Talk:Marco Rubio/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Referral to NPOV Noticeboard for review.

This matter has been referred to the NPOV Noticeboard for review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Request_review_of_Rubio_continuing_reversions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete of section

It seems the best thing to do, given that we cannot seem to make fast headway over whether this representation of personal life is accurate enough to stand, that it "sit out" until the matter is remediated. I think that is fair to each party here, and to those who might use the site in the interim, and get a partial story on the matters in question (spouse, immigration issue). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs)

As your block has hopefully taught you, that is wrong. When an editor makes a change and that change is challenged, the prior version remains in place as it is the last version that had consensus. Deleting it because it is in dispute, or more accurately because you don't like it, is the wrong way to go about it. Edit warring over your desire to undo the previous version at all costs is completely wrong. I truly hope your block has taught you not to edit war. -Rrius (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No comment here, except to point to what I say in response to your spouse-focused review, and to reiterate that as it stands, in the shortened forms of the paragraphs on the spouse and on the immigration issue, the text appears to reflect bias, and that this bias matter was raised earlier by another. (The long Thomas Paine discourse focused on the immigration question, and I was unaware of it at time of my edits, though in retrospect it raises similar concerns that also appear to have been dismissed without substantive balance being added to that subsection.) By virtue of fairness to the living subjects, I still suggest deletion of these two paragraphs until the matter of their balance can be addressed.Meduban (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, in response to another contributor suggesting change of the immigration subsection name (and Rrius' dismissing of same): "The blanking of the section was intended as a "meeting point", to address the counterclaims that the current short section and titling are seemingly biased (my view), versus that the lengthening changes I proposed create bias and not balance (apparent view of Rrius, Nomo...). Removing the one paragraph so that new, unbiased content can be hashed out here seemed a compromise, though I understand now, not one that I am entitled to enact, because of my junior status. Hence, I ask that Rrius and Nomo... delete the paragraph until it can, in fairness to these living parties, be edited to a state where there is agreement that there is no bias. I am asking this sincerely, to avoid further public dispute. In the discussion that follows, the title of the immigration subsection -- where it appears there are three contributors that have suggested downgrading it from "controversy", while Rrius and others wish this to remain -- can also be addressed, in a manner that does not marginalize any individual's view.""Meduban (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am against removing the paragraph. You haven't obtained a consensus for your changes or for removal of the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand. Is this article locked, with a small group defined as overseeing any changes to it? That is how it seems from this and earlier talk sections. Please advise, is this so? Otherwise, whose specific consensus am I to achieve? (How is this list defined, vis-a-vis inclusion and exclusion?) Also, I have to have clarified: Is your judgment, Bbb23, rendered here in your capacity as an involved, regular contributor to this article (same level as all of the rest of us), or as a neutral administrator (where, as a past regular contributor involved with particular participants in the current debate, you might consider recusal)? And then, as an administrator, I ask: if the article is not locked, and a small current set of contributors (Nomo-, Rrius, you) are of like mind for whatever reason—If one disagrees, how is one to formally object to content and process, and achieve mediation? (Bottom line, I simply do not understand how this process is supposed to work, here, and to the extent that I do, I cannot cannot fathom how it can be construed as open and unbiased. There seems a small, self-selected group in control of Rubio article content that refuses to broach change—see earlier back and forth with Thomas Paine, and to some extent with Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden. Should this be the case?) Finally, note, this is simply not how things are done in other areas of wikipedia, where no one on other articles that I've participated in would think to remove another's content, immediately, in its totality, without comment. And no one would treat other authors with the disdain the Rrius apparently does, with some frequency. In my areas of writing, incoming authors are not viewed with suspicion or disdain but as equals, nor is existing text viewed with such a sense of sanctity. As much as it is easy for this group to come together and judge the mistakes made regarding edit-warring as being the defining issue, note: I have admitted my mistake, but contend that there are far deeper fairness and openness issues at stake here, and I will see them through to airing.Meduban (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First, please log in before contributing here or anywhere else at Wikipedia. Second, you've been around long enough to be able to tell if an article is locked. How could you have edited the article if it were locked? Third, please stop writing such long dissertations - they're tiring to read. Finally, read the relevant policies and guidelines. You've been told here and on your Talk page about options. Don't act like this is all a big mystery to you. For starters, read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) I will as possible and convenient attend to the signature issue, but this will be not be perfect, apologies ahead of time. (2) My questions regarding locking and article control remain unanswered, here: What specific policy components of WP are being applied to the control of this article, and are they being properly applied? No need for you to reply; see also closing point. (3) I was told earlier I need to persuade. The more "unpersuadable" the target audience is, the longer persuasion tends to run. This Rubio editorial team of 2-3 broaches no change to its text, in this section. Hence, I will not apologize for the length it has take n try to get any part of ten lines considered in this short article section -- though I would add as pertaining, Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte (Pascal, PL XVI). (4) Per your "Finally", please do not infer that because I either remain confused by others attitudes and actions in actual, ongoing situations or because I disagree with others' interpretations of policy, that I have not read them. It simply appears to me that the policies are being used as a foil to justify a status quo, and as such are being improperly applied. (5) Finally, and critically, I would ask you recuse yourself from any role as an Administrator, per se, regarding the mediation needed in this article, because of your past active contributing interest in the article, and longstanding relationships with the 1-2 principle contributors with which I disagree. I am not putting this into appropriate wiki-speak, I am sure, but you get the gist. I think your voice in this, if it is as someone above us (Administrator), cannot be unbiased. I will go through the process of finding others to assist; your acting in any capacity over us cannot escape your conflicting relational and content interests. Whether wiki allows administrators to be involved in cases in mediation where they appear simply as content contributors, at same level as other participants (i.e., to wear different hats in different places), is something you would know better than me; I would not have any reason to object to your being another contributing voice at that level. It simply must be clear that you cannot exert additional controls due an Administrator, in a matter where you have conflicts of interest. Meduban (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is a load of shit. You keep complaining that a bunch of editors won't allow any change, but there is no basis in fact for that. What is fact is that you edit warred in a pretty extreme fashion against multiple editors. When you do that, people are not going to take you seriously until you stop edit warring and exclusively rely on the talk page. From the day you started until the day you were blocked—what was it, a week later?—you never did that. Instead, you cavalierly asserted that your edits should have priority because you are special and that edits should have priority over reverts. In both cases you showed a stunning ignorance of WP procedures and guidelines, which was especially surprising given the frequency with which they were pointed out. In responding to the substance of your edits, I pointed to two more basic gaps in your understanding of Wikipedia. One is an understanding of WP:UNDUE, which was pointed out the very first time you were reverted, yet you still seem not to have read. More fundamentally, you don't understand what Wikipedia is (as shown by your belief that the article needs irrelevancies for "flavor". All that is bad, but your responses here are mindboggling.

Despite all the time that has past, the reverts, the responses, and the block, you still do not understand the very basic principle that you need to convince others that your changes should happen. Your bizarre notion that you are entitled to "interpretations" of the policies and guidelines that are in direct contradiction to their text is exactly the sort of thing that makes you worthy of whatever disdain you say I have shown you. Though the fact is that all I did was answer your request for someone to tell you what was wrong with your edits. Parts of your edit were poorly written, so I told you so. And the thing you decided was a personal attack worthy of an apology was in fact nothing more than pointing out that your editorial decision to put the parts actually about Rubio's personal life after the exile section was indefensible (which is supported by your failure to defend it).

You need to ask yourself why you are so invested in this particular little issue when multiple editors are telling you that your proposal violates WP:UNDUE and potentially other policies. You need to also ask yourself how you managed to alienate an editor whose sole purpose at the beginning of this was to urge you to stop edit warring and to point out to you how the consensus element of our writing process works. You also need to ask yourself how it is that you have ignored my proposed change to the exile text, going so far as to continue to assert that no one will allow any changes. Despite the arrogant attitude you have shown throughout, I have tried to work with you, and you have instead decided to take insult. Your whole approach here from day one, whether conscious or not, has been to try to wear everyone else down by simply ignoring reality and insisting that you are right over and over and over again. You have multiple long-standing editors, including an administrator, telling you that you are wrong, yet you continue to push push push and throw walls of text up at us. At what point are you going to take a deep breath and acknowledge that maybe you don't understand the way this place works and read WP:Consensus and the other basic articles that are linked to in the "Welcome" section on your talk page? When are you going to acknowledge that the editors here aren't just a bunch of dicks who have made it there mission in life to piss you off and lock in the current version, no matter its merits? When are you going to take a look in the mirror and acknowledge that it is your attitude in sweeping in here and persistently acting disruptively that has turned editors against you? -Rrius (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment to which you were replying was addressed to Bbb23. Otherwise, your content is noted as having been read, your anger at me is recognized and acknowledged, but I believe misstatements as to the fundamental matters at hand still abound. I have been preparing a final response for this venue to the specific issues involved, and so will add nothing more here. Meduban (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Before this becomes an edit war...

Here's what the Telegraph says:

"Marco Rubio, who has been described as the 'crown prince' of the Tea Party, ..."

How is the statement above a "reliable source" for this moniker? That is the *only* mention of that appellation in the body of the article. This is a lot like Fox News saying "some people say" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw ). It is hardly a truly reliable source for this purpose, which is to say that "he's been described as" this nickname. I'm sure he's been described as *lots* of things, but what specifically makes thing significant enough to place at the top of the article and in fact, who is saying this and where is the proof they are saying it? Back up this addition with some real research or remove it please. -- Avanu (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't do "real research"; we report what secondary sources say. And in addition to The Daily Telegraph, a quick Google turns up a multitude of secondary sources for the term – some of which are even WP:RS. And at least a couple of which – including one in my latest addition – indicate it's not uniformly seen as a hagiographic, or "peacock", term. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In looking at your sources, they cast more doubt on the true meaning of the addition. In the Las Vegas Sun article, the name is on signs held by Rubio protesters, and in the Washington Post article, it is declared a "myth" that he has anything to do with the Tea Party. Fox News just mentions it, giving no more sourcing to it than the Telegraph did, and the same is true of the USA Today article. If anything, this clouds the idea that this term deserves unclarified treatment at the top of the article. As it stands, it appears to give weight to the term as a positive moniker, yet one of our sources outright declares it false, another is used by opponents, and three sources don't do anything to help explain it other than to simply repeat it. The news media does a lot of repetition of things, and I hardly can see how the media is a reliable source if it is the primary voice here. If nothing else, the sentence needs to be re-cast as a possible fraud, or as I did earlier, just removed entirely as 'hype'. -- Avanu (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly a sensationlist term without any meaning, beside Cruz from Texas is the realy "Crown Prince". </sarc>. It ceratinly doesn't add anything useful to the section, and the implication in its placement is that this is why he is being considered for the VP. Arzel (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I love when people make arguments for changing something and then present it as an argument for deleting it.</sarc> If you think the placement implies it has to do with the VP thing, that is an argument for moving it. Also, whether it is sensationalist is irrelevant. It is a term that is used in numerous reliable sources. What's more, the claim here is that he has been called the Crown Prince of the Tea Party movement. The sources unambiguously support that. Avanu seems to doubly misunderstand what is going on. He says WaPo called it a "myth" that he had "anything to do with the Tea Party". That's not true. What WaPo said was a myth is the contention that he is a Tea Party creation, i.e., that he only has a career because of the Tea Party. As for his FOX News comment, all that is needed is the mention. It isn't necessary to get an in depth exposé into the history of people calling him the Crown Prince of the Tea Party. All that is necessary is evidence of the claim made in our article—that he is called that. That has been provided in the form of five references, and thousands more can be provided. The contention that there is anything wrong with repeating what it has been reported in the media he's been called is frankly bizarre. The only argument that has been made any sense is that he isn't really that pure a Tea Partier. The right response to that is not to remove it, but to more fully explain his relationship to the Tea Party. The answer is certainly not to edit war, as Avanu did earlier. Read WP:BRD. -Rrius (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why don't you *not* start calling me an edit warrior just because I removed the material two times. I asked for better sourcing, none was forthcoming, despite Fat&Happy reverting me. I didn't do it again. And I brought the debate here. You guys still haven't proposed better wording despite the poor sourcing of the term. Just because the *media* repeats something over and over doesn't mean that he is generally called this, and your sources are in conflict. The current wording in the article doesn't explain what this term is supposed to mean, the sources don't even have a clear representation of it, and no one seems to know where it supposedly comes from or who says it, except that it is being oft-repeated by slothful newshounds. Get a *real* source, or take it out. -- Avanu (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Colbert

Be wary of the recent Colbert Show encouraging viewers to modify Republican politician wikipedia pages to indicate that they are Mitt Romney's VP pick. Tim Pawlenty's page was already fully protected for this reason. --Theelectricchild (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about that (I don't watch TV) but I had already requested temporary semi page protection which was granted. ViriiK (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

GOP ticket in 2016

So far this seems to be rather week tea for a BLP. Can we drop the chatter on this until Marco says something himself? Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the quick trip to Iowa speaks pretty loudly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Note that being prominently talked about as a presidential nominee greatly strengthens his political position in the Senate today and thus is very important in 2012 whether or not he actually gets a nomination at some future date. The fact of the speculation by politicians is a reality Wiki should report. Rjensen (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It remains speculation, and thus is improper as Wikipedia is not a place for crystal-ball gazing. Collect (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And we should not elide the "others" mentioned in the same cites as used for Rubio - in fact, they are mainly about those "others." Collect (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• And so Collect added the others, only to be reverted because the "others" didn't belong in the Rubio article. This all points up the worthlessness of adding the material in the first place. As Hcobb correctly stated, this is pretty weak stuff, and I might add that it's fairly standard stuff and is probably going to be mentioned in the press a lot. Are we going to include it each time? There's nothing noteworthy here, and I've restored the article back to before the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

the political commentators from all perspectives say that he is under consideration for 2016 among the top 5 or 20 names in the GOP. That is very important for readers to know. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We can not pick a tiny piece from a source and ignore the rest of the source. The sources are about multiple people, and not about just one - as the claim implies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@Rjensen, you added the material. You were reverted. At this point, you should not re-add the material unless you have a clear consensus for doing so (WP:BRD). Stop insisting.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

talkingpoints memo is an opinion source

TPM (talkingpointsmemo.com) is an "opinion source". Columns written for it are "opinion columns." Opinions made by it must be cited as the opinions of those holding them, and not made as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Where that opinion is contentious, it is covered by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this addressed to me? I have not visited a website called talkingpointsmemo, ever. What are you on about? And why are you so interested in keeping this material off the page? If Rubio wants to position himself as an ally to creationists, who are you to say it's inappropriate for our article to note this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a few problems here. First, you haven't proved that the article is from TPM. Just as importantly, you haven't proven this is an opinion piece. TPM is a journalistic endeavor that is no biased to the left than Fox is to the right. The author of the piece is a journalist, not a columnist, so good luck proving your point. -Rrius (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the matter asserted in the text is supported by a quote from Rubio himself, so even if it were an opinion piece, that wouldn't matter. For that matter, the TPM pulls its information from an article in the Florida Baptist Witness.[1] -Rrius (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The source attribtutes it to talkingpointsmemo! Did you fail to see the "TPM" at the by-line? And the "quote" does not support linking him to "supporting" creationists, much less to being a creationist. As for saying that an opinion puiece is not "biased" is irrelevant to the general rule that opinions are attributed to the person holding them. And as for the absurd claim that a quote which does not link Rubio to creationism is somehow usable for saying he supports creationists -- that way lies madness. Wikipedia does not allow sources for anything more than the factual claims in them for assertions of fact. Contentious claims must be removed without strong sourcing per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you are being completely obtuse. I have never even heard of "talkingpointsmemo" and had no idea what TPM is meant to stand for. And frankly even after knowing I really don't care. There is nothing in the headline, the headers, the url or anything else that conveys the notion that this is an opinion piece. Yahoo News has it under a "Politics" tab. The only one who seems to think it's an opinion piece is you. Not only that -- I'm not drawing anything at all from Rubio's own quote. I wrote my sentence ("As House Speaker Rubio took the side of creationists in debates in the Florida Board of Education over what role evolution was to have in the state's public school curriculum") mainly on the basis of the following passage from the source: "Then-state House Speaker Rubio was on the side of creationists." The sentence I added is, then, verified by the source I provided. Lastly: do take note of WP:3RR as you are currently at the limit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well -- now you know what it is, right? And that it is clearly marked. I would also point out the discussion at BLP/N appears to conform with my position, and WP:BLP is not a negotiable policy. TPM is not a reliable source per Widely recognized as the pioneer of iterative journalism, which draws on readers’ knowledge to break stories instead of using reporters. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You are doing some pretty impressive spinning here. Yahoo News has published an article by Pema Levy who appears to be associated with Talkpointsmemo. So what? I am not citing Talkingpointsmemo, I am citing a news story in the Politics section of Yahoo News. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, count your own edits as well -- you hit 3RR before I did here. And also note [2] which makes absolutely clear that TPM is, indeed, the source of the opinion column. Yahoo is not the source of the copyrighted column. Copyright TPM Media, LLC. Collect (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you not know what a revert is? The first time one adds material to a page is not a revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read the discussion about implying Rubio is a "creationist" from earlier on this page? Adding material on the same topic is absolutely a "revert" under the Wikipedia usage. It is not required that it be the same words, and I suggest you know it. Meanwhile, do you elieve Rubio is a "creationist"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any idea whether Rubio is a creationist, nor would my opinion on the issue matter here -- which is why I did not write any content asserting that he is a creationist, which is why what I added was not a revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the source attributes it to the Florida Baptist Witness, so you need not throw up exclamation marks at me. If you want to cite to that source instead, you are welcome to, but your objections to TPM are both groundless and pointless. TPM is a liberal-leaning news source, just as Fox News is a right-leaning one. The piece is clearly an article, not an opinion piece. That covers groundlessness, but the fact that the information is attributed to another news source, namely the one to which the comments were made, makes your argument pointless as well. What's more, an opinion piece that features a direct quotation can be used as a source for that direct quotation. What you cannot use an opinion piece to prove is that some conclusion or assertion made by the writer of the piece is true. -Rrius (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good luck trying to make changes to this page, Collect, despite your long and broad history of respected work in improving biographies at wikipedia (including in contentious contexts). A review of the article, edit history, and archives seems to suggest that a trio of contributors—Nomoskedasticity, Rrius, and Bbb23—controls the content, through their particular application of wikipedia rules. The fact that the pillars state that "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited" and that the "principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles..." seems to apply to those outside, but not inside this trio. It may be that "politics" are required for change to this article on a politician—that you and others must create the consensus that you need, through communications to other editors outside this trio. (This could be a misperception; someone could do the statistics regarding how many edits have appeared that did not come from or have the approval of these three. But this is how it seems to me, as a regular reader.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.206.67 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting rather long. Does anyone object to using a bot to archive threads older than a month? -Rrius (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Without objection, so ordered. -Rrius (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol. So ordered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.206.67 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/11/19/florida_senator_marco_rubio_the_age_of_the_earth_is_a_great_mystery.html

Mark him down as a Young Earth creationism supporter? Hcobb (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. And that column does not make that claim. And the false umbrage taken at his valid point - that the actual age of the Earth is not necessarily relevant to economic decisions etc. is absurd. Collect (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hcobb, I'd suggest drawing on the GQ interview itself. And perhaps there are other sources that have discussed/analyzed that interview. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

How about not speculating at all? Rubio made no claim of any sort. Arzel (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

He might have... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.186.102.179 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

So far no reliable source has averred him to be a "young earth creationist." None. Collect (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How does one get to archived talk?

The link to the archive index in the heading that indicates automatic archiving appears to be dead/broken. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.206.67 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Both links (1 and 2) work fine for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The "1" and "2" work fine. The broken link is the word "here", at the end of this header text:

"This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.206.67 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's "broken" because the archive index page was never created. Rrius, next time remember to create the archive index page and place the comment <!-- Legobot can blank this --> on it, since HBC Archive Indexerbot/Legobot doesn't create it for you. Additional instructions are on the bot's page. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you had a reason for calling me out personally instead of making a generalized contribution regarding what the problem was and that you had fixed it. If you truly thought it necessary to let me know I had made a mistake, making the personal comment on my page instead of making it here (addressed specifically to me) and giving me a {{talkback}} would normally be considered the more polite way to handle it. But again, I'm sure you had some reason. -Rrius (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's supposed to be addressed to anyone who sees it as well, so they know about the procedure too. Then again, maybe I was just a bit lazy, so I'm sorry if it didn't seem polite. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem was that it should have been addressed to anyone who would see it; instead, it was addressed to me, which is why it was rude. -Rrius (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching the correspondence of these pages for a while. It's rather amazing that any regular contributor would level an accusation of incivility to a stray editor. In general, anyone questioning the content of/suggesting changes to this article seems guaranteed eventual incivility, by the wiki good faith standard. To see examples of why I say this, search the words "rude" and "war" in the talk archives. Then read around the appearances of those words. All in all, this seems a generally unhappy place to try to contribute. And that the pot in this case may be calling the kettle black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

On your last point, one of us was provoked, one of us was not. Also the characterization of me as a regular contributor here is baseless. I edited here for something like three weeks, and the main part of it dealt with a series of edits by a particular editor that simply did not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines, including its most basic ones, and about which he or she edit warred mercilessly, ultimately finding himself blocked (and by an editor not involved in the discussion). As for guaranteed incivility, that doesn't track with what is actually written in the discussions above. As a matter of fact, the only incivility I see in them is from an IP editor accusing me and others of trying to "control" content through "application of wikipedia rules". (I'd note that my inclusion in that list is hilarious not only because of my limited participation here, but because my participation in that discussion was limited to pointing out that the quote at issue was supported by a source other than the one being complained of.) Finally, as for the invitation to search the archives for "war" and "rude", there weren't too terribly many examples of the former (and many had to do with the actions of the particular editor I previously referred to) and there were zero for the latter. I doubt your barely veiled accusations were of any value to the two of us—you because you got to make some veiled, yet still unpleasant, accusations that seem based in a grudge about something or other without having to actually defend a real position, and me because I got to respond to your insults and the nasty accusations by IP 70.... So thank you. -Rrius (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Error in social security comment

Social Security is not running short of money; indeed, it has so much money the federal government is borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund (more than from China) and any fix needed in a few decades is easy to fix. Right now individuals pay Social Security tax on a small portion of their earned income. Simply raising the limit on share of income to be subject to S.S. tax to say $200,000 would fix the system for decades to come. The real problem is Medicare because medical costs in general are so high and increasing, though ObamaCare will fix that to some degree. In fact, Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance. The overhead for private insurance ranges between 15-20% because of advertisements and high pay for executives. The overhead for Medicare is only 3 or 4 percent, so the cost of insurance would be lower if everyone had Medicare. As an historian (American History) with an emphasis on American economic history, that error should be fixed. The other problem with the cost of medical care is that private insurance companies negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for the lowest cost of medications as does the VA, Congressional health insurance and Medicaid. However, when George Bush and the GOP passed the Drug Benefit they refused to allow Medicare to negotiate lower costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.176.244 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussing politics. Try the Daily Kos or Reddit. This is about making sure the article on Marco Rubio is biographical and adequately summarizes the reliable sources that have profiled him. If you have a specific change you want to make to the article, point out which sentences are wrong and give us the sources (specific to Rubio) that offer more reliable information. Or if the statements are not reflected in sources about Rubio, go ahead and remove them and leave an edit summary explaining the change. —Designate (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In areas of wikipedia that I am familiar with, people make changes routinely. This is true both of stray edits brought to an article by the occasional visiting editor, and of edits made by a small group of dedicated editors working as a community around the particular article. Here I want to comment on what seems to be a difficulty of such visiting "outsiders" making the occasional stray edits. Judging by the history of responses, proposals for changes almost always seem to go against the views of the dedicated editors. As a result, little outsider-proposed change seems to make it into the article.

The point I want to make here is that we are directed to view changes brought to articles, to be in good faith. The words "If you have a specific change you want to make to the article, point out which sentences are wrong and give us the sources" (in Talk) seem to create a special standard for this article, imposed by the "us". It makes it appear that all editing must be pre-approved. Is this correct? If it is true, isn't this a tacit assumption of visiting editor bad faith, and so a violation of wikipedia philosophy? I am not arguing that Designate's words are not accurate to the way this article is controlled, only asking if it's wikipedia's desire that it should be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two things to point out. The first is that while it is important for all content on Wikipedia to be verified by a reliable source, it is vital that information at a biography of a living person be sourced. With living people, there are higher stakes (including libel laws) to contend with. Finding a source is crucial. Using scrupulously neutral language is crucial. Sometimes that takes a group effort. The other thing I need to point out is that this is an article that, because of Rubio's high profile, attracts a great deal of disingenuous edits that are really just ways to score political points. That makes logged-in editors with this page on their watchlists to be a little quicker to revert, especially when there is no source. Because of a rash of unsourced and other poor edits, this page has been restricted to autoconfirmed editors for a week (ending 20 February at 3:53 UTC). Incidentally, by simply creating an account and making 10 edits, you too can be autoconfirmed.

That said, I can't even tell from the other IP editor, the one who made the initial contribution in this section, what the intended change is. If the desire is to discuss Medicare and health care reform generally, this isn't the place. If it is to note some particular proposal Rubio has made or reaction to or analysis of particular proposal, the editor needs to write what he or she wants included in the article along with a source and where to put it. -Rrius (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I don't feel edits need to be pre approved, just that the talk page is here for that purpose. The original poster listed his opinions about Social Security but didn't relate it back to the article. I'm just suggesting that it would be more constructive on this talk page to focus on the article, and propose changes, than to say the article is wrong. There's no need to propose changes before making them; it's just an option. Designate (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Text for SoTU 2013 response

When he delivered the official response to the 2013 State of the Union address, Rubio blamed government actions for being the main cause of the housing crisis, but did not indicate if he thought this was because of lending to traditionally underserved markets or by the reduction of regulation.

Agreeable? Hcobb (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"But did not indicate" is a clear presentation of "argument" rather than "fact." We can surely state what he said, but stating what he did not say runs against Wikipedeia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we put in a timeline then?

In delivering the official response to Obama's 2013 State of the Union address, Rubio blamed government actions during the Bush administration for being the main cause of the housing crisis.

Clear enough? Hcobb (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In the Republican response to the 2013 State of the Union Address, Rubio said government actions in the past were a cause of the housing crisis.

It is not our place to present arguments not made by Rubio into his mouth - and I suggest his complaint was about the government in general and not specific to the "Bush administration" at all. Collect (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Then at least call it the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis. Hcobb (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion POV pushers

I see that our resident POV pushers are intent on using a Blog Opinion piece to attack Rubio. This kind of crap is really tiring. Don't you have anything better to do than to come to WP and push Liberal talking points on a daily basis? Since when are the WaPo opinion blogs considered a "First rate source" on anything? Arzel (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson: “The good thing about Economic facts is that they're true whether or not you believe in it.” ShroudedSciuridae (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Information on grandfather

Can someone please explain why 3/4 of the opening paragraph on his 'early life, education, and early political career' is about his grandfather. I find the information irrelevant and it appears to be pejorative. Also, if US immigration declined or ultimately decided NOT to deport him, is he really here illegally?

"Rubio's maternal grandfather immigrated to the U.S. in 1962 without a visa and was detained by immigration authorities. An immigration judge ordered Rubio's grandfather deported,[7] but ultimately U.S. immigration authorities used their discretion to allow him to remain in the U.S. without a visa.[8] The Associated Press reported that "no other immigration records exist for Garcia from 1962 until he applied for residency four years later" and concluded that he likely remained in the U.S. illegally during the intervening period.[7]"72.51.81.78 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The surmise that a person was "illegally" in the US is not something which holds water in Wikipedia at all. After 1962, the interest in deporting a person to a country with which the US did not have normal diplomatic relations (i.e. Cuba) would have been unsuaul in and of itself. In fact, I would love to see figures on how many Cubans were deported from the US mainland after 1962 to Cuba. If that number is found to be substantial, that would be of interest. If that number were at or near zero, I rather think it was a deliberate decision of the US government at the time not to deport such refugees. Collect (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

United States' policy has been to treat all Cuban illegals as refugees. Deportation to Cuba was suspended in 1960 when the trade embargo went up. Now the exception to this was after 1996, people who were convicted of aggravated felonies should be deported back to Cuba so there is around 30,000 people on the deportation list out of the millions of Cubans refugees here in the US mostly in Miami. So an immigration judge which is at the very lowest level of the totem pole does not decide policy. It just simply passes the sentence on what is the law on paper but as far as what INS (ICE) did back then was following a different policy. The policy in the United States regarding refugees is that they can earn green cards which eventually leads to US Citizenship. So that would apply to Rubio's grandfather as well which based on the quote above, he did get US Citizenship through his refugee status. ViriiK (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to make the apparently radical suggestion that we actually report what reliable independent sources have to say on the subject. The material in question is properly sourced and attributed, so I fail to see any substance to Collect's objection. The Associated Press reported that Rubio's grandfather "likely remained illegally" in the U.S. We convey that reliably sourced information, with clear attribution. That's Wikipedia 101. And the Washington Post article ([3]) very clearly outlines Rubio's grandfather's encounters with the U.S. immigration system:

"In the eyes of the United States government, he is not a political exile. He is a man who has broken immigration laws... Pedro Victor is officially an undocumented immigrant, a man standing on American soil without permission to be there. Then comes the crushing blow. Milich orders 'that the applicant be excluded and deported from the United States.' How could a Cuban be deported under those conditions in that era? A little more than a year and a half after the Bay of Pigs invasion? After Castro’s declaration that he was a Marxist Leninist? It turns out that in those days a small number of Cubans were still being sent back to the island for violating visa requirements."

I'm not sure I understand why we're arguing or speculating about matters which are already clearly outlined in the cited reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's convincing enough. It appears from the source that the grandfather was at a key stage an undocumented immigrant issued with a deportation order (which he did not obey). Subsequently he was able to regularize his status. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The US recognized a large number of such aliens as being refugees after Castro showed his intentions to the US - thus this is not of any great relevance to the BLP at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask one more time that you leave behind your personally preferred framing of this issue and simply respect the available reliable sources. The Washington Post article I mentioned above makes it clear that it was unusual for Cubans to be deported, but that Rubio's grandfather was in fact one of the relatively small number who was ordered to be deported. I think your reasoning is completely backward - the fact that it was unusual makes it more noteworthy, not less - but since reliable sources amply cover all aspects of the situation I don't see a role for your personal opinion, or mine, at all here. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My issue ois the surmise of "illegally" being a contentious claim based soely on AP surmise, and not on any judicial finding or actions. Lacking such, it is a "contentious claim." Suppose we had an article on George Gnarph, and we wrote "The AP surmised that he committed seventen murders, even no juscial actions were taken about any of them.? Would you not find that to be a BLP violation? Or suppose we had "George Gnarph alleged that the members of the 'Fooism Research group' altered their emails" Would you find that to be a BLP violation? The principles of BLP are that "contentious claims" require solid factual sourcing. No matter on which article whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The couple of sentences on Rubio's grandfather are among the best-sourced in the article. I don't get the sense you've looked at the actual sources you're disputing. There was a judicial finding, of course - Rubio's grandfather was ordered to be deported by an immigration judge. That's in the sources. Your analogy, in which you compare an undocumented immigrant to a serial murderer, is so far removed from relevance that I don't see much point in engaging it. I notice that others are telling you pretty much the same thing at the BLP noticeboard, where you've taken your concern. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2013

Ref in controversies doesn't make sense (On the Issues). Use Tampa Bay Times: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article1075692.ece instead. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection of this article has expired. Subject to the policies on consensus, verifiability, and neutral point-of-view, you should be able to make this edit yourself now, unless the article becomes protected again. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal life section

This edit reverted several edits I made on February 14. Most of my edits had comments explaining the reason why the edits were made. Besides bad sourcing, some information was just clearly wrong, like he was married in 1997. If anyone would like to challenge these edits, please take them up in this section to get community consensus. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Rubio has occasionally attended Catholic services, but is not a member of a Catholic parish. The quote from the recently added NYT article states:

He retains ties to the Catholic Church, too. "On the final Sunday of the campaign, for example, he attended Mass at Christ the King Catholic Church in Tampa,” according to an e-mail from Alex Burgos, his spokesman. “On the morning of the election, he attended Mass in Coral Gables.”

The quote put in the citation previously was a third party view at the end of the article that was rebutted by another third party a paragraph later.Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

General issues

I first read this article after the SOTU rebuttal and was surprised to see many sources used incorrectly, dead links, partisan biographies as sources, private non-news websites used for sourcing vote totals, and other issues with this article. For an important and relevant political figure, this article is disappointing. I started making edits yesterday and will continue to do so. Here are couple of issues for discussion right off the bat:

1. The way Speakers are chosen in the FL House needs to be better explained. Since the FL House has term limits of four terms (8 years), the potential Speaker is chosen for their party and class before their final fourth term arrives. Rubio was chosen as future Speaker for Republicans for the 2007-2008 term in 2003. This selection was very important to the rest of his career. More detailed info is needed.
2. I propose deleting the FL House of Reps Committee assignments section. It doesn't seem relevant enough to provide a list of every one. If there were notable events that happened in those committees, then it can be stated and referenced in the text.
3. The U.S. Senate section can be beefed up.
4. I'm still not happy with the Personal life section, it's choppy and could include more information.
5. The serial use of OurCampaigns.com could be changed to official vote totals.
6. Rubio's FL House of Reps official bio doesn't need to be a major source. RS are available for that information.
7. Better sourcing than OnTheIssues.org is also possible.

I welcome input and collaboration in improving this page. Thanks. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Immigration section is a copy and paste from the source. There is also an issue with relying on the Miami Herald, which is admittedly very necessary. The Herald quickly changes the "slug" in the URL of articles so that links become dead very soon. Long-term, the articles are pay-only archives. One solution is to find text from the article and search it in quotes on Google. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer -- While you're right about cut-and-parting being a copyvio, the material itself is good, as is the source, so it would be a lot better to paraphrase it. I'll do that in a moment, but in the future please consider paraphrasing rather than deleting, since that's the best way to improve the article. Obviously you're not required to do that, so mentioning it here and in the ES is the next best thing. Thanks! --Middle 8 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your first point. It is obviously important that he was elected speaker, but I'm having trouble following your description of the process or why it is important to explain the process in this article. It sounds like we would just be giving more detail than necessary, but if I'm missing something, please explain. I agree about committee assignments, so I've deleted them. Do you want to take a swing at Personal life and U.S. Senate? If you rely on others to do it, it might not get done. The issues of source quality sound legitimate, but I'm guessing you mentioned them (rather than fixing them) because you aren't anymore motivated than I am to do so. I've deleted the Immigration section because we cannot allow copyright violations. -Rrius (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going slow, working from the bottom up. Help is always a good thing. The current speaker election text is misleading. He was chosen by his caucus and class to be speaker in their fourth and final term. Chosen in 2003, he served as speaker in 2007 and 2008. As far as relevance, Rubio got a much higher-paying job in a large law firm that did millions in dollars of work for the FL House in 2003. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Water bottle

The Water bottle incident section seems to hold little (i.e zero) encyclopedic weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Less than a half-litre, to be sure. Last I looked, most people giving speeches have water at hand. Collect (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it's absurd, and about as non-encyclopedic as things get. This isn't a political trivia site. Sure it was covered in some mews media (and even Rubio himself tweeted about it), but even then it barely warrants mention, unless it turns into some kind of meme that sticks around for awhile. For now best to delete IMO, but at a minimum it should be reduced to a brief sentence, at most. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would suggest creating a standalone article on Marco Rubio's water bottle... or, alternately, Marco Rubio creepily excessive thirst incident (2013). After all, the water bottle has been amply covered in numerous reliable sources, and thus its notability cannot be in any serious doubt. Let it join the illustrious ranks of other Wikipedia articles such as Mitt Romney dog incident and you didn't build that, which our fellow Wikipedians in their wisdom have fought so hard to keep from deletion. I mean, yes, having a standalone article on every political meme du jour does make us look utterly ridiculous, but why stop now? MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but the real controversy regarding this incident is the left media's obsession with the issue and how they were taken to task for the absurd. Additionally, Rubio used the issue as a fundraising incident. If included it should be from that perspective, which is the only perspective to have any long lasting impact. Arzel (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Giving the SOTU response is definitely biographical and worth a mention, and logically the popular reception of the response could be part of that mention, but the whole thing should be no more than two sentences. It definitely should not be its own section, nor should it go into some long back-and-forth with sparring quotations. —Designate (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversies section

I edited the so-called Controversies section after I saw an IP edit it before me. The change made by the IP, on the surface, didn't make sense. When I dug deeper, it made more sense, but some of the facts were wrong, so I edited it myself to try to make it make sense and added a tertiary source in addition to the secondary OnTheIssues source (which I'm not crazy about). Collect felt it was misleading and "clarified" it. I don't believe Collect's edit was necessary, but it's unimportant as it did no harm other than to make the sentence mildly ungrammatical.

That's all background, but I have a more important question. Why is this material mentioned at all? It is barely a blip in Rubio's career or personal life, and yet it has its own section absurdly titled "Controversies" (to the extent it's a controversy, it's ony one), which is almost always a red flag as a section header anyway.

Either we should remove it, or we should at least place it somewhere else in the article without its own section.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree -- doesn't seem terribly significant. Has there been some sort of larger episode involving more people, akin to the Parliamentary expenses kerfuffle in the UK? If not, I'd say kill it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The percentage involved is trivial, and is not of major real importance except for "Silly Season" purposes <g>. It is im[ortant, moreover, not to make it seem bigger than it properly is. Collect (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Without discussion, another editor moved it from Controversies to Elections. I don't see how it belongs there, but it's better than where it was, although I still think it's less than noteworthy. I've fixed the sentence to be more accurate about the amounts of money (one article says "over $100,000", and the other says $160,000 (quite a difference, actually), and the $16,000 is approximate). I also fixed the punctuation/grammar issue I vaguely alluded to earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Look again, it's not under "Elections" but under "Florida House of Representatives → Tenure" which is the most logical spot for it. —Designate (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - my mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm the IP you mention. Just for my own information, what facts were wrong in those sentences as I left them? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem was with that issues source, which, in turn, led to other sources. The error, which I thought was understandable based on the source, was with the dates. It wasn't in June 2012 that Rubio was "accused"; nor was it in July 2012 that he reimbursed the Party. It was all much earlier. However, you didn't put in the dates; they were there before you edited it. I thought your edits were an improvement over the previous version.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, old man! You are correct—I should have paid more attention to the June and July dates (as you say, they were wrong). The OnTheIssues source is a mess and difficult to negotiate. Shouldn't we delete it from the IRS investigation item since we're solidly sourced to the Tampa Bay Times? I was also wondering if the TBT did a follow-up story mentioning that the IRS "primary" investigation of Rubio's credit card use was closed without developing into a criminal investigation (if that's what in fact happened)—but I'm not holding my breath. And finally, I thought the $160,000 figure covered Feb. 2005 through Nov. 2008 (per Rubio) and the $100,000 related to most of the two years he was Speaker. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Youtube video as source

[4] shows repeated desires to use youtube as a source in a BLP. IIRC, claims made in such a video are not regarded as well-sourced. Collect (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's just a clip of him talking, it is a valid source for uncontroversial information about his opinions (like citing his campaign website). It's not the best, though, and an independent source would be better. —Designate (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor then changed it to a BBC source which also was not a source for the claim as made - he has now retrreated to the actual rational claim - that Rubio thinks each state should be able to deal with same-sex marriage as it wishes. Collect (talk)

I have made the same claim in a paraphrased form to prevent it being deleted yet again 193.60.182.93 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pausing Speech to drink water in a wierd way

This was covre by the associated press so it should be on the wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.214.75 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

BLP puts a high bar on the watering hole. Hcobb (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Rubio favors Amnesty?

I can find a lot of people accusing him of this, but not sure of their notability on the subject.

• http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/24/palin-calls-rubio-an-amnesty-supporter/
• http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/marco-rubio-amnesty-sparks-radio-static-90307.html
• https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/347189/rubio-amnesty

etc. Hcobb (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Views on abortion, Roe and right to privacy

• 1. Senator Rubio is clearly pro-life and has explained why, and his explanations are documented.
• 2. The source On The Issues, which the article cites for a number of Rubio's positions, has an excellent reputation and is one of the better sources we have for political articles and BLP's of politicians.
• 3. Therefore, there is no good reason to delete a phrase from the article stating one of his reasons for opposing Roe, as User:CFredkin has twice done [5] [6]. Nor is there any reason to delete the source that I added giving Rubio's exact quote.

The relevant passage reads as follows; the material that CF deleted (including good sources) is bolded:

Rubio identifies as pro-life.31 He strongly opposes Roe v. Wade,3162 does not believe in the right to privacy that the Supreme Court cited in Roe,3163 and has stated that the "right to life is a fundamental one that trumps virtually any other right I can imagine".62

CF has given changing and dubious reasons for deleting this material.

• CF's first ES said that the material was "unsubstantiated", while at the same time deleting the source for it (!!?!).
• CF's second ES incorrectly said that the two On The Issues pages reference each other (they don't; they reference Rubio's words, and the "privacy" page gives the exact wording he used).
• CF is also unable to find the quote on Rubio's own site. I looked too, and it's evidently no longer there; Rubio has updated his site since he was elected in 2010 (remember, he was saying why he opposed Sotomayor, who was confirmed in 2009). Big shocker there -- a politician updating his website after a campaign (/sarcasm). Sites like On The Issues exist to document and archive politicians' statements, and that site in particular is a good one. There is no reason to doubt its reliability, nor to believe that Rubio has changed his views on abortion (and it would be big news if he did; the GOP base is strongly pro-life).

So there's no good reason, at all, to remove the material in question. The only reason I can think of is a bad one: that Rubio denying a "right to privacy" makes him sound like a bad guy, or something. But that's in the eye of the beholder, and of course such editorial preferences don't dictate content here. I'll restore it now. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If the claim is sourced to OnTheIssues, which itself is referencing a page which doesn't exist, it's not valid.CFredkin (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If anything, On The Issues is considered superior on WP since it's a secondary source. The original quote on Rubio's website is a primary source; another example of a primary source would be video of Rubio making a statement. While primary sources can be OK on Wikipedia (and in the case of a politician's website, they are), secondary sources are strongly preferred for reasons explained at WP:RS. OnTheIssues is a reliable source and therefore suffices for documenting a politician's quote even if the primary source is now gone. It's no different from using a good newspaper to reference a statement by a politician when the original recording no longer exists. WP would be in bad shape indeed if we required intact primary sources for everything. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the validity of reliable secondary sources. I'm questioning whether everything on OnTheIssues can be assumed to be reliable. Content on pubs like NYT, WP and WSJ is generally signed. With signed content, the author is responsible for its accuracy. OnTheIssues is published by a group of volunteers who essentially publish anonymously. Their claim to accuracy is that they provide the quotes/sources for their claims. My point is that if their sources for a claim don't exist, the accuracy of the content can be questioned. CFredkin (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to doubt it since there are many excellent secondary sources that aren't signed, and this isn't an extraordinary claim (see Sotomayor nomination for what other GOP senators said). Anyway, we agree (for now) re your suggestion below. BTW, a Google search on his quote gives plenty of hits, so we can be very confident .... ah, check it out, here's an op-ed by Rubio with the exact quote. Perfect as a source. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the page based on a proposed compromise which keeps the claim but includes the full statement. Please take a look.CFredkin (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine; the context for Sotomayor is fine and more information on his other views is certainly good... I'm just tweaking it to put in Rubio's Politico op-ed as the source, add wikilinks, and putting quotation marks around his quote (for NPOV and copyright reasons). One caveat: as the article grows, there may be subsections for each topic, e.g. abortion, guns, and so on. Should that happen, the full quote would have to be broken up; would you object to that? Just curious, why is using the full quote important to you? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Patriot Act reauthorization of roving wiretaps

Regarding this edit, and my partial revert and attempt to improve it... first off, CFredkin, I'm not meaning to wikistalk you; I just noticed this in the same paragraph as the one we were just discussing above re Roe. Your edit removed the term "roving wiretaps" despite the fact that this was the provision of the Patriot Act that that the sentence and source were talking about. (Once again, the source is the OnTheIssues page for Rubio; it simply says "Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)".) Anyway, I assume the omission was an error and restored.

Re your added explanation about what the Patriot Act is for: we need to be careful with this kind of thing; too much can sound like apologetics. Wiretaps sound bad, but catching terrorists sounds good. This can introduce a subtle spin, contrary to NPOV. If we must have it, it needs to be brief and accurate. We can't say that the roving wiretaps provision applies only to suspects outside the US or that a warrant isn't needed; it's not at all clear to me that either is true. Better to leave it vague and general. In the spirit of compromise I kept some explanation but simplified the wording and put in a pipelink that should help readers.

P.S. If you put in a colon right before your reply, it will indent, which helps make the thread more readable. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this. Thanks for the tip. I also appreciate the calm feedback.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing on Rubio's war on poverty?

I added a short note about Rubio's biggest policy speech in at least the last year and it got reverted.

So what if anything can be said about his new policy? Hcobb (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's just the source, how about this one?

In 2014, Rubio called for replacing the minimum wage mandate on private employers with taxpayer funded wage subsidies for the working poor.

Hcobb (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Section on presidential aspirations

Rubio is considered a potential nominee, so we ought to add a section for this aspect. Cwobeel (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/04/14/marco-rubio-shakes-up-staff-and-stirs-2016-presidential-rumors/
• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375161/marco-rubios-jeb-problem-eliana-johnson
• http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/marco-rubio-jeb-bush-2016-105490.html

Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Awards Section

The content in the Awards section which was just added should have secondary sources to indicate significance.CFredkin (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Surely. In these cases, it is best to add the template {{citation needed}} instead of deleting. Cwobeel (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'm referring to secondary sources which provide some indication that the award is significant.CFredkin (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It is significant enough if the sources include Marco Rubio's own senate.gov page and other sources. I don't get your edits, you seem to put the bar at whatever height you feel like. I can start again a new thread at BLP/N if that is what you want to do, but after a while it will become tedious and WP:TEND Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Both politicians at the federal level and organizations generate high volumes of press releases. Not all of them are notable for mention in BLP's. Providing secondary sources to indicate their significance is a reasonable expectation. Please let me know if you can find any instances of me citing content only based on primary sources in the recent past.CFredkin (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You got it wrong again, Primary sources are not shunned in Wikipedia, see WP:PRIMARY, in particular the sentence that starts with: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This is disruptive

@CFredkin: Why this deletion? [7]. First you removed it because you argued that the sources were not valid. I then added sources as requested. Then you delete it again because you think it does not belong to a section. Are you doing this in purpose to disrupt? Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As stated above, providing a reliable secondary source to indicate the significance of a press release is a reasonable expectation. I don't believe blogs are typically considered reliable sources. Additionally you added the statement to the section on his tenure in the House. The press release was generated during his tenure in the Senate.CFredkin (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubio chief of staff

@CFredkin: First you delete this content [8] requesting additional sources, which I added. After I add sources, you remove it again [9] with an edit summary of "Not relevant to tenure in House". I then move it to a more appropriate section, and you follow with a 3rd revert [10] with this edit summary: "Rm content per article Talk", when there is nos such discussion.

Are you trying to be disruptive just for the fun of it? What is your rationale for your reverts? Cwobeel (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see the section immediately before this one, which I believe you started.CFredkin (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That is for a different edit, related to the "Awards" section. Here I am asking you to provide a rationale for the deletion of the content about Rubio's chief of staff. Cwobeel (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a template for legislators that includes slots for CoS, so this can be applied uniformly? Hcobb (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I added two additional secondary sources to replace the press release. BTW, press releases from Senate offices are also reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is good faith presupposition?

This article belongs to no single editor, and, once surpassing the hurdle of content coming from a reliable, verifiable source, no single editor's view of what is or is not sufficiently significant to remain should prevail. Moreover, it is not the offering but the reverting editor's responsibility to exercise respect and caution in rejecting a good faith edit from another editor. In this vein, the recent reversions by CFredkin of the edits from Cwobeel are, in my view, inappropriate. Rather than use the authoritative approach of reverting the content, which appears to have been sourced and verifiable, it should have been tagged, requesting better sourcing, or brought to Talk, to have its significance discussed. Bottom line, reversions are to be exercised very cautiously, and not against reasonable quality good faith edits. Put the material back, and raise your objections here. This is no more one editor's article than another. Le Prof 12.49.20.42 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just say no to Rubio's own statements on drug policy?

Can't we have one tiny mention of how Rubio's own experiences have shaped his views on drug policy? Hcobb (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Saying that Rubio has a history of drug abuse, without reliable sourcing, (as you did here) is defamatory.CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If ABC is too lamestream a source, then how about Reason?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/marco-rubio-stonewalls-on-his-pot-smokin "Marco Rubio Stonewalls on His Pot Smoking—for the Children"

Hcobb (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's just about exactly the same text:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/marco-rubio-marijuana-pot-no-answer-florida-2016-106829.html Rubio claims that his decision to stay silent on his own marijuana use spurred from the publishing of his recent memoir “American Son,” where he admitted that he “wasn’t a very good high school student” and received only at 2.1 GPA.

So it looks like my text passes every sniff test. Hcobb (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of main article link from Climate change sub-section

CFredkin removed[11] the limh ''{{main|Climate change}}'' claiming it to be a "superfluous link". I disagree that this is superfluous given that the sub-section is precisely about climate change. Is there policy-based rationale for this? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The climate change article is linked in the text, and that is sufficient. Cwobeel (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about Rubio. If the article as about climate change, or aspect of climate change, then it would appropriate to include a link in the sub-header.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe MSNBC pundit Hayes's opinion of Rubio's statements on climate change is relevant. Hayes isn't exactly noted as an expert on climate change or scientific topics.CFredkin (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I give up. You guys are really into serious whitewashing. Off my watch list. Cwobeel (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Twice now [12][13] the statement "The National Climate Assessment released by the White House in 2014 found that Florida, Rubio's home state, is one of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change." has been removed alleging WP:OR and/or WP:SYN The sentence is backed up entirely by the source in place, so I'm not sure what Collect and Cwobeel are referring to. Please explain. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. I should have consulted the source before deleting. I will undo my edit. Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You appear to think Wikipedia is the place for political campaign rhetoric.

It isn't.

BTW, when misquoting a person, one ought to be more careful: I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it is not the same in any respect as he did not believe that climate change was caused by human activity, and catenating a "slight misstatement of fact" in order to make a political point does not help readers here. Collect (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

First: Cwobeel thanks for restoring the sourced content.

Second: Collect I do not care for this unfounded attack: "You appear to think Wikipedia is the place for political campaign rhetoric" and I certainly do not appreciate this one "BTW, when misquoting a person, one ought to be more careful". The sentence you are referring to was not added by me, it was there before I had made any edits to the article.

Third: Collect not sure what you mean by catenating a "slight misstatement of fact".

Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Collect you have again removed the sourced content that was added by me and re-added by another editor. There's no "political purposes" in stating what a WP:RS says in an article about Rubio in a section about his position on climate change, in relation to his home state and the effects climate change will have over it. Please re-add the content. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all -- the claim as to what Rubio actually said is not the claim which was made. Second is the use of "although" making a connection between an agency report and Rubio's comments, when it is clear that his comments were not in any way related to the report juxtaposed with the incorrect claims as to what he said. The combination is deadly on Wikipedia where we much maintain absolute NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all: the claim is now almost entirely verbatim so that's not an issue anymore.

Second: at no point was the word "although" used to connect Rubio's denial of climate change to the statement put forward by the National Climate Assessment. Not in the original version I added and not in the version crafted by Cwobeel. You removed twice that piece of reliably sourced content, first claiming "OR, SYNTH", then claiming "political purposes" and now you re-affirm your removal claiming an incorrect use of the word "although". I am going to politely ask you once again to please restore the content removed. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Collect, this is a pretty poor showing on your part. The L.A. Times piece is entitled "Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change". It is therefore appropriate to summarize this source by saying that Rubio "did not believe that climate change was caused by human activity". I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. The person misusing the source in this instance is you; the source could not be clearer, but you seem determined, for reasons about which I can only speculate, to muddy it.

Separately, other sources clarify that Rubio consistently questions or "denies" (their word) the scientific understanding of climate change. See, for example, PolitiFact: "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it." I have added back the accurate summary of the L.A. Times source, along with the new PolitiFact source, and removed the MSNBC opinion piece (since we should limit the use of partisan opinion pieces as much as possible, instead preferring reliable news/factual pieces). MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

MastCell, this is very poor reasoning on your part. In case you did not know this headlines are not part of the newspaper article. They are written by folks who do not write the articles. They are not "fact checked" and they frequently are written to get folks interested in a topic, and are not intended to be the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's crazy. Headlines are subject to the newspaper's editorial control, just like the rest of the article, and are thus equally reliable. In any case, the L.A. Times article is hardly the only source pointing up Rubio's stance on climate change; as I noted above, PolitiFact summarizes numerous instances where he "denies" (in their words) the human role in climate change. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

MastCell thanks for your edit and cmmt. What do you think of the original sentence that prompted me to open this section (see first comment)? Do you think it should be re-added? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd leave it out. While I understand that it appears in the cited source (L.A. Times), it doesn't quite fit with how our paragraph is written. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Hayes

The comment by journalist Chris Hayes (journalist) on Rubio's position on climate change has been removed. The comment is this one:

• His position regarding climate change has been characterized by journalist Chris Hayes (journalist) as a "train wreck of incoherence."

The source is a reliable one (MSNBC) and the author is a well-known journalist. I believe it should be restored. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

News pieces from MSNBC are arguably reliable sources, but the quote in question is taken from a partisan opinion piece. This distinction is an important one—news pieces from reputable media outlets are good sources, but partisan opinion pieces or editorials are much less so. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree - partisan opinion piece - attacking in nature - no include Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

headlines

[14]

Headline writers are not there to summarize a story but to grab readers. And the headlines are not written by the reporter. Collect (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Headlines are subject to a newspaper's editorial control, just like article content, and thus equally reliable. To contend otherwise strikes me as a bizarre example of motivated reasoning, but I suppose you could take it up in a more suitable forum. MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

An interesting contention which has thus far not gotten support in discussions thereon. Collect (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing "labelled" for "claim" against the sources

Editors Collect and Mosfetfaser have replaced the word "labeled" with "called" in the sentence:

• Rubio has been labeled a climate change denier.

Collect claimed that ""labelled" implies fact in Wikipedia's voice" while Mosfetfaser only claimed "disputed" which is hardly (not to say not) a reason for reverting an edit.
I explained that the word "label" is no more authoritative than the word "call" and furthermore, the word "label" is backed up by numerous sources:

1. prompting Democrats to label him as a climate-science denier; National Journal
2. label him a climate-change denier, the Florida senator brushed off a backlash labeling him as a climate-change denier; Politico
3. OFA can use to support its labeling of Rubio as a "climate change denier."; PolitiFact
4. Rubio said on Sunday, placing himself firmly in the "climate change denier" camp (...) Rubio is uncomfortable with that label; The Wire
5. critics labeling him as a climate-change denier; LifeNews (a pro-life site also using the word; hardly a left-partisan source)

I'd like to ask any of these editors to please revert their edit based on these reliable sources or present their own sources for the use of the word "call". Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And the sources you give do not support using a BLP for Climate Change Denier labelling of anyone at all. I suggest you note the ArbCom decision at this point. Collect (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh? Collect: please be clearer on what you are saying and please link the proper policy/ArbCom ruling you claim prevents us from using the word "label" but not the word "call" when all the WP:RS use the former. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem ArbCom saw was that some editors were improperly abusing biographies of living persons by labelling them as "climate change deniers" etc. Cheers -- sorry you did not read that case, I think you would find the evidence and findings interesting. Collect (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between Wikipedia labeling Rubio a "climate change denier", and Wikipedia noting that others have labeled Rubio a "climate change denier". The former is inappropriate; the latter is potentially appropriate, assuming suitable sources and attribution are provided. I find that much of the discussion here conflates these two scenarios in an unhelpful way. MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Collect let's try this one more time: please link the proper policy/ArbCom ruling you claim prevents us from using the word "label" but not the word "call" when all the WP:RS use the former.

MastCell as you can see in the article, the label "climate change denier" is clearly stated as assigned by others, not in WP's voice. Also please check the sources in place and do tell me if you believe either of them is not appropriate.
There is no reason to use the word claim when the sources use label. Unless either Collect or mosfetfaser present a policy/Arbcom ruling preventing this, I'll be restoring the proper word. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify for any other outside editors who are interested in this discussion: if I understand correctly, the proposed and disputed alternative to the word "labeled" is the word "called"—i.e. not, as Gaba says immediately above, the word "claimed". Is this understanding correct? Writegeist (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Writegeist yes, you are right. I believe I corrected the typo just before you made your comment. Regards and sorry for the confusion. Gaba ^(talk) 02:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• - a few opinionated sources labeling someone as something does not mean wiki has to report exactly that - wiki has more of a duty of care than biased opinionated sources - there are no republican sources or uninvolved peeps labeling him as whatever are there - no - it is only attacking opinionated biased sources - and that should either be explained or ignored - labeling is not a good position to report at all - try adding to the story that opinionated sources have attacked him or add his comments so as to correctly detail his position rather than just trying to demean him and degrade him using attacking opinionated comments without stating that is what they are - please consider also the words of the closer of the related war report - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=612641810 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• A You are both arguing a completely different issue. This thread is about your change of "labeled" with "called". I note not you and Collect have failed to give any reasoning backing this change.
• B You are incorrect. These aren't a "few opinionated sources", these are WP:RS and are in fact numerous. The coverage is significant enough that Rubio himself felt he had to go out on record and deny being a denier.

Seeing as neither editor gave a reason as to why we should go against the reliable sources presented which use the word "label", I'm going to re-instate the original edit. If you want to discuss the mention of Rubio being labeled a climate change denier, open a new section about that. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with the use of the term "label" in this instance. I believe it connotes some sort of official designation which is not appropriate here.CFredkin (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter one bit whether we disagree since it's what the reliable sources say. We do not modify the information to accommodate our own perceived notion of what should be said. We are WP editors, not journalists. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We also don't get to cherry-pick subjective terms from non-neutral sources.CFredkin (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin only one source mentions 'Democrats' which makes your first edit incorrect at best, and you changed the word used by our sources with a summary of ce after I explained clearly why this is not acceptable. Now you've reverted again claiming talk discussion when you've provided nothing to explain your position on why we should not follow what the WP:RS say. Your last edit borders on WP:VANDALISM and I strongly advise you to stop. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin one more revert against sources. You've been warned in your TP. Please revert your last edit. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I clearly explained my objection to the use of the term "label" above. Your insistence that we must use the term "label" because it appears in a source, while also arguing that we can't attribute "climate change denier" to Democrats when it also appears in a source is hypocritical. The consensus in this discussion does not support your position. Please stop edit-warring. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As nothing "official" attaches to the word "label" in this usage (categorization), CFedkin's disagreement [15] appears to be based on a belief that's based on a premise that's false. Can we have it authenticated please? Also I don't understand CFedkin's implied assertion that "labeled" is more subjective than "called".[16] It would help to have clarity on that also. Writegeist (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'm not implying that "label" is more or less subjective than "called". I'm just saying that "label" is subjective. Therefore the insistence that we must include it in this WP:BLP because it appears in a source is not valid.CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What? "Label" is subjective? What does that even mean? The sources are clear in using the term, even a pro-life source uses it which means partisan sources can't be claimed. You are not making any sense. Gaba ^(talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin It does not appear in "one source" it appears in all of the sources I've presented above. They are all WP:RS and other than you not liking the term, there is absolutely no reason not to use the word that the reliable sources use. "Democrats" on the other hand does appear in only one source which makes your edit incorrect at best and purposely misleading at worst. You are free though to re-write that part to conform to sources about who used the label.

WP is not a democracy and votes with no reasons given to back them up don't trump over policies. The page history shows 3 edits of yours removing the word after I added it back this morning which makes you the one edit-warring (of course, you know this already). I'm asking you once again (after you've removed the warning from your talk page) to re-instate the word used by the sources. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The page history also shows you restoring the term 4 times since June 12. Regardless, the National Journal attributes the "denier" claim to Democrats, Politico attributes it to "liberal critics", Politifact attributes it to OAS (a liberal/Democratic support group). I don't care which of those terms is used, but if you're going to insist that the term "label" appear with respect to the denier claim, then we're going to have to attribute the phrase to either Democrats and/or liberal critics. That's a reasonable expectation in my opinion.CFredkin (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said above: You are free though to re-write that part to conform to sources about who used the label.. I never objected to this. If you do not care which term is used, why did you remove the sourced term 3 times? Go to the article, attribute it respecting the sources and put back the word backed by the WP:RS. Thank you. Gaba ^(talk) 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I mis-spoke in my previous post. I do prefer the term "called", but can live with "labelled" if it's attributed appropriately.CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We should bear in mind that the reason the sources use the term "label(led)" is because "climate change denier" has become a category in public discourse. That is to say, it is not necessarily the case that a partisan source is calling somebody else a derogatory name, though there will obviously be many people that have a negative association with "climate change deniers" due to their respective position on climate change. Considering that Rubio is politician, then obviously such public discourse in the media is something that Wikipedia should cover.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Using credit card "material"

An editor, Veto118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has recently added a lot of material, some source, some not, to a bunch of bios of mostly politicians. Quite a bit of it was reverted by other editors as not being sourced or not really that notable. I removed the following: Rubio has come under fire for misusing the Florida State Republican Party's credit card for his personal expenses, which he eventually repaid.Wides-Munoz, Laura; Farrington, Brendan (5/19/2012). "Marco Rubio's Past Includes Political Vulnerabilities". Huffington Post. Retrieved 14 July 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help).

as not being really that noteworthy. Another editor readded it and I removed it again. I will defer to others, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Story covered in HuffPost (Politics) (one more [17]), The Washington Post, PolitiFact, FoxNews (several times [18], [19]), NBC News, abc News, CBS News, Politico. "Not really that noteworthy"? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Gist is he used a party credit card and sought to avoid using it for "personal expenses" but paid those parts himself even though they were on a credit card. There was $15,000 which some felt he ought to have paid and which he thought were proper expenses for that card - which he paid upon it becoming an issue. The poor parts of the edit are "has also come under fire", and "eventually repaid" as there is no source which states that he intentionally violated any process, and "eventually" implies an excessive length of time. The reliable sources would support

Marco Rubio used a party credit card, and repaid questioned expenses of about $15,000 to the party. Personal expenses were paid by Rubio to the American Express account and had not been paid by the party.

Which is significantly different from the edit made. One might note that Rubio was not charged by any state or federal agency in the matter. Where no charges are filed, it is likely the authorities saw no crime. Collect (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Collect, PolitiFact found that "not everything adds up" with regards to Rubio's claims, which they labeled "Mostly False". In particular, they noted that "the fact that there were purchases that appear to be personal, and were paid for by the Republican Party, undercuts his claim." ([20]). Your proposed text does not reflect the content of this reliable source, and in fact actively contradicts it. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually has it occurred to you that if a crime was committed that at least one of the investigations would have resulted in a charge of some sort? No? Years have passed. No charges. And Politifact did not, and does not, have the information found in the investigations. The amount of the purchases, which Politifact only says existed but makes no claim as to amount, is entirely consistent with Rubio paying $15,000 to cover any questioned purchases, and he never denied the much larger amounts which he had paid in a timely manner in the first place. This is the gist of what the articles actually state, and it damn well is what we are limited to.

And when you say Politifact said Mostly False you are errant -- the link you gave says Barely True and I suggest there is a slight difference between the words they used and the words you attributed to them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong (as Gaba points out below, PolitiFact changed its terminology from "barely true" to "mostly false", and my link makes this clear). But, as Gaba also points out below, it's irrelevant and a distraction from the content under discussion. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The edit by Veto118 is much closer to what is established by the sources given than Collect's version. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I count (correct me if I'm wrong) three editors including me who believe the original edit is better than the one proposed by Collect. Collect: neither you and certainly not WP are Rubio's lawyers. We do not argue on whether what he did was illegal or not, we report what the sources say. "And Politifact did not, and does not, have the information found in the investigations." and you know this how? "This is the gist of what the articles actually state, and it damn well is what we are limited to", that's your opinion which is not shared by the majority of editors here.

BTW MastCell is right, PolitiFact says verbatim Mostly False: "Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False." To recap, this is the edit that was removed:

• Rubio has come under fire for misusing the Florida State Republican Party's credit card for his personal expenses, which he eventually repaid.

This is what I propose:

• On 2010 Rubio was questioned after charges made to his GOP American Express card during his two years as House speaker for nearly $110,000 were leaked.[21][22] The records listed several personal items including grocery bills, wine and plane tickets for his wife. Rubio justified the charges as legitimate Republican Party expenses and said he personally paid American Express $16,052.50 for nonparty expenses.[23]

I believe this provides a lot more information on the issue while still keeping it short and it's heavily sourced. Let me know what you guys think. If no objections are raised, I'll put it up in the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The link MastCell gave says Barely True. One must not inaccurately represent the positions that Politifact had - if you give one, I suppose you must give both. Else we ill-serve readers utterly. Note the change was not with regard to Rubio [24] in case you somehow thought they made this change on this particular article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the link MastCell provided says precisely what I stated above: that the rating was changed to Mostly False after they changed their rating system (why that site changed the rating system is irrelevant). The article MastCell pointed to also clearly shows the Mostly False image right below the sub-title "Rubio says GOP credit card paid with "my money"". Rubio's claims are rated Mostly False in the article and that's that. Given that all of this has absolutely no relevance to this article whatsoever, why would you chose to waste editor's time with this is beyond me. Do you have any issues with the statement I proposed above? If so please speak up, otherwise I'll be adding it into the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources refer to $16,000 being at issue -- the use of "$110,000" and any implication that any wrongdoing occurred is not acceptable. No source suggests that "wine and groceries" were any significant part of the $16,000 at all. I have previsously stated what the sources actually support -- and this would be true if he were a member of any party in any nation n earth as far as I care. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Collect, the AP article cites "nearly $110,000 in charges over 25 months" and notes that the expenses included "grocery bills and wine bought from a store near his Miami home". The CBS News source confirms that Rubio charged "more than $100,000... for expenses including grocery bills and plane tickets for his wife". You are wrong to say that the $110,000 figure is unsourced. You are wrong to say that "wine and groceries" is unsourced. It is problematic that you continue to argue over content without any apparent concept of what the sources actually state. I'm formally requesting that you stop misrepresenting these sources and participate more diligently and seriously. In particular, please read the cited sources before claiming that material is unsourced. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Collect: are you actually reading the sources? The HuffPost mentions the $110,000 amount and nearly all of the sources presented mention "over $100,00". That's the amount that was leaked and from that Rubio returned approx $16,000. "any implication that any wrongdoing occurred is not acceptable", what? So now you are demanding what should be in the article based on what you believe rather than what the sources report? Two sources comment on wine, grocery bills and plain tickets which makes this "No source suggests that "wine and groceries" were any significant part of the $16,000 at all", utterly irrelevant. What you presented earlier was rejected by the three editors participating in this discussion. That is: everyone involved but you. I'll await what the rest of the editors have to say about my proposal MastCell, Nomoskedasticity. Malerooster I know you stated you prefered to stay away but your input is of course welcomed too. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks MastCell for the input. What do you think of the edit I proposed?. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have specific ideas that what is written in English is what the writer means. The Politifact judgment hinges entirely on whether the party was legally responsible for paying for an AmEx card which was contracted for by the party, and thus opined that therefore Rubio was incorrect in saying the amount of total personal expenses was "his money." I would note that absolutely nothing came of the bandied multiple investigations, and that therefore it is quite likely that the investigators found no criminal wrongdoing at all. The faux gravitas attached to the affair is far in excess of what others think of the affair -- basically that there were questioned categories of expenses amounting to about $16,000 and that no one has claimed that the party paid $100,000 of Rubio's personal expenses. I commend you to read the Politifact article closely to see exactly that point about who was responsible for paying AmEx. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

First: do not insert your comments inside mine. Second: I'm tired of indulging you in this "Rubio's lawyer" game of yours and whatever it is you think you are doing by trying to misrepresent one article out of the 11 presented. Your constant WP:IDHT has become disruptive. I'll wait to see if other editors agree with the text I proposed above and if so I'll add it to the article. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

First, please accept that I did not intentionally disrupt your comments in any way and I find your accusations to be less than collegial. I trust you heard that. And your claim that I misrepresented the following:

Using the card for personal expenses was not explicitly prohibited, but personal expenses "were expected to be paid through a reimbursement, or in some cases directly to American Express," Betta said. There was no written policy on the use of the cards, Betta said.

Rubio, who had the card while he was a member of the state House leadership, used the GOP American Express to pay for both personal and party-related matters. A majority of the party-business charges are related to travel -- airfare, hotel, rental cars.

Under that rule, Rubio would not have been liable for any charges -- personal or business. So when Rubio says he paid back about $16,000 in personal charges, it's unclear if he had to, or if he would be penalized if he did not.

His money may have never been at stake.

And it is that last statement on which the Politifact article rests -- that because Rubio was not directly liable to Ame=Ex that he was wrong to say it was "his money" involved.

And although the card was under his name, American Express says that in general -- as long as a cardholder isn't violating the rules set out by the company -- it is the company (in this case the party) that is liable for the charges. And the cardholder (in this case Rubio) won't have his credit rating affected if the bill is not paid on time.

So there's little evidence that it was "his money," but more that it was really the party's. We rate his claim Barely True.

Again making clear the basis for the Politifact judgment was whether the Republican Party was the one responsible ultimately for payments to AmEx. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba p: I think your proposed text is a reasonable reflection of the available sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it would be appropriate to proceed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

{outdent} @Gaba, Hi, I was probably more reacting to reverting an editor whom seemed to have been editing articles with some sort of agenda and in fact there is a discussion about him at ANI(headed there next). Thanks for the links. I usually don't like editing political bios since they can get contentious over party lines but did jump in here. Again, I will probably defer to others in this case and I have seen both user Collect and Mastcell do a lot of editing of political bios, but they seem to "cancel" each other out :) Cheers and good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Malerooster No worries. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Investing in the poor

In what sense is this:

Rubio has called for investments to provide the poor with the skills they need to no longer be dependent on government aid. He has said that while this would not save money in the short run it would pay off in reduced poverty later.

Not an allowed neutral rephrasing of

"When I spoke with him, Rubio also stood by his own antipoverty proposal, acknowledging it would not save any money but suggesting it might in the long run since it would lift many out of poverty."

Hcobb (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In every sense? You've made a complete original interpretation of what the article says. "has called for investments", where does it say that? "provide the poor with the skills they need", where does it say that? "no longer be dependent on government aid", where does it say that? "not save money in the short run", where does it say "in the short run" or anything similar? If you want to mention this "antipoverty proposal" of Rubio, I suggest you track down an article about it since not much can be extracted from this one. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• The plan wouldn’t save a dime in the short run — in fact, it would most likely increase costs
• What sets Rubio’s thinking apart is his enthusiasm for a different approach to educating and training the young.

I.e. investments in skills, by spending money in the short run.

• it might in the long run since it would lift many out of poverty

I.e. long term savings. Hcobb (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No. You are fundamentally breaching WP:OR and WP:SYN by combining different statements to derive your own interpretation. That is not acceptable. The source does not support the statement you propose. I repeat: if you wish to say something about Rubio's "antipoverty proposal", you need to come up with a better source, preferably one about the issue in particular. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree somewhat. You can perfectly add that content, but only if is fully attributed. Just rephrase accordingly, and keep the content. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So what is the alternate phrasing of Rubio's policies that I'm not seeing here? Hcobb (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, not much can be extracted from that article since it's pretty vague and contains very little information. At the risk of sounding repetitive: if you want to say something about Rubio's "antipoverty proposal", you need to come up with a better source, preferably one about the issue in particular. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a better source, this is as good as a source as you need. We just need better copy-editing and full attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Tea Party association

The article seems a little short on detail about Rubio's association with the Tea Party which was very notable around 2010. Here are some sources that may be useful if anyone is interested in expanding this aspect of the article.

1. "Rubio, a dynamic Tea Party candidate..."
2. " "He understands the plight of the common man a lot better than most because of his background," said Jason Hoyt, the director of the Central Florida Tea Party Council, who embraced Rubio early. "That really resonates with tea party folks." "
3. "The senator [[Marco Rubio] who was elected as part of the Tea Party wave in the 2010 midterms, said he and his wife train at the shooting range two or three times a year."
4. "His political history also explains Rubio's special bond with the GOP's tea party faction."
5. "Rubio is renewing his outreach to tea party supporters and his advocacy for GOP causes as he struggles to repair his image as a conservative standard-bearer."
6. "Rubio, like some other Latino Republicans who have had high profiles in the last year, is a Tea Party conservative, and that – not his ethnicity – is what shapes Latinos’ view of him, political experts say."
7. "For months, Rubio, a Tea Party Republican from Florida, sent several daily press releases and appeared weekly on television news shows pleading the cause of immigration reform."
8. "And one other Tea Party senator, Florida’s Marco Rubio, is being hailed as a “savior” for the GOP as he moves to the center and negotiates an immigration reform deal."
9. "...Tea Party-backed lawmaker Sen. Marco Rubio..."
10. "Rubio was one of the first big wins for the Tea Party..."
11. "Then a rising GOP star emerges from the Tea Party ranks and makes his mark in Congress. In his first Sunday show interview, Senator Marco Rubio talks about the debt crisis and his political future." ... "A Tea Party favorite, people are already asking whether he [Marco Rubio] might run for president or vice president next year."
12. "one-time tea party darling"
13. "One of the top Tea-Party-backed fundraisers, Florida Republican Marco Rubio..."
14. "tea party champion"

References

There is also a parallel discussion at BLPN about Rubio's Tea Party association.- MrX 14:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Climate change skeptic?

What's the rationale for including Rubio in the Climate Change Skeptic category. Based on his bio, it doesn't appear that he's contesting climate change. He's contesting the link between climate change and human activity.CFredkin (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe there should be a CFD renaming discussion, but it seems pretty clear from Google and from the climate change article that these days the term "climate change" is pretty generally used as shorthand for "anthropogenic climate change", with the obvious corollary extending to skeptics. 2600:1006:B003:176F:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. He may not be a climate change denier, per say, but he's clearly skeptical of 'climate change' as the term is commonly understood and used. He is defined in the article as having "questioned the scientific understanding of climate change". How is that different from skepticism? Removing the category seemed like it was making the article less clear by focusing on a pedantic and minor phrasing issue. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help CFredkin to consult the section of the articled titled "Climate change", where we read: 'Rubio has stated that he does not believe that human activity is causing climate change, and argues that proposals to address climate change will instead "destroy" the economy. The independent fact-checking website PolitiFact found that Rubio had consistently questioned the scientific understanding of climate change: "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it."' This is of course exactly what the "climate change skeptic" category is about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Then the category should be called "Anthropogenic Climate Change Skeptic" (or something like that). It's mis-leading to apply the label "Climate Change Skeptic" when the article does not say that he is skeptical of climate change per se, but that he skeptical of the link between climate change and human activity. It's not reasonable to assume that the average reader will know that "Climate Change Skeptic" is shorthand for "Anthropogenic Climate Change Skeptic".CFredkin (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You can discuss that proposal at that category page. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have the url for that? In the meantime, I still maintain that the category is mis-leading for Rubio given the current nomenclature.CFredkin (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Category_talk:Climate_change_skeptics - Cwobeel (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See: WP:CFD#HOWTO 2600:1006:B003:176F:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that there has been no statistically significant change in temperatures for the past 16 years or so despite a 10% increase in CO2, it may be time to create a Climate Change Realist category for people like Rubio. Arzel (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't open that can of worms here. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Climate Change Skeptic is an appropriate category for Rubio as 2600:1006:B003:176F:B945:D20A:9451:85D explained quite adequately. I don't think our readers are as intellectually challenged as CFredkin would have us believe.- MrX 21:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Crist's party status

This article was changed to alter references to Charlie Crist's party from "Independent" to "no party affiliation". Doing that to distinguish 'independent' from the Independent Party of Florida is setting a bad precedent. The term "Independent" is extremely common usage, and is not owned by this Florida group, or the completely unrelated ultra-right wing American Independent Party, or any other group. Additionally, this use of independent is so common, certain Wikipedia templates use the term as a default option, meaning that rewording it breaks formatting. Additionally, as far as I know, nobody is confused that Crist is a member of this smaller party, right? Until there is genuine confusion, I don't think this is helpful. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Polls

An editor objects to some of the poll content, so I'm opening this section to discuss it.- MrX 14:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There will be literally hundreds of polls in the next 18 months - and the question is what weight we give to the earliest "crystal ball polls" at this point where keeping up with all of them would result in 80% of this BLP being polls. I suggest that the current polls are not of significant biographical value, nor of any sufficient long-term encyclopedic value for Wikipedia, and that including them all becomes an exercise in making Wikipedia into a newspaper and not an encyclopedia whose articles will be read a century from now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think including a current set of poll results is fine. We can add more later and then remove the ones that no longer matter. People looking for information on Rubio might well want to know about this issue, and the value of Wikipedia in this respect is that we can include it now without having it become a permanent element -- i.e., again, we can update and replace as necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, we should only include a few of the more notable polls. This type of information is encyclopedic, at least leading up to the 2016 election. I would agree that in 100 years these polls would be trivia, but I don't view Wikipedia content as static, so the poll summaries serve our readers now. - MrX 15:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In short - use Wikipedia as a newspaper and not as an encyclopedia. I demur - I feel we should produce actual encyclopedia articles and not be People Magazine or the like. Clearly your mileage varies but I feel if we know the polls are crystal ball gazing exercises, and we include them, we should also include Sydney Omarr's forecasts about the future. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe survey results are typically included in BLP's for politicians. Otherwise who decides which polls should be included? There will be literally thousands of polls conducted prior to the 2016 elections. Also I'm not sure why polling in NH should be emphasized. I believe survey results would be more appropriate in an article on the 2016 presidential nomination process.CFredkin (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there still objections to removing the poll results? If so, I've got some additional poll results I'm planning to add.CFredkin (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of further objections, I'm going to go ahead and remove the survey info.CFredkin (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Marco_Rubio_et_al seems to not support adding polls before anyone has announced a candidacy. Collect (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, WP:BLP/N is not a venue for sorting basic content disagreements and, given the low participation in the discussion, certainly cannot be used to create new content guidelines. The village pump is thataway→.- MrX 19:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, this is far from the first time on Wikipedia this has arisen, and the general opinion is we can wait until the person is officially a candidate before adding masses of polls. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what your logic is, exactly. How does citing poll results make Wikipedia "a newspaper"? By your logic, we should remove all the pages dealing with Polling for the entire 2016 election. That makes absolutely zero sense. 169.231.57.3 (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As a minimum bar for inclusion, I suggest that only polls which are mentioned in secondary sources be included in BLPs. This standard is often applied to other content (e.g. votes by politicians).CFredkin (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That's a very reasonable criteria.- MrX 19:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

From late 2012 to mid-2013, Rubio came in first in eight consecutive national polls among potential 2016 candidates, from such sources as Public Policy Polling, Harper Polling, Quinnipiac University, and Farleigh Dickinson University. A poll from the WMUR/University, tracking New Hampshire Republican primary voters' sentiment, showed Rubio at the top alongside Kentucky senator Rand Paul later in 2013, but as of April 18, 2014 he had dropped to 10th place behind other Republican contenders. The poll, however, also suggests that Rubio is not disliked by the primary voters, which could be positive for him if other candidates choose not to run. In statewide polls, he has performed most prominently in his home state of Florida, alongside Jeb Bush, and has also performed fairly well in Suffolk University polls in such states as Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota.

Refs
References

Endorsements

are there Endorsements already?83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Vouchers for veterans

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-candidates-eye-vouchers-veterans

Rubio is offering a major change in current policy. Why is this being censored out? Hcobb (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This source looks reasonable.CFredkin (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

On deeper inspection I don't think Maddow connected her research firmly enough to Rubio himself, so I'm sticking with his comments for now. Hcobb (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Rubio is US Citizen by birth not Cuban American

Cuban American is a person who was born in Cuba but then got the US Citizen by naturalization. It is like Peruvian American or Colombian American etc.--Yayoloco (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)