York Times on an ongoing basis.  The Times reprints tons of their articles.  The Times is a very good reliable source and the Texas Tribune is a very good reliable source.  You need to provide evidence to support your personal opinion that the Texas Tribune is a "questionable" source.  You have not provided any so far.CharlesShirley (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was mistaken about the reliability of Texas Tribune. Would you care to address my concerns about WP:DUEWEIGHT and consensus?
 * I'm a little confused why we don't add the fact that he attempted to leave the scene to the article. When I was reading about him in 2018 I remember reading the police report, cited in the Texas Tribune, where the police officer describes his attempt to flee the scene. This is even shown in the article using an image of the original police report. Why is it that this hasn't been added to Wikipedia? Is it because a single police officer's report cannot be seen as a reliable source? Or is it that primary sources cannot be cited? I'm a little confused why this isn't in the article, but maybe I just don't understand how Wikipedia works? Can somebody help me out here by either adding it or telling me why it can't be added. Is the problem with WP:DUEWEIGHT that the police report is seen as a biased source? Honestly asking these question in good faith as a new Wikipedia editor, I would truly love a little insight here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C000:4C3:5DA8:842E:51A3:5A57 (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe they're not including it because this is a biased article edited by biased people. I am not into politics, and don't care about them, this guy turned me off because he lies about his name and by extension, his heritage in a attempt to get the hispanic vote. Disgusting. Don't expect any non bias here, they can't even get his name right, why would truth about anything else matter? You could have a stack of reputable sources and they would still find a way to neglect entering the data, it's wiki, it's like that here. You want actual facts you are a long way from home - find the data and look at it directly, wiki isn't considered a reference for many reasons, this is a perfect example of one of them. 2001:569:BC37:1E00:5990:C5F3:9C50:ABD1 (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have just re-instituted (under the subhead "Legal issues") material that was deleted in the last 24 hours without any explanation. As part of replacing the inexplicably deleted text, I also double-checked the original sources and their dates, correcting them wherever any errors had inadvertently crept in. The sources cited here are The Houston Chronicle and The Washington Post, which I believe are considered reliable sources, by most folks at any rate. As a way of verifying what is written within the text of the article, I have also included, in the footnotes, precise quotations from the HouChron and WaPo pieces. I am hopeful this may resolve the question and discourage further edit-warring by other parties. NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made new and carefully sourced edits to the section titled "Legal Questions," and once again these edits have been reverted wholesale. I posted a detailed explanatory note to another editor, in addition to the remarks I have already posted on this page. I specifically asked that further changes be discussed on this "Talk" Page. Instead, my edits were simply reverted. I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia process, but I would like to request some kind of arbitration on this topic, since the other poster appears to be interested only in reverting edits instead of making collaborative changes.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Teenaged writings
I have just reinstated/added the following paragraph to the subsection on "childhood and teenaged years":


 * Pieces O'Rourke authored during this period included sexual themes and random violence. One piece O'Rourke authored during this period referred to "scene sluts" who form relationships with members of bands. Another was written from the viewpoint of a narrator who responds to feelings of aimlessness and boredom by hitting children with a car and killing a total of 38 people. During his political campaigns, the adult O'Rourke has expressed regret over his writings as a teenager.

Some of this material had been reverted by Volunteer Marek on the grounds that it violates WP:UNDUE. I respectfully disagree. First, there is already material in the article about O'Rourke having written "numerous poems and other texts for Cult of the Dead Cow under the pseudonym 'Psychedelic Warlord...'" This information appears as part of a full paragraph on O'Rourke's youthful involvement with Cult of the Dead Cow. If that information is WP:DUE, I don't see how information about the substance of O'Rourke's writings can be WP:UNDUE. Second, the information I included is amply sourced, and became such an issue during O'Rourke's 2019 presidential campaign that he apologized publicly for his teenaged writings. Third, the fact that O'Rourke was a teenager when he engaged in these activities does not make them too insignificant to be included in the article (see Kavanaugh, Brett). SunCrow (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, these contributors are showing their hands by deleting "Beto" and insisting he be called "Robert Francis" This article is suppose to be non-partisan and not for political attacks. The teenage writing are mentioned. Going into needless detail isn't required and Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blassy Ford is not relevant. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cladeal832, I have no idea who "these editors" are, but I have not deleted "Beto" and insisted that he be called "Robert Francis" instead. So if you were referring to me, that's a false accusation and you should retract it. Also, you claim in your reverts that there is already consensus on the issue of the teenaged writings; however, I don't see any discussion of this issue (let alone a consensus) on the talk page. Kindly stop making reverts based on a nonexistent consensus. Also, please be mindful of WP:3RR. SunCrow (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As you might guess, politicians get a lot of partisans who are mad when something is included or not included so it gets wearing. It's been talked about already. Nobody is deleting this although you actually made a case why it's irrelevant and I think a woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when she was 15 is not the same as fictional writings on a private message board, but that's a digression. My issue is being succinct and the quotes dialogue. I think just referring the language as offensive might be enough, but I can agree to the more descriptive language currently used similar to using racial slurs in an article rather than the actual offensive language. Cladeal832 (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Cladeal832, I continue to disagree with several of your points. However, with the tweaks I just made, I can live with the current version of this paragraph (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beto_O%27Rourke&diff=929263182&oldid=929262373). Is it acceptable to you? SunCrow (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

But that's kind of the point - we can mention his 15 yo self writings but we don't need excessive detail.  Volunteer Marek  16:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that the article mentions O'Rourke's involvement in the Cult of the Dead Cow and his efforts to include female members in the group, it is appropriate to also mention the nature of his writings for the group. Otherwise, the reader is left with some information about his cDc involvement, but is left in the dark about a key fact about his involvement that he felt compelled to address publicly during his presidential campaign. We need a balanced article. SunCrow (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Felt compelled"? He was asked and answered a question after the report came out. "Balanced" doesn't mean false balance. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Opening description
Why does it say “narrowly lost” and not just lost? IEditThingsForYou (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because that's what reliable sources say. They say this because it's highly unusual for that close a race for that particular office. O3000 (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Beto Nickname
I suggest that someone change the article title from Beto to Robert since that's his real name, you don't make an article on someone then put their nickname as their real name. This is like when Stallone went by Sly instead of Sylvester, if you made an article on him you wouldn't title it Sly Stallone, You'd title it Sylvester Stallone. You get the idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.253.228 (talk) 19:43, July 19, 2020 (UTC)
 * We won't do that, because "Beto" is his WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody calls him "Robert", unless it's a political attack made against him. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image
Should we use a recent photo of O'Rourke for the infobox? The photo is outdated and should be replaced with a recent like similar to how Bernie Sanders' infobox is? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Beto's Spanish
In the article it is stated that Beto is profficient in Spanish. Im sure i am not the only one here, but as an L1 Spanish speaker, it is very clear that he only has a basic understanding of the language, if any. Affirming Beto is profficient in Spanish is only a use of our beautiful language as a political tool to seem more relatable to Latinos in the US. Russian-Italian (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Modification of sentence about governor run in lede.
My edit to the sentence about Beto running for governor in the lede was reverted,. Mentioning Matthew McConaughey in the lede is WP:UNDUE. This is not an article about the election and unnecessary information like that should not appear in the lede of Beto O'Rourke. While my edit did remove reference to Greg Abbott, I would be willing to compromise on allowing it to be included; I just saw it as a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue to so firmly say Abbott is the challenger. I think the best rephrasing of O'Rourke is considering a run for Texas Governor in 2022, but has not firmly announced his challenge to incumbent Governor Greg Abbott, who may also face a challenge by actor Matthew McConaughey would be to modified to

(a) O'Rourke has said that he is "very seriously" considering running in the 2022 Texas gubernatorial election.

(b) O'Rourke has said that he is "very seriously" considering running in the 2022 Texas gubernatorial election against Greg Abbott.

(c) stands on the bodies of dead children to politically pander to a base that doesnt even want him.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Weird citations
There are a series of facebook urls used as citations, this goes against wiki policy. I will be deleting them tomorrow if no one has any problem with that. Bgrus22 (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will be doing a follow up on misused twitter claims, if after these removals unique claims are unsubstantiated I will go on to remove those. Bgrus22 (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Midlife crisis
Any reason this article does not link to Midlife_crisis ? 2A02:A444:8374:1:1C1A:503E:D566:D683 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Any reason that it should? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022
Add details to the 2022 Governors' Race Section about the 25 May 2022 1:00pm EDT (11am MT) news conference confrontation by Beto O'Rourke to Texas Governor Abbott about the 24 May 2022 shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Abbott blamed the epidemic of gun violence in the United States on "mental health," after which Beto O'Rourke stood up from the audience, approached the dais, and said—rather calmly—that the Governor was "doing nothing." Abbott's Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick, then began shouting at O'Rourke and calling him a "sick son of a bitch" and accused O'Rourke of trying to "politicise" the issue. Governor Abbott then made an appeal to the parents of the slain children after O'Rourke left the auditorium.

- Amras (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done by -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

O'Rourke confronting Abbott 5 25 2022
Here is the article text I removed, as explained in my edit summary:

<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this meets 10YT here, but it's definitely DUE for Robb Elementary School shooting and probably relevant for 2022 Texas gubernatorial election. The wording can be improved, O'Rourke didn't "shout", though that word is used by ABC News. It isn't used by AP, and is used by The Hill but only to describe the Uvalde mayor's response. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I really have no problem with including this, at least for the time being, if we can come up with NPOV language. I suggest using Axios, WaPo, and other sources. The ABC is likely from a contemporaneous and less balanced account. Many sources say interrupt, but some say he "confronted" the officials. Also we can see from the video that he did not begin by raising his voice, though he was animated and in public-speaking-mode. The shouting and cussing seems to have come from the dais. Also we have sources that say the Governor was done with his remarks, so "interrupt" would need context and is perhaps best omitted from a short account in this article.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe that  this  is important  for his article.  It shows where he stands on this issue in the manner that he uses in his speaking. He does not hold back. If he were out in the street or at a rally he might well have included a few "fuckin"s this or that as well.  I would very much like to see it improved to correct misinformation and included.  Sectionworker (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that Politico has a good article. IMO it would be good to mention that he noted that Abbott is saying that what we need to do is to see mental health as the problem (not guns) and yet he's refused to vote to increase Texas Medicare expansion to include mental health care or vote for the red-flag law.  Though perhaps you would rightly say that that rather belongs in Abbott's article.  BTW, I did not mean to say that O'Rourke goes around saying fuck all the time, it is only at small gatherings - and he may have quit that by now as I have not watched him in awhile. Sectionworker (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Politico has a good article. BTW, maybe he doesn't say fuck so  much any more...I haven't watched him for quite some time.  Sectionworker (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest also using Axios. If you have time, maybe you could write the new text.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I did add  something to the Abbott article but I have not done much work here on political articles for a long time.  (I am Gandydancer but had a serious  health issue after an accident where I lost my computer along with my password.  Plus the computer I'm using jumps around and the other big Apple I got is not at all good for editing...and I still have some lingering health issues--long story...)  Also, I tend to get too much into emotional details when I feel  so strongly about something.  Could you write something and I will criticize it...or not?  We should try to get something back up right away.  Sectionworker (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have more important things to deal with. Be well.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it warrants inclusion. This is a bit of a big deal and will likely at least be somewhat influential on his gubernatorial candidacy, hence passes the 10YEATTEST. A rewrite is fine, and I'm open to some proposals. However, I don't think the rewrite should be a watered down version of what RS is saying. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Music to my ears as this is what I think. Please do write something.  Sectionworker (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It would have been best to reflect the sourcces more accurately the first time, but please propose your version. Thanks.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Axios is good. One thing, they all say is that O'Rourke was yelling.  This gives the impression that he was involved in a shouting match and that is not accurate.  The guys on the stage all had mikes and plus spoke loudly while O'Rourke had no mike and had to raise his voice to be heard by them and especially so since there was yelling going on in the people attending.  I'd like to see that worked into our report.  Hopefully between the three of us we will come up with a good edit.  So good to see you still around SPECIFICO - you are one of our best editors.  Sectionworker (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources appear to say that O'Rourke raised his voice only to be heard over the shouting and cussing from the Republican officials. That was one of the POV problems with the former article text.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal
Just to sum up this proposal. I have changed the main term for the incident to a confrontation rather than an interruption. I used said, as opposed to yelling, to describe O'Rourke's tone due to the concerns in this talk page. However, it should be noted that the Axios source did use yelling to describe Beto's statements. I used shouting to describe the mayors comment since that (or something similar} is what's used in multiple sources. I also gave out the full quotes, as presented in the axios and Politico sources, Beto and the mayor used since there was some concerns of context. Additionally, I added Betos commentary about Abbott outside of the event. I want this proposal to be malleable, so please recommend any changes. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A couple of things. Do we need "during his candidacy" and "other government officials"?   I've watched several videos  and  as far as I can tell his words are directed at Abbott only.  Sectionworker (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The CNN source cited mentions it was Abbott and other officials. I think it could be helpful to know; otherwise, the reader could get the impression it was just Abbott there. Additionally, the other government officials. (Cruz and the mayor) did interact with Beto. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The "during his candidacy" is POV and "other officials" are noteworthy only for their derision and hostility to O'Rourke. Neither one is OK.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the CNN source points out that there were other officials there and that Beto is a candidate in the first sentence of the article. They may only be notable for their hostility towards Beto, but they are there nonetheless. I'm really not understanding how it's no "OK" to include these facts, but would you be fine with moving on with this text if both those modifications are made? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When we're reporting breaking news we need to look at several sites and watch videos too if they are available. The press used to use fact checkers but for the most part they no longer do--the  most  important  thing is to be the first to report it with  a good splashy headline too if possible. One finds a lot of mistakes. I watched a few  videos and it seemed to me that he was speaking to Abbott.  Do you have a video that shows differently?  Anyway Cruz and the other guy are mentioned later.  Sectionworker (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The above post of mine was supposed to be a reply to Checker's 1:51 post. I don't know what it's doing way down here.  Sectionworker (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I've WP:BOLDly added the proposal with the modification discussed here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I added an edit that would have made your modified text acceptable to me, however since my edit has been reverted, I think we are back to square one. Please remove your bold edit and we can continue to discuss here on talk.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit by because I don't want to revert all the progress this discussion has made. Now I believe it's best to discuss whether it should say Beto was escorted out by cops or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is debatable if the description of how he left the event is worthy of inclusion, but if it is to be included, if a source says he was escorted out by police, that's what we should say, rather that watering it down to "he left". Izzy Borden (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Escorted out?
There has been some dispute on whether it should say Beto left the building or was escorted out by law enforcement. After reviewing the RS, I think it should say he was escorted out of the event. The CNN article says O'Rourke was then led away by officers. The Politico source says O’Rourke was escorted out of the event by security. Additionally, here are some sources not cited in the proposal. Texas Tribune says O'Rourke was eventually escorted out of the room. NBC says ...he was escorted out by police. I've yet to come across an RS that says he just left or walked out freely. I think it's pretty clear in RS he was escorted out, and any other description is a water down of sourcing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a drunk being ejected from the ballpark after the 6th inning. Look at the video. We are under no obligation to say whether he was or wasn't. There is nothing significant about the cops following him out of the room. I don't notice them grabbing or restraining him. They work for the politicians on the dais. They appropriately went over to him as they would to anyone who stood near the dais. He escorted them out, actually.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument is not valid because its WP:OR. Wikipedia editors reviewing the video and calculating whether or not Beto left or was escorted out is original research. What matter is what RS is calling his exit. As I've provided to you RS is saying he was escorted out, and it might be because Abbott and the mayor ordered him to be removed and then a police officer walked with him outside the building. In the opinion of RS, thats an escort, so Wikipedia should follow suit. Whether or not you personally see it as the wrong descriptor is not relevant here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * completely agree. If sources Say he was escorted out, that's what the article should say.Izzy Borden (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote a post similar to  what SP had to  say and lost it in an edit conflict.  In the videos the officers never touch him.  They speak with him and he leaves on his own with them following him.  You can't "escort"  someone out with out touching them.  I will repeat what I said above.  When it comes right down to it we are reporting breaking news and must use caution. I agree with SP on this one.  Sectionworker (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You most certainly can escort someone out without touching them. That's probably the default for law enforcement action when someone is not actively resisting. But that's beside the point. The point is that sources said he was escorted out, that's what we should say, if this is included at all. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this view. Any other view would be inputting WP:OR as noted above. GauchoDude (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this view. Any other view would be inputting WP:OR as noted above. GauchoDude (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't want to jump the gun, but if an agreement can't be reached there may need to be an RfC on whether it should say he was escorted out or left. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please wait for a bit to see if we get a little more input. Sectionworker (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please don't throw WP:OR into this. We don't parrot every detail of a news article.It's perfectly appropriate for a source to give extraneous or excessive detail that may not be, and in this case is not, encyclopedic. It's a matter of what is the significant fact. Editorial judgment is not OR -- please familiarize yourself with our guidance on this important issue. Meanwhile, I will remove this proposed text since consensus was not achieved before Chex put it in. Anyway in a short time nobody will even care about or remenber this little WP:NOTNEWS event. No harm done if it stays out forever. Also, please don't jump to an RfC every time you make an edit that is reverted. RfC's should be for significant well-defined and extensively discussed clearcut issues.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * LOL. "Don't call this original research even though it's clearly original research." Fuck, the editors here are getting brazen and shameless in their partisanship. Dude interrupted a press conference, and the words have been twisted to make him look like a hero. He didn't "confront" he "grandstanded". And was asked to leave. Shame on the editors for twisting what happened - and then twisting the rules (such as not using original research) to suit their agenda.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:D4D3:89BB:43C:DA11 (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * We can certainly decide that the details of the manner in which he exited the building are not worthy of inclusion, but editors analyzing a video to come a conclusion different from what reliable sources say it shows is text book original research. Izzy Borden (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, please review our Policies and Guidelines. OR refers to article text, not editorial judgment as to due weight and noteworthiness or encyclopedic suitability.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We are talking about article text - where you changed what reliable sources said to something else based on your own analysis of the video. That is not "editorial judgment as to due weight and noteworthiness or encyclopedic suitability", but your original research. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)