Talk:Stephen Garcia

Legal Issues
As there's been a good deal of edit warring over the legal issues and no one's using the talk page, I figured I'd start the discussion. Should his legal issues be included? Dayewalker (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * •"Legal issues" of a de minimis character should not be given any weight in a BLP IMO.  Getting drunk at college is, IMO, a lesser charge than attempted murder, grand theft, rape etc.   And where no charge is ever filed, I suggest that WP:BLP would reasonably mean that reports of the "no charge being filed" "legal issue" of a minor misdemeanor do not belong in the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * •It clearly belongs. Criminal mischief with the fire extinguisher, and destruction of the professor's property, along with underage drinking (which is a crime; how laughable/pathetic that one would use rape as a baseline).  Clearly a pattern of behavior here, and relevant to the article.  Properly sourced, so no BLP issues. 216.117.11.39 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, he has been disciplined by his school for his behavior. Being as this article only exists because he's an "athlete", it stands to reason that any potential threats to his student-athlete status are relevant and should be included.  And again, he's had 5 run-ins.  If this were a single, isolated underage drinking issue, we wouldn't even be discussing this. If bias is removed, his legal troubles clearly belong in this page. 216.117.11.39 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * •Collect is correct. These "legal issues" are basically all ticketable offenses (other than the scratching of the car) which don't even merit a jury trial, and would not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic article about any notable individual. But as with many sports figures, there are always those who are fans of competing teams who would like to paint players/coaches of their rivals in the worst possible light. To attempt to label a young man a "criminal" based on this level of mischief is patently absurd and represents bias of the worst sort. What's next? We start including speeding tickets? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * •There may be various reasons for some to want to exclude material concerning Garcia's legal troubles but the standard for inclusion in a WP bio is "notability." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports) where it reads: "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics." The vast majority of national media coverage concerning Garcia has been around his legal/disciplinary issues, not his on-field play. While his statistical accomplishments are important, one could make the argument that, without his off-the-field troubles, Garcia's stats and achievements don't make his bio worthy of a WP entry on their own. IMO this bio should be returned to the version of July 27th, 2011. That version is well documented, non-biased, and has the most compelling narrative for a WP audience. Many of the edits made to it on August 1st (and repeated thereafter) seem to be unfounded or motivated by reasons other than notability.Dirtybird001 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * •What a surprise...the person who has added the majority of this non-notable content using numerous sockpuppet accounts (Dirtybird001, Dirtybird236, Dirtybird123) thinks all his edits should be allowed. Garcia is a starting QB for a program in what is widely recognized as the best conference in college football and has led his team to a division championship, that alone qualifies him for notability "worthy of a WP entry", especially when there are numerous high school football/basketball players with their own articles. I wonder what sort of POV bias "Dirtybird" brings with him? Oh, and by the way...Garcia is no longer suspended, he was reinstated to the team last week. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * •Fortunately rationale arguments aren't won by assumptions about login names, sarcasm, or individuals unfamiliar with WP criteria for notability. Nothing GarnetAndBlack has written negates the points I made earlier. To begin with there are numerous reasons why players, high-school or otherwise, could be deemed notable. An account of these reasons can be found on the WP site I mentioned in my previous post. Just because someone plays in high-school doesn't mean they are less notable than a college athlete and just because someone plays college football in the SEC doesn't mean they're worthy of a bio. Most importantly, a division championship does not meet the criteria for notability. As the WP criteria clearly states, for a sports bio to be deemed notable, the player should have accomplished one of the following: (1) "Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record," (2) Be "inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame)," or (3) "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Garcia has not met the first two criteria and, albeit regrettably, only meets the third due to his off-the-field legal/disciplinary issues. See ESPN's most recent article on him for another example of this: http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/44587/garcia-looking-for-yet-another-chance. I realize this may be difficult for some to come to grips with but WP is not a place for fans to come and cheer for their favorite teams or players. It is an encyclopedic resource and, thus, should provide relevant encyclopedic content. Again, I will reiterate, the Jul 27 version should be restored with appropriate updates.Dirtybird001 (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * •Why don't you help us out with my "assumptions" about why you appear to have three separate user accounts (single purpose accounts, at that) on Wikipedia to pursue your obvious agenda against one young man, and why that shouldn't be taken into account when weighing the clearly biased opinions of a person who appears to only care about WP policy when it serves their purposes? The fact remains, plenty has been written about Garcia's exploits on the field, and I have no doubt that you know as well as anyone else here that there are dozens, if not hundreds of articles about athletes less accomplished than him on this site. Surely you're not claiming that the only reason Stephen Garcia merits an article on Wikipedia is due to a few inebriated encounters with the law (none of which resulted in anything more than a fine) and some disciplinary issues which were handled in house by his coaches? I realize this may be difficult for some to come to grips with, but WP is not a place for haters to come and smear teams or players they don't care for. It is an encyclopedic resource and, thus, should provide relevant encyclopedic content, not trivial mentions of underage drinking, juvenile pranks, and general collegiate mischief. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We seem to be bogged down here, I'm going to file an RfC for further attention. Dayewalker (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * •GarnetAndBlack I'm in agreement with you that Garcia's legal/disciplinary issues are, in the broader scheme of things, small infractions and unfortunate distractions. No one (at least not me) is suggesting that he should be characterized as a hardened criminal in this bio. But, that said, it's difficult to find an article written about him in the last six months that doesn't mention them. Even if his indiscretions can be characterized as "general collegiate mischief," five suspensions (by number alone) has been deemed notable in the national media. But, as you've said, Garcia is a young man and his life's story is still being written. He may have an exceptional year, go on to play in the NFL, and have a hall of fame career. He could also go on to make some meaningful contributions to humanity and raise his kids into wonderful people. When those things happen (and even if they don't), these matters will likely will be reduced to a footnote. But to exclude them now would be an act of denial. Readers can find numerous references to these matters on the web (ESPN erroneously reported six(!) suspensions earlier) and excluding them only undercuts the value of WP as a reference source, leading to further speculation and mischaracterizations about what Garcia has done. Dirtybird001 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS. That pretty much covers the difference between WP and the "national media". GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This actually supports my point further. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." As an athlete, Garcia has not distinguished himself through his play in any sort of enduring way, no notable individual awards or achievements to meet the WP criteria. Some minor team achievements, yes, but no individual. His "enduring notability" has been his off-the-field issues.Dirtybird001 (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems you are still trying to advance the same absurd point, that Garcia is only notable due to his minor run-ins with the law. Here's a simple question, so try to answer it honestly if you can. If Stephen Garcia were not the starting QB of an SEC football team, would any of his "crimes" have been notable enough to be reported by the media in the first place? His notability as a high-profile college athlete is the only thing that makes his misdemeanors newsworthy, because as we all know, the mainstream media certainly does love to blow things out of proportion if you are famous. Joe College Student would never have the exact same incidents written about in the local newspaper, much less see them receive national attention. So the question at issue here, is Wikipedia no better than the sensationalistic mass media, or is it held to a higher standard when determining what is "notable" about the lives of high-profile individuals? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could make a fairly strong argument that Garcia's play is notable precisely because of his legal/disciplinary issues. Before he even took the field, Garcia established a national reputation for his three arrests. After that, for better or worse, people wanted to see what he could do. That said, I'm not trying to make the claim he's not a decent quarterback. He did win some "player of the week" awards after the victory over Alabama. But what you seem to be suggesting is that every quarterback that has ever played for an SEC team should be deemed worthy of a bio. That's a great project for SEC football enthusiasts but I'm not sure it fits with the audience for WP. If you really want to address the question of whether or not he warrants a BLP without mention of his legal/disciplinary issues, you should detail how his on-the-field accomplishments meet the WP criteria.Dirtybird001 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's just flat out bullshit. There's simply no other way to put it. Please go ahead and attempt to make that argument, I'm always up for a good laugh. You're essentially going to argue that a QB who led a program to its first-ever SEC divisional championship and back-to-back wins over their archrival for the first time in about three decades is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia if it were not for the petty crimes and other trouble he got into. Go ahead, I'd love to see this masterpiece of debate. Oh, and you nicely avoided my very simple question...don't think that went unnoticed. The fact remains, actions like those Garcia has been involved with are considered trivial unless committed by a famous person, this basic truth of our society is proven by the fact that newspapers don't print a daily list of every local college student who receives a citation for underage drinking or vandalism. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I just did make that argument....and answered your question.(?) Garcia was not the starter at South Carolina, nor had he ever played in a college game, when he began to receive notoriety for his legal issues. In fact, had he not had two arrests within a three week time span he probably wouldn't have garnered the national attention that he did. But getting arrested a second time for keying a professor's car—after lying about it to the police, his coach, and the USC administration—his story went national. Then, after all that, he gets arrested again the next Spring. All these things before he ever played a down for the team. What noteworthy on-the-field football accomplishments had he made up to that point that would have thrust him into the national limelight? From what I understand he was a good high-school player but every player (particularly quarterbacks) on any major college program is under the same microscope as he is. And any one of them who gets into trouble (and suspended) that many times is likely to get railed in the national media.Dirtybird001 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should Garcia's legal problems and suspensions be mentioned?
Stephen Garcia is a college football quarterback for South Carolina who has been arrested and suspended several times in his college career. Is sourced information on those arrests and/or suspensions notable? Dayewalker (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. If he's considering to be a draft pick for the NFL then it should be stated. Other players in the NFL and in Colllege football have their legal sections if any included. Adamdaley (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No Only material relating to convictions of actual crimes should be here - Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor a tabloid and right now most of this is in the realm of trivial misdeeds. Collect (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect: Which WP policy states that "Only material relating to convictions of actual crimes"  should be in the article?   --Noleander (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not quoting a policy only affirming that BLPs must be written conservatively acording to WP:BLP.
 * it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment
 * is specific BLP policy.  Claims that a student was drunk is in the nature of an "I am shocked!" comment by Claude Rains  - it is of trivial significance entirely.   Clearly if he were accused of rape or any felonious acts, that would be significat. But drinking at a college? You gotta be kidding. Collect (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree with that application of BLP: the article should not include material that is designed to promote sensational reactions.  I think the key test is how the reliable sources treat it.  Are the reliable sources mentioning a certain incident prominently?  Then it could be included.  But if a certain incident is only mentioned by one marginal source, then it should be excluded.   I see many, many reliable sources discussing a suspensions (e.g. MSNBC "Garcia, fully reinstated to the program at the beginning of this past week, was suspended following what was reportedly an alcohol-fueled incident at, oddly enough, a school-sponsored life skills seminar in late March"), so that can obviously be included.  Some of the other incidents, I'm not so sure.  --Noleander (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No Not sure if I can state it any better than Collect. Let's save "legal sections" for BLP's where the subject has been charged with a serious crime, not misdemeanors where tickets are issued and fines paid. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No this whole thing is ridiculous. no other person on wikipedia would have "crimes" where they were issued a ticket, listed as "legal troubles" and given undue weight as an entire section in their article. let's call this what it is...a straight-up smear campaign. 129.252.69.40 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand the points being made about trivia and BLPs, but this is a well-known student-athlete covered very well in the media. Almost every article about him refers to either his arrests or his suspensions, or both. It seems to be notable. Dayewalker (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes While Garcia is a football player, his notability in the national media is rooted in his legal problems and suspensions, not the individual on-the-field achievements needed to meet the criteria of a WP sports BLP. If these issues had occurred only once in isolation, I can see how they would be constituted as trivial. But as they have been ongoing throughout his collegiate career, they qualify as "enduring notability," not inflammatory, unsubstantiated, or trivial press coverage. Dirtybird001 (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - Behavioral incidents of notable people may be represented in an article, particularly if reliable secondary sources describe them. An editor above says that only criminal convictions may be included in this article, but that is not correct:  the WP:BLPCAT policy, which is limited to convictions, only applies to Categories and Lists of criminals.   WP:BLP does permit material about arrests and suspensions, but requires that the material be extremely well-sourced, and very carefully worded, and balanced with opposing information, if any.   That said, the section should not be titled "Legal troubles" since that is misleading and slang-y. --Noleander (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Specific items in the Legal Issues section
I think some of the content in that section may be okay, and some not okay. So I'm listing the various pieces separately here: The sources I see definitely talk a lot about the suspensions (items 3 and 4) and they directly relate to his football career, so the suspension information is valid for the article. Items (1) and (2) are open for discussion. I think some sources need to be provided here in the RfC to assess them. I would propose that (1) and (2) be eliminated from the article (unless additional, significant sources are provided). Items (3) and (4) should stay, although we should try to find some balancing material to give Garcia's version of events, and any other balancing info we can find. --Noleander (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In March 2007, he was arrested for malicious injury to personal property for damaging a professor's car.
 * 2) In March 2008, Garcia was arrested and cited for underage drinking. That same evening, police were called to his dormitory where Garcia admitted to pulling a fire alarm and discharging a fire extinguisher.  Garcia was disciplined by the school for the incident, but no charges were filed.
 * 3) To open 2011 spring practices, Garcia was suspended for a week for violating team rules during bowl week in December 2010.
 * 4) In April 2011, it was announced that Garcia has been suspended indefinitely for showing up intoxicated and causing a disturbance at an SEC-mandated meeting designed to encourage good life choices beyond college. The latest suspension represents the second of the spring and the fifth of his collegiate career.
 * Here's where I have a problem with this type of material being included in a Wikipedia BLP. Nowhere in the reference for the incident in question does it state that Garcia "showed up intoxicated" for the seminar where he was eventually asked to leave (there were no police involved in this incident). Garcia has admitted to drinking before the seminar (at the birthday party of one of his teammates), not to being drunk. The full details of the events of that evening have never fully come to light, so while rumors and innuendo might be fine as fodder for the press, a project which prides itself on an encyclopedic presentation of facts shouldn't report on this incident as though the full facts are actually known to anyone except those who were present (and they aren't talking). We're never going to find a well-sourced reference that gives Garcia's side of this story, mainly because he presented himself to his coaches for discipline, and part of that process is being contrite and obviously not running your mouth to the media about how you feel things went down. The same is true of Garcia's underage drinking incident. Does it matter that his older brother purchased the beer or that law-breaking of this type is basically as common as speeding in this country? It should matter, because if not, then moving violations should be considered notable for inclusion in all BLP articles. The drinking age is essentially treated like the speed limit, break the law at your own risk, and pay the fine if you get caught. Violations of team rules (partying in your hotel room during a bowl trip) are notable for inclusion in a BLP of an athlete? Well, get ready for many of these articles to start getting a lot longer. All I'm calling for here is some moderation and reasonable standards to be applied which treat this project like the encyclopedia it claims to be, and not a newspaper which can cover every little foible of famous people. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Garnet: If reliable sources cover these incidents, then they can be included in the article.  WP:NOTCENSORED does not allow us to omit information because it is embarrassing.  We, as editors, cannot look at an incident and conclude "it is just a misdemeanor, so we'll omit it" ... instead we look at the sources and see how prominently they describe it.  On the other hand, the WP:BLP policy requires that any information that is negative must be very carefully worded, and include any balancing information we can find.  Items (3) and (4) above are amply documented in sources, so there is no issue there.  Items (1) and (2) Im not so sure about: I asked Dirtybird below what sources are available for (1) and (2).  Garnet:  what kinds of sources have you encountered for (1) and (2)?  --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED says absolutely nothing of the sort. It says: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.  Wikipedia editors are not required to add trivia to any article at all, and this is a splendid example of material of exceedingly minor significance to a BLP.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Which items, 1,2,3,4 above, are you categorizing as trivia? --Noleander (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Noleander Each of the items mentioned above (and some others) have been documented by reliable news sources. The citations can be found in the Jul 27, 2011, version of the bio, which was in place before the Aug 1 warring started. I agree with you that there does not need to be a separate section on "Legal Issues" because in many ways the issues that led to the suspensions are a mix of both legal and disciplinary matters. These should be incorporated into the narrative of his college career—as they were in the 27 JUL version. I would also agree with GarnetAndBlack re: #4, that while Garcia admitted to drinking before the event, whether or not he was "intoxicated" is uncertain. This is the role editors should play and a very valid reason for that sentence to be revised. It is not, however, a reason to exclude the incident. We do know that, whatever took place there, it led to his latest suspension and that alone makes it notable and worthy for inclusion. That said, with needed updates, IMO the 27 JUL version should be reinstated.Dirtybird001 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, some might find it useful to see how similar issues are being handled in Cam Newton's bio, especially regarding the incident concerning a stolen laptop.Dirtybird001 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cam Newton was charged with multiple felonies and was court required to write a letter of apology, undergo counseling, perform community service as part of a "deferred prosecution" agreement. A great deal more than the incidents here by a few miles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Collect: Garcia was required to do many of these things as well, albeit not for felony charges, but as part of the pretrial intervention program he had to complete for the multiple misdemeanor charges brought against him during his first semester (Sp '07) on campus. Indeed, after another arrest in the Spring of 2008, he was suspended from the University (not just the team) and had to re-apply to the school over the summer after completing some school-ordered requirements. Although the charges don't put him at the status of a hardened criminal, the university took them seriously and they were serious enough to threaten Garcia's college career. Given that, IMO it seems difficult to characterize them as sensationalist or trivial for the sake of his BLP. Are you saying basically that all misdemeanor-type legal issues, regardless of their consequences, should not be included in BLPs? Dirtybird001 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Dirtybird: I agree 100% that is is much better to interweave these issues within the narrative of the entire article, rather than have a specific "Legal issues" section. Feel free to do that.  Regarding issues (1) and  (2): my quick search did not turn up many sources on those.  Could you provide a few sources on each, here in the Talk page?  Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some citations: ESPN, ESPN, ESPN, a local news affiliate, ESPN, CBSSports, another local NBC affiliate Dirtybird001 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dirtybird: those sources all seem to be discussing his suspensions from the team, and I agree that is well-documented and should be in the article.  I was asking about items (1) and (2) above:   incidents in his youth that were not related to suspensions from the team.  Can you provide some reliable sources for those incidents?  If not, those two incidents should probably be removed from the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Noleander: actually all the incidents mentioned above, 1-4, occurred while Garcia was a student on the SC football team. And all resulted in some sort of suspension. This article discusses his arrest in Feb, 2007 for public intoxication and failure to stop for police, and the March, '07, MIPP charge. This one covers the March, 2008, arrest for underage drinking and his suspension from the university.Dirtybird001 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Those sources include the Associated Press, and directly relate the incidents to his football career.  The incidents are not "trivia" by a long shot.  So, the material should stay in the article.   However, it would be more encyclopedic if the material were presented in a way other than a "Legal issues" section:  best is probably to make the article present his career chronologically,  and weave the incidents/suspensions into the time frame they happened. --Noleander (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement with you here. This is how the article was structured before the AUG 1 warring fest.Dirtybird001 (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(od) Actually it is up to consensus to determine how trivial the material is - at this point, it looks like consensus is not backing your desire to include every sin of the person. Sorry. Collect (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus backing its exclusion either.Dirtybird001 (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted a notice at the BLP noticeboard here to try to get opinions of additional uninvolved editors. --Noleander (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good call on the noticeboard. I think the suspensions should definitely be listed, at this point of his career they almost overshadow his on-field accomplishments. The unrelated arrests, I'm on the fence about. Dayewalker (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it further, I agree with Noleander. The suspensions should be covered in the playing section, and not spun off into a separate legal section, I think that gives them undue weight. I've trimmed the section back and cut the running tally of arrests, no need for that here. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And i've trimmed it even further, removing content from a section titled "Legal troubles" in which no laws were broken and no law enforcement was involved. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "legal troubles" section completely, and instead moved the sourced material to its corresponding location in the career section. Since the suspensions are relevant to the career, that seems to make more sense and not use a heading giving the off-field problems undue weight. Dayewalker (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with removing the "Legal" section. But I've added the information concerning his first two arrests (including the MIPP) to the Freshman section. Both of these occurred during his first semester at SC (Spr '07) and resulted in suspensions from the football team.Dirtybird001 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The new chronological year-by-year layout looks good and neutral. The RfC has been resolved, in my opinion. --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Should information about Garcia's disciplinary issues be included in the introduction to his bio?
We appear to have consensus that information re: Garcia's disciplinary issues should be included in his bio. But questions still seem to remain about the extent to which they should be covered. Given that Garcia was suspended five times and then, ultimately, dismissed from the team for disciplinary infractions, it seems to me they warrant inclusion in the opening paragraph. Others have argued this information is covered in other parts of the bio and need not be represented in the intro. Under this reasoning, however, there would be no need to summarize his career stats in the intro either. It seems to me the introduction serves in part to summarize the most notable aspects of his career. For better or worse, Garcia's disciplinary issues often gained as much notoriety as his play did.Dirtybird236 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very reticent to let someone's bad press overshadow their achievements, that said, his off-the-field problems have done just that to his on-field career, and in fact the former has now ended the latter. I'd support a brief mention in the lede, as pretty much every article about this player mentions the off-field problems. Dayewalker (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)