Talk:Rubén Hinojosa

Unsourced Allegations
It has been observed by Orlady (talk) that there are many un-sourced allegations on this article. Should we remove those sentences, or just heavily edit them? Austudent1 00:42 August 30, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

Here we go again, friends!

User:Loonymonkey has reverted my edits again, without using the talk page, without discussing anything. I'd like to know why he insists on not using the talk page as it is a violation of WP:Consensus. I'd love to talk with him about whatever WP:BLP issues he has. Starbucksian (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not this again. What consensus are you talking about? It's been explained to you repeatedly that the person adding the material needs to build consensus. It is not up to other editors to "justify" point by point what is wrong with your edits, it's up to you to explain why they belong. WP:BRD is not WP:BRDRRRRRRR]].   Also, you're well aware that there are certain rules for a WP:BLP, that questionable material must be removed immediately, and that anyone who restores that material will be blocked for edit-warring (as you were).  As for the material, too many problems to list individually, but my edit-summary was a good start. Do you really think that blogs and the Wikipedian are reliable sources for a BLP? And why did you remove the standard Congressional committee assignments section and replace it some editorial criticism.  That's just absurdly tendentious.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. I have no problem with the standard congressional committee assignments. Frankly I meant to move it down. There are no editorial criticisms. It is a fact that Hinojosa's staff was manipulating Wikipedia. We have long sections that feature similar discussions of similar congressmen. It's not a WP:BLP violation simply because you say it is. You need to explain why something is BLP violation. It is a fact that he he has missed some of the meetings. You didn't engage in WP:consensus last time. You marked my serious edits as WP:vandalism and didn't even talk to me about them. I think it's time we bring an admin into having a discussion about your behavior. Until you can explain how any of this violates WP:BLP. It's not a violation if you say it is.

And I don't appreciate being stalked here. We are going to have to go to mediation. You refuse to even explain what the BLP violations are. You don't use the talk page when making an edit and simply assume that the summary discussion. You are engaged in some serious tendentious action. Let's bring in some admins. --Starbucksian (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Loonymonkey, I have added back some of the material about congressional committee assignments. I am going to leave up the BLP material that you say is offensive because you have not been able to explain what that material actually is! Do all of my edits qualify? Your actions would seem to suggest that that is the case as you reverted all of my edits...I'd like it if you would listen to TB, and stop WP:Hound.Starbucksian (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times WP:BURDEN needs to be explained to you, but edit-warring by repeatedly adding material which violates WP:BLP will just get you blocked again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the last time: What is the BLP violation? We're waiting. It's disruptive to repeatedly bring someone before the admins who are trying to participate in the process. You can't answer it.--Starbucksian (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My removals (mostly of BLP concerns)
I have removed a large bit of this article in deference to WP:BLP concerns. Allow me to explain some of what I removed and why.
 * The mention of his bankruptcy in the lead. A. It's not sourced (the source was simply the word "Politico").  B. It is not appropriate for the lead...it's fine in the body of the article, but there is no real reason to put it in the 5/6 sentence of the article.
 * I fixed formatting in the committees list...that should be non-controversial I hope!
 * I flipped the campaigns and positions sections. Personally, I think his "path" to becoming an elected official should come before his actions as an official. (Again, non-controversial I hope).
 * I removed the paragraph about his funding. I don't see a purpose of listing it, other than that it's attempting to imply that he's a "puppet" of the unions.
 * I removed the longer paragraph that analyzed his liberalism since it is uncited and has been for a year and a half (at least).
 * Combined several single sentence paragraphs into one.
 * I removed the sentence about the consumer protection agency, more because I have no clue what that sentence was trying to say than any content concerns. However, if added back, the reference to the Hispanic Caucus should be removed; it essentially is trying to imply that he opposes the plan solely because he's Hispanic.
 * I have removed the bankruptcy "criticism" section. Politico is not the most reliable, unbiased source for this kind of analysis.
 * I have also removed the Wikipedia "criticism." The information is sourced to one blog and I cannot find any other "controversy" in some Google news archive searches.  If we can find more reliable sources, then it can be okay.
 * I cut the "ironically...." analysis of his bankruptcy. This is just inserting opinion into the article.  State the facts, don't spin.  Additionally, it was sourced to an SEO site, it appears, that really only exists to post links about Hinojosa's bankruptcy so far as I can see.
 * I have also removed that site from the external links for the same reason.

These are my actions. Please feel free to discuss and gain consensus for restoration only with reliable, unbiased sources. either way (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good edits, either way. I have a few suggestions. Maybe you can try them out and see what you think.


 * I can see why you would want to remove the bankruptcy in the lede. Here's the source I was referring to. I think it was removed along the way. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48799.html. This is the politico link. As you can see, it says,

"Bankruptcy filings for sitting members of Congress are relatively rare, as most lawmakers are wealthier than U.S. citizens of average earnings, but Hinojosa’s personal financial problems offer a window into the complicated financial entanglements that can cause embarrassing problems for an elected official. Congressional experts couldn’t name a recent public report of bankruptcy by a House member or senator."


 * Why is Politico not a reliable source? The source was from an ethics expert. Doesn't that qualify? Please explain.
 * The Wikipedian lists sources within Wikipedia. You can even follow it here. http://thewikipedian.net/2009/03/30/did-rep-hinojosa-get-a-free-pass-on-biased-wikipedia-edits/.
 * I agree with the part removing "ironically."

Can we restore the Wikipedia bit and the ethics complaint? Thanks, Starbucksian (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a quick reply (I'm heading offline for some "real life" things here in a bit so can't get into it too much right now)...the Wikipedia "criticism" should only be added in if you can find more reliable sources for it. The "criticism" that exists right now is one guy's blog saying "Yes, they did edit the article it appears."  There does not seem to exist a controversy beyond one blog pointing it out.
 * As for the lead, even with the source I do not think it belongs in the lead. If this was a longer article and the lead was, let's say, four paragraphs, there might be a chance to include it in there, but for an article of this size, I'd say it's not appropriate for the lead.
 * I'll try to come back and reply about the rest at some point tomorrow. either way (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you also try to explain to me why it isn't okay to put up the fact that he is funded by unions? I don't see anything objectionable about that, especially because it is true.Starbucksian (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Either Way. I have only had a few minutes off and on today, so there wasn't really time to explain point by point what all the BLP problems were.  I'll try to weigh in more tomorrow.--Loonymonkey (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rubén Hinojosa. 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://archive.is/20140305180619/https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=218&id=176 to https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=218&id=176

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) 23:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)