Talk:Marco Rubio/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

RFC: Should this material be left in the article without attribution?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the statements require in text attribution. The majority opinion is that the statements are opinions and not facts and should be presented as such with inline attribution so that the reader is easily able to tell they are opinions. AlbinoFerret 20:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The material is sourced to Michael Mishak's article In the National Journal;: What Kind of Leader Is Marco Rubio? An Investigation

  1. That position had typically required a lot of arm-twisting, but Rubio took a different approach that relied more on persuading legislators and less on coercing them.

    .

  2. Rubio also gained an extra advantage in that regard, because he was sworn in early due to the special election, and he would take advantage of these opportunities to join the GOP leadership.

    .

  3. Yet, Rubio's style was very different from Bush's. Where Bush was a very assertive manager of affairs in Tallahassee, Rubio's style was to delegate certain powers, relinquish others, and invite former political rivals into his inner circle.

    .

Should this material be left in the article without attribution in Wikipedia's voice?

Comments

  • Yes. This RFC is malformed for two reasons. First, the person who started this RFC omitted the very extensive notes at the end of each sentence that provide full attribution and support, and also omitted even footnote numbers that point to that attribution. Second, the RFC question wrongly says that there is presently no attribution, whereas there is plenty of attribution, just not inline. I objected to omission of the notes previously at this talk page, so it seems very deliberate now. The material in question is uncontradicted fact from a reliable news source, not opinion at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No - Opinions needs to be attributed, in particular when the opinions make assessments of leadership style, intent, or other such value judgements of a living person. Footnotes may be a good addition, but are not a replacement for in-text attribution. Michael Mishak's opinions of Bush and Rubio, may be notable for inclusion, but attribution is a requirement in this case. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No Even though they're not particularly controversial, they are one man's opinion of how he sees things. It's not the same as fact. Since this is a BLP, it is preferable to simply attribute it! —МандичкаYO 😜 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you maybe meant to vote "no"? I prefer "yes" but whatever....Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed it. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No - Unless these are widely held views, they need to be attributed. Lengthy footnotes are not quite the same as in-text attribution, but the larger concern in this case is that they contravene WP:STRUCTURE.- MrX 15:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Please elaborate somewhere why you think WP:STRUCTURE is relevant. There is no controversial information here, and no contradictory claims that are contrary to each other. It's absurd to clutter up the article with tons of inline attribution for mundane factual information that is sourced to reliable news reports.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
From the policy: "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view..." Adding a large amount of one individual's opinion to footnotes creates a neutrality problem.- MrX 23:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to delete the extensive notes which I inserted to provide more thorough attribution at the request of Cwobeel. The Mishak news report is...a news report. It's obviously not an opinion piece, and no one has indicated any "opinion" contrary to what he said and reported. The three items in the Wikipedia article accurately summarize the Mishak news report, and the extensive notes exist merely to demonstrate that the summaries are accurate. Delete the notes if it makes you feel better, but please stop pretending that a simple news report is an opinion piece. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No - Same reasoning as what the above users have already stated. Since the opinion of the article is not widely held, it needs to be attributed in order to make sure it is not WP:UNDUE. Opinions are not the same as facts. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No - Unless these are widely-held views (i.e., repeatedly mentioned in other sources). Neutralitytalk 20:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Is the material even slightly controversial, Neutrality? If I provide a second footnote to another reliable source for each item, would that be adequate in your opinion, and if not then how many reliable sources are necessary?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Depends on the type of source, and the stated proposition. A second independent source would further the idea that a given proposition is widely accepted and thus doesn't need in-text proposition. But, of course, it's more than just counting sources. If you have something specific in mind, I will take a look at it with an open mind.
I might also say that I find these quotes slightly redundant with the Gelber material already in the article. Neutralitytalk 23:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. These statements don't seem controversial. Is there any suggestion that they're not accurate? It seems a little silly to keep saying "according to National Journal...".CFredkin (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No It does make silly reading when an article contains a list of "according to...", but that is how we do things here. With a bit of style formatting and variation the article can still be a good read without presenting opinion in Wikipedias voice. FWIW don't attribute to the National Review, attribute the author as he is the one making the opinions. AIRcorn (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No Pretty much per everyone else and all the arguments for attribution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree there should be attribution. The issue here is inline attribution. The RFC question does not make this distinction, and therefore this RFC is malformed and/or meaningless. In any event, this Wikipedia article now provides inline attribution at the points in question. Footnotes have always been included.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No it's seems pretty clear they are asking if this should have in text attribution. It seems clear also that every user who has voted no is aware of this. It also seems very clear that you are aware of this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I hope people understand the RFC question, and realize (e.g, from my objections) that the footnote numbers and the word "inline" have been omitted for no good reason.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The question leaves out inline because it's not questioning if inline citation should be used. They are asking if in text attribution. Do we want Wikipedia to say that Rubio is arm twisting and ect? Or would we rather leave that to the author or source to say? Wikipedia voice vs the only alternative?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No. RFS member Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No. The relationships between the wording in the article and the wording in the sources are complicated, and I don't see that the words in the article accurately reflect the source. It’s not just a matter of adding a citation or not (this RfC is not properly framed). For example, the third sample of wording in the article says Rubio “invited” rivals, yet the source says he "recruited" them. The third sample says Bush was “assertive", yet the source says Bush was “domineering”. The meanings and connotations are too far apart. This is a problem which could be solved with quotation marks. Consider the second example, it switches from a singular “advantage” to a plural “advantages” — either that’s an error or something is missing. The first example says the position “had typically required a lot of arm-twisting”, as though the arm-twisting is in the past, yet the source keeps the arm-twisting in the present, as though the position still requires it. Which is different. The third footnote that’s in the article contains a statement that is a whopping example of original research and analysis: “Again, this is supported by various quotations by Mishak, and none of them undermine or contradict that Rubio’s style was to delegate certain powers, relinquish others, and invite former political rivals into his inner circle.” That is not acceptable. The quotations need to be removed and then worked on to make them strictly accurate. Clockchime (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • The notes accompanying these three items are as follows, and they make clear that the information in the news report is a factual journalistic assessment from a reliable news source:

According to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution, "in-text attribution can mislead". For example, if we wrote "According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening" then that would be highly misleading. The same is true here. Moreover, per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution, "It is best not to clutter articles with information best left to the references." As far as I know, none of the material that Cwobeel is objecting to here has been contradicted by anyone, and it has been proved in great detail by a reliable news source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. The footnotes use attribution, but not the article's text. Readers need to have at-a-glance the understanding that the opinion is attributed to Mishak. This is NPOV 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The statements are not the least bit controversial, and you have not pointed to anyone who disagrees with them. They are totally factual, and are proven factual by the cited source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You don't get it. I don't have to disprove anything whatsoever. What this RFC is about relates to the presentation of an opinion as if it was a fact and in Wikipedia's voice. Be patient and let editors come and weigh in. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I said above, "Before you go slapping more templates on the article, how about if we see what other editors think?" But you were too impatient.[1] I've got lots of patience. I don't think it's appropriate to slap a template on the article every time you have a disagreement that hasn't yet been resolved your way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: This RFC poses the question, "Should this material be left in the article without attribution in Wikipedia's voice?" However, the material presently is in the article with tons of attribution, just not inline attribution. Therefore, the RFC is malformed, and the quoted sentences also misleadingly omit any hint that there are footnotes, and so this RFC will resolve nothing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No need to shout. The RFC is very clear in its presentation, please respect WP:DR and let the RFC run its course. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It is deliberately misleading, and I have requested that the RFC be cancelled.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
In addition to being deliberately misleading, the RFC is now also moot because inline attribution is now provided, against my better judgment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to participants There is some concern that the clear and obvious question above may not be clear. Should this material be left in the article without attribution in Wikipedia's voice? So far every person excluding Anythingyouwant seems to have clearly understood it thus far. To clear up any possible future confusion that may eventually pop up let's clarify the question real quick. Should we follow WP:INTEXT and use in text attribution is the above examples?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio

Note: Formal RFC is at Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio#RfC: Is Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio notable to have a separate article in Wikipedia? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't think Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio is notable enough in her own right to merit a separate article in Wikipedia. Any relevant material can be easily merged here in the Personal life section. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. // Psemmler (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Clearly this individual has notability on her own merits. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Notable for what? A former cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins, or being the spouse of Rubio is not notable for a separate article. Can you provide some arguments? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Being a Miami Dolphins cheerleader is not just being a cheerleader, it is a job and career and celebrity status. For several years. Her status as "First wife" of Marco Rubio is also notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Total nonsense. Notability is not inherited by marriage, and being a cheerleader is absolutely not notable. I will start an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are enough sources that discuss her exclusively that provide vindication of her notability. - Informant16 9 January 2016
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Characterizing Rubio's words in the language of his opponents, without quoting him

{{BLP noticeboard}} This [2] is inappropriate. It is not fair to characterize Rubio's words in the way his opponents would talk about them, then go on to say that Politifact says he is wrong, without even quoting what he said. Additionally, it's a violation of WP:Synth.CometEncke (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If Rubio finds himself in the position of being an opponent of mainstream scientists, that is indeed a difficult position to be in -- but it's not our problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. However, the current version, by saying that "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming and that proposals to address climate change would be ineffective and economically harmful.", gives a misleading impression of what Rubio actually said. Specifically, the phrase "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change", does not accurately reflect what he told the National Press Club, which is the quote that the article is based on. I encourage you to go to the ABC source, and look at the quote. What he is saying is that he believes that the notion that climate change is "directly and almost solely attributable to human activity" is unproven. But if you look at the linked article on the scientific understanding of climate change, even the lead portion of that article does not make such an assertion. Therefore, in addition to being unfair, the current version is simply wrong. For this reason, although I don't like revert wars, I am going to go ahead and re-revert. I will, however, do so without block quotes, which I am told are an NPOV concern.CometEncke (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
According to the source: "Rubio says he thinks the laws won’t work — but will hurt the economy in a “devastating” way." and "Rubio said. “The question is: Is man-made activity causing the changes in the climate?”. To conform more closely to the source, we could change "... arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming..." to "... questioning whether human activity plays a major role in global warming...". But let's please not remove sources.- MrX 13:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • We don't characterize Rubio's position on his oppponents' terms, so the premise of this talk page section is fundamentally incorrect. We characterize Rubio's position in the terms of independent, reliable sources (such as Politifact), which is what we're obliged to do by basic site policies. MastCell Talk 02:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Which source says that Rubio does not accept the scientific understanding of climate change, exactly? I must have missed it. Perhaps the article forgot to cite it? CometEncke (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There are innumerable independent, reliable sources attesting to the fact that Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change (namely, that it is driven primarily by human activity). I'm surprised you're having trouble finding them. I've attached a handful below:
Sample of available reliable sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Dann, Carrie (May 12, 2014). "Rubio: Human Activity Isn't Causing Climate Change". NBC News. The title says it all, but also notes: "Rubio also said that he disputes 'the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what's happening in our climate.'"
Let me know which ones you would like to use for the article, or feel free to do some looking yourself. MastCell Talk 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
If you are saying he either disputes the extent of, or altogether disputes, the connection between temperature and human activities, I agree with you. But implicit in your remarks is another assertion, which is demonstratably false -- the assertion that that connection constitutes the entire scientific understanding of climate change. That is incontrovertibly false, just as much as the assertion about Rubio you appear to imagine that I am making. CometEncke (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming..." from the article makes no claim about "the entire scientific understanding". It's a straw man. "The scientific understanding" would be understood by a reasonable reader with grade six education to mean "scientific consensus", in other words, the widely-held view among scientists.- MrX 14:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a reasonable third-grader would understand it would not detract at all from this Wikipedia article to say that "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of human contributions to climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming..."Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Your sentence preceding the part in quotation marks is difficult to parse. The phrasing proposed in quotation marks is awkward and repetitive, and the current wording is better. Any reasonable reader will correctly understand the second half of the existing sentence to be refining the first half. --JBL (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
We could write that "Rubio disputes widely accepted scientific truth, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming..." But such a broad statement would be too general. Specific is better. I hope you can parse that. Anyway, it's not a huge problem as far as I'm concerned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. --JBL (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

He is a Hispanic American not Latino American because he comes from Cuba. Kaybe123 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Cuba is considered part of Latin America. See Rangel, Carlos (1977). The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. pp. 3–5. ISBN 978-0-15-148795-0. See also Skidmore, Thomas E.; Peter H. Smith (2005). Modern Latin America (6 ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–10. ISBN 978-0-19-517013-9.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Immigration section

That section does not come close to being NPOV. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How specifically is the section NPOV?CFredkin (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of the debate flub into the main article/presidential run section?

Seems like, according to many press outlets, the repeated line of the debate flub has been called historic and a defining moment in Rubio's career and campaign. It should be included in some capacity. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly this was Rubio's Howard Dean moment. It may be worth a brief mention here, and even more so at the campaign article.- MrX 01:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Too long

Some sections can and should be split to separate articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

One of these would definitely be moving his political positions into a separate article at Political positions of Marco Rubio which is a redirect at the moment. Idealist343 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Not really. The section here need to summarize his key political positions, per WP:SUMMARY. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It's verbatim the same as the "Overall political stance" section in the main article. Feel free to revise both, but they're perfectly in sync.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No, they are not. we need to summarize the article not just a section of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That section summarizes the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't find that this article is especially long, but it wouldn't hurt to trim some detail. I object to removing the 'Political positions' section without leaving a summary of all of his notable political positions. There's some legislative detail that can be trimmed from the 'U.S. Senate section' and some detail could easily be removed from the 'Adjunct professor at Florida International University' section. - MrX 12:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • FWIW I agree with both the spin-out and the idea that it should not be spun out without leaving a proper summary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is 117,541 bytes. The Hillary Clinton article is 227,618 bytes. Barack Obama is 274,355 bytes. John McCain is 189,812 bytes. Bernie Sanders is 121,421. I'm removing the tag until there's some evidence that it's warranted.CFredkin (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The Political positions of Marco Rubio now has a proper lead based on material from the PBS NewsHour. That lead is also repeated in the pertinent section of this article. The only thing I did not mention is life/abortion since I'm not supposed to edit regarding that issue, per ArbCom edict of ages ago. I only mention this so that someone else can take care of that. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The edits referenced above by Anythingyouwant look fine to me. My objection is to a claim that the article is too long at this point.CFredkin (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The Hillary Clinton article is not a good example, because it's badly bloated (like the others you mentioned). WP:TOOLONG says: "At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The policy also says that the right thing to do is not to slap a tag on an article that is longer than the guideline, or to start chopping it up, but instead one should start a discussion about whether shortening is appropriate or if the additional length is justified because of the topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, I don't favor slapping tags on an article before talk page discussion has encountered difficulties. Anyway, the tag is off this section now, and the discussion has been going on productively in this talk page section for over 20 hours.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Process-wise, can we please follow WP:BRD? Give it a few days, see which way people are leaning. Personally, I haven't had any chance to look at this, but the 28k-byte changes back and forth in the history make it harder to do. CometEncke (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd be glad to leave it the way it is now, for a few days, because no one has explained why we need to repeat everything at Political positions of Marco Rubio, and no one has asserted that the current summary of his political positions (including recently-added material from the PBS NewsHour) is in any way inadequate or otherwise improper.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No, WP:BRD would suggest putting it back to where it was before. That said, the last thing this needs is another person warring it back and forth, and I'm not going to, at least not now. Looking at the material that is being warred over, I did have one question. It seemed like a lot of it was in alphabetical order, but a few things (drug policy) were way out of alpha order. Is there any kind of policy on that? CometEncke (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If someone reverts without giving any reason whatsoever, then I don't think that qualifies as the "R" in "BRD". Anyhow, you'll see that I put the "drug policy" section in alphabetical order at Political positions of Marco Rubio.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's please quit removing this section until there is some consensus on how it should be summarized. The PBS article is a poor prototype in my opinion. For example, the net neutrality description is lacking nuance. You also omitted his position on gun rights, and abortion. Euphemisms like "Rubio believes marriage is between a man and a woman." do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Let's try a straightforward "Rubio opposes same sex marriage (and apparently wants to roll back the Supreme Court decision making it legal[3])".- MrX 22:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
We could delete the whole article until we agree on every point. But I think the rational thing would be to stop repeating verbatim everything at Political positions of Marco Rubio, and simply improve the summary of it. I am fine elaborating a little bit on the same-sex marriage position, and the PBS article provides such elaboration, but I'm not for saying that PBS has a slant on this that is too conservative for Wikipedia. Regardng abortion, I already explained why someone else has to fill in that blank, not me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The separate article was a redirect until you turned it into an article. If you're not happy with duplication, make it back into a redirect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with those who proposed above having a separate article on political positions, so I'm not deleting it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but then you won't sway anyone with the "duplication" argument. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've also removed the new summary paragraph for the time being. Currently it's just adding needless redundancy to the article.CFredkin (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's redundant to summarize political positions before detailing them, any more than it's redundant to have a lead before having the rest of an article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Now that the warring has stopped (thanks), I took a look at the articles for the other four leading 2016 candidates (Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, and Trump). All four of them do have a summary of political positions with more detail in a sub-article. So for consistency, I think that would make sense here. CometEncke (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Currently Clinton's summary of her Political Positions consists of a number of ratings of her position on the conservative vs. liberal spectrum, as Rubio's does currently.CFredkin (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That style would be best, and is what I started out replacing this section with. But others objected that they wanted a summary of particular issues, so I got a summary from PBS NewsHour. Then people objected that the PBS NewsHour summary is inadequate, so I combined it with a summary from the New York Times. And then that was removed. Any one of these iterations would be better than the detailed issue-by-issue approach that we have now. We are supposed to summarize what's at Political positions of Marco Rubio, but I cannot get a summary of that article into this one, even if it's merely in addition to what's already here. So I invite others to give it a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the consensus above formed by Cwobeel, Idealist343, Rhododendrites, CometEncke, and myself, I expect to again remove the detailed issue positions soon, and install a hat note linking to Political positions of Marco Rubio. That article is identical to what's already in this one. I haven't inserted any new sources into either article regarding Rubio's political positions; both articles use sources that have been in this article for a long time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection as long as we don't lose any major points, and as long as we don't use euphemistic wording. I would help, but I'm going to be busy IRL for the next few days.- MrX 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The way that the summary is set up, it relies on the PBS and NYT surveys to pick out the major issues, and both surveys have been in this BLP a long time (not inserted by me). P.S. If Rubio has a euphemistic belief or position, and these survey articles say so, then I wouldn't feel comfortable circumventing it in a summary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. Now I get to do some stuff IRL.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: It seems like you took the opportunity to polish up some of the political positions so that bad things sound good. For example, "on climate change, he believes temperatures have increased, but denies — or is reluctant to acknowledge — the consensus of the scientific community that it is caused by humans, and he asserts that other nations like China are mainly responsible;" ← That is not even close to the consensus version of this material that was in the article, so I changed it to use the exact wording in the consensus version. - MrX 13:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
If people are going to mess about like this (i.e., watering down a formulation previously arranged via consensus), we can go back to having "political positions" in this article (and restoring the sub into a redirect). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I correctly followed the two survey articles about his political positions, from PBS and NYT. I had hoped we could stick to those two sources which pick out the major issues of greatest relevance, and concisely summarize where he stands. Details and further sources are available at Political positions of Marco Rubio. Of course, if you think the NYT and PBS are euphemistic, unreliable, right-wing sources, then understandably you might disagree with the approach I took.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you need help finding the RfC above? It hasn't been closed yet, but it's obvious how it will be closed (and the sentence in question was previously in the article). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

{od} It's an interesting question what happens with an RfC that is started at article A, but by the end, it's an arguable question whether it better applies to article A or article B. Is anyone aware of any precedent on that? CometEncke (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Grossly out of step with NPOV

is the phrase 'The university and Rubio's office dispute the notion that the teaching position was based on a "sweetheart deal"'. That's insinuating guilt by the frankly underhanded means of putting in the denial. I will restrain myself for the moment, based solely on my dislike of revert wars, but frankly, that's way over the line. For example, I notice that the Hillary Clinton article does not deny that any "donations" the Clinton Foundation received might have had anything to do with any official decisions she made at State. CometEncke (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume it's directly supported by the source, but I think it can be taken out. It sounds a bit non-neutral and doesn't really add much to the bio.- MrX 01:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
It is directly supported by the source. Since there were accusations of a sweetheart deal, it seemed only fair to Rubio that we also include the denial. I'm open to modifying that section, and encourage you to give it a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence should go. I think it comes across as WP:WEASEL words.Eeyoresdream (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, per the consensus above, I've taken it out. Thank you all for your inputs. CometEncke (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Repetition

I find this edit by Cwobeel to be highly objectionable. The edit summary given was, "this is a bio". Yes, Cwobeel, I am aware that the article is a biography. I fail to see why that means that the name of a newspaper (The Washington Post) should not be linked, or why the section "Personal life" must repeat that Marco Rubio was briefly a Mormon as a child, something already explained clearly in the section "Early life, education, and entry into politics". Would you please have the courtesy to explain yourself properly, instead of with cryptic edit summaries? Is there some special reason why Rubio's being briefly a Mormon is so very important it must be repeated twice? Please do tell. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that religion during childhood doesn't need to be repeated in two different sections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Fine, thank you for saying so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree, saying this once is enough.CometEncke (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

NH Debate

I've removed this content from the article. That detail is not appropriate for Rubio's bio. It is already included in the article on his presidential campaign, where it's probably more appropriate. Time will tell whether the incident has a long-term impact. If we're going to include this incident here, we should consider including the incident regarding Clinton's response to a question regarding her $675K speaking fee in her bio, which received a similar level of media attention.CFredkin (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If we say that he's got great oratory abilities, I don't see a problem with briefly mentioning that his oratorical goof cost him New Hampshire.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Proper reference for an article

Rather than mess it up ...

Reference 131 points to the magazine and not the article written. How is this fixed properly?

The article reference would be: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/30/marco-rubio-is-right-that-others-have-missed-more-votes-but-theyve-also-come-under-fire/

Thank you!

All done, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Does the sourcing given support the statement "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change"?

NAC:There is rough consensus that the sourcing does support the inclusion of the statement with respect to Rubio. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article contains the following passage: Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming . . . The article points two two sources [4][5]. A third source, not currently linked in the article, also discusses Rubio's remarks: [6]. Are the sources sufficient to support the statement in the article? CometEncke (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • No, Rubio agrees with portions of the scientific consensus (the earth is warming), has taken no position that I can find on other portions (sea level is rising), and, as the sources show, says be believes another portion (humans are the primary cause) is either unproven or false (not entirely clear which he believes). That's a far cry from disputing the entire scientific understanding, as the article states. EDIT: I find it rather disheartening that none of the "yes" voters has even addressed my actual concern. LATER EDIT (2/12): In light of the recent spin-out of the political positions, it is now arguable whether this RfC better applies here or at Political positions of Marco Rubio. Despite my obvious interest in the RfC per se, I'm actually not taking any position on that until I see some precedent, other than a suggestion that the closer should consider the issue.[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The scientific understanding of climate change is that it is occurring primarily as a result of human activity. Rubio disputes this. There are innumerable independent, reliable sources attesting to Rubio's position (a subset of which I've provided here). It is sort of incomprehensible that we need an RfC to authorize us to state an obvious, well-sourced fact, although I guess it is election season... MastCell Talk 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Seek consensus and ye shall find it. I won't wade into this, except to say that there are plenty of reputable scientists who do not subscribe to every facet of the scientific consensus about climate change, even though they do not dispute that overall consensus. If you stick closely to what the sources say, I think the editors in dispute can reach agreement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. The two sources cited are more than sufficient, and corroborated by numerous other sources as pointed out by MastCell. Even the ABC News article linked by the OP supports the content in question when Rubio says: "The fundamental question is whether man-made activity is what's contributing to it. I understand that people say there's a significant scientific consensus on that issue, but I've actually seen reasonable debate on that principle." Rubio considers the debate about anthropogenic climate change to be ongoing and reasonable, while the overwhelming majority of scientists consider it settled. That's the dispute. - MrX 23:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, in particular with the LA Times source. Also see the Scientific American. Personally, I have the impression that he panders to the Republican base and donors, possibly against his better judgment, but there is no doubt that he does. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
CometEncke, maybe you have not made your concern clear enough? Yes, I think that the sources are sufficient to support the bolded statement, and I offered an additional source supporting the claim. What, if not that, is your concern? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It's the first two sentences after the bolded word "no" in my vote. Are they unclear? CometEncke (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
CometEncke, would you approve of "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of human contributions to climate change, arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If you look at what he actually says, it seems like sometimes he says just what you said, and other times he says something more along the lines of "arguing that it is not proven that human activity plays a major role in global warming." How to handle that discrepancy I don't know. CometEncke (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, maybe you ought to figure out how you want to handle it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If I support MOND, I dispute general relativity, even if I don't disagree with all of it. Likewise, many climate science deniers agree with, say, the existence of temperature, some even that global temperature changes. But they disagree with core parts of the scientific consensus and hence the consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
On the criterion you are suggesting, it would be quite easy to argue that the IPCC itself does not agree with the scientific consensus of plant biology, given their chronic lack of clarity about the blindingly obvious impact of CO2 rise on plant growth in general and agriculture in particular.CometEncke (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
"Blindingly obvious" to whom? From a quick look at the literature you seem to argue akin to "iron is necessary to prevent anemia, so a sword in the stomach cannot be bad for you". In other words, while CO2 in isolation has a positive effect on some plants in some situations, things become a lot more complicated if you take other factors into account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, obviously. --JBL (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. The statement is unambiguously supported by now three (numbered 144, 145, 146) references. CometEncke: the statement does not say that he disputes every aspect of the scientific understand, indeed it makes it clear which aspect he has doubts about. Maproom (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the sources provided clearly support that statement. The LA Times piece is especially clear about it. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, the header question "Does the sourcing given support the statement?" and the question in the last sentence of the abstract "Are the sources sufficient to support the statement in the article?" are not precisely the same thing, but answering to the section header question - yes, the sources support that statement.--Mondiad (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral, From my understanding, Rubio (from this article) believes in non-anthropogenic climate change, but not anthropogenic climate change. So he believes in natural occurring changes in climate. Personally I do not like the term "Climate Change" as it is extremely vague because it could also refer to the natural change in climate e.g. The Earth plunging into an ice age due to natural changes in its orbit can also be "Climate change". If termed properly Rubio should've said that he rejects anthropogenic climate change, (to be even clearer "anthropogenic global warming") and believes in non-anthropogenic climate change. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Why does the text say scientific understanding as opposed to the article who says scientific opinion? I'm not saying it's particularly different but there's probably a reason one word has been picked over another since that was a conscious choice to pipe it that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - on the contrary, the cites show him in loose acceptance of the existence of climate change and that human factors play in. They seem mosly a couple liberal-lean papers poking at him (no surprise) for opposing the White House proposals (since he's Republican, also no surprise). It did not cover each of the bullets at Scientific opinion on climate change, but I think what's there accepts major items. I also think the wording 'dispute' and 'arguing' are factually incorrect as he is not literally arguing or disputing with a scientific group. I wouldn't say 'oppose' or 'support' either without an act to do so -- funding, voting, proposing a bill, even just marching or signing a petition but some definite action. Just answering questions from journalist with no action to them ... not so much. Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • If you're capable of dismissing the wealth of reliable sources (including the Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, the Christian Science Monitor, PolitiFact, etc) as "a couple liberal-lean papers" [sic], then I think our understandings of site policy are extremely divergent. You also contend that Rubio exhibits a "loose acceptance" of the role that human activity plays in climate change. Please elaborate on the sources underlying your belief; as I've documented above, reliable sources seem essentially unanimous in noting that Rubio either ignores or denies a human role in climate change. One of us is clearly misinterpreting available sources; if it's me, I'd be happy to be enlightened. MastCell Talk 01:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • MastCell - Yes, I and also you must dismiss other sources, since that is what the RfC asks about. The question is if just the Miami Herald and the LATimes articles are sufficient for the wording of the wiki line. Instead I see (a) Miami factually shows the contrary and (b) These particular papers open it to seeming a 'just a couple liberal-lean papers poke at him' versus a neutral presentation. The Miami article to the contrary includes Rubio quoted as actually conveying the scientific consensus and loosely agreeing with it. “I’ve never denied that there is a climate change,” and “Scientists have concluded, in their opinion, that because we have produced more carbon into the atmosphere in the last 150 years, that’s the reason why, in their opinion, the earth’s trendlines are warming,”. The article wording which is not supported has "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change", and that wording being unlimited and active is obviously wrong. There would need to be demonstration of him actively putting forward contrary proposals to be 'Rubio disputes' and it would have to be on all or at least the fundamental points. Otherwise it exaggerates what should say 'some of the scientific understanding'. Bottom line -- the two cites would be more appropriately characterized as weak or partial acceptance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Your argument is much like saying that someone who has invented a perpetual motion machine, turned his refrigerator into a time-travel spaceship, and is convinced he can levitate the Empire State Building through sheer force of will disputes only "some" of our understanding of physics because, hey, he accepts that heliocentrism may not be completely wrong. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, quite obviously. Anyone who claims otherwise either hasn't read those sources or has no clue what the "scientific understanding of climate change" is. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, quite obviously.
  • "“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.”" - Rubio on ABC's This Week in 2014 (via New Republic
  • "Humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe, for the following reason: I believe the climate is changing because there’s never been a moment where the climate is not changing." - Rubio on Face the Nation (via Washington Post)
  • "Marco Rubio (junior U.S. senator from Florida) believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man" - Scientific American
  • "[the climate] has always been changing ... and what percentage of that is due to man's activity is not something there is a consensus on." - Rubio on Fox News (via NPR) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites - ??? This acts like 'No those two are not enough' on the Miami and LA articles, but it started Yes ... again the RFC is not Rubios position, it is whether the two cites stated do the job for the wording as shown -- or not. Markbassett (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the sources were included in the RfC question or not. This thread is about whether sources support the inclusion of a statement. We're not going to start a new RfC for each specific set of sources, asking over and over "what about these specific sources?" to which people are only allowed to say yes or no without presenting any others. Wikipedia requires that potentially contentious statements are supported by reliable sources. All that matters if whether available sourcing supports inclusion of the statement. Even if no sources were cited at all at the outset of the RfC it would still make sense to consider the question in the context of sources people bring up over the course of the RfC. Finding additional sources only renders moot any assumptions built into the premise that there are only 2 or 3 sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Rhodo -- just follow the cites -- the broad and absolute language did not give sufficient cite, which IS what was the topic, and just following cites and conveying due weight still adds up to partial support, or 'grudging' or ' doubtful on parts'. The language in article is just too broad to fit the facts. Markbassett (talk)
The language is "too broad" only if we are willing to disregard what the "scientific understanding of climate change" actually is. Human causation is fundamental to the scientific understanding of present-day climate change, just as evolution is fundamental to biology. The real problem with the sentence is that "disputes" is too weak; "rejects" is more accurate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mark I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it looks like my response would be to say more or less the same thing I did above. If you're simply disagreeing that the sources I pointed to do not support the proposed text, then my only response would be something along the lines of what Boris started with just above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Rhodo YOUR cites say Rubio accepts climate change, and in 3 of 4 that humans are a factor. Not accurate to say this as "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding". One could say "disputes Obamas plans" or "Rubio is often criticized", or "weak, grudging, partial" even. But the proposed wording is too broad to match the cites. And again has appearance of couple more democrat-leaning papers sniping at Repubs - seems partisan - mostly on they criticized Obama -- also no surprise. Markbassett (talk)
The question is not "does Marco Rubio 'accept climate change'". The question is whether "Rubio disputes the scientific understanding of climate change". And those sources clearly support that statement. Most of the quotes above are his own words, so "the liberal media" tack doesn't seem relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The LA Times article quite clearly supports the statement, as does the ABC source, for that matter. One could quibble about the exact meaning of "dispute" if one only had the Miami Herald article, although that would be a real stretch, but it's irrelevant anyway, since the LA Times piece is unequivocal. Anaxial (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes the scientifically relevant part of understanding climate change is understanding that there is overwhelming evidence that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuel. The sources clearly show that he does not accept this evidence or argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - A denier is a denier is a denier. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The language of this particular vote is inappropriate. CometEncke (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - the three sources clearly support the statement. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but check sources. Here by Legobot. In the initial RfC, these three sources are provided:1,2, 3. 1 isn't really useful as there isn't anything specific enough. Tossing aside rhetoric trying to claim denialism is smear tactic, etc., while a common argument of deniers, isn't good enough for the claim. Simply being opposed to some unspecificed fixes doesn't quite work either. Source 2 and 3 however are appropriate for saying he doesn't believe human activity is causing climate change, and that supports the content in question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political Positions

While I don't doubt his conservative credentials, nor do I dispute the veracity or neutrality of the sources, I do think these quotes are inappropriate for the "Political Positions" section:

"As of early 2015, Rubio had a rating of 98.67 by the American Conservative Union, based on his lifetime voting record in the Senate. According to the National Journal, in 2013 Rubio had been the 17th most conservative senator. The Club for Growth gave Rubio ratings of 93 percent and 91 percent based on his voting record in 2014 and 2013 respectively, and he has a lifetime rating from the organization above 90 percent."

These are not political positions, I have no problem at all with the inclusion of the statements in other areas of the article, but I don't believe they belong here which should be a listing of current political topics and his position on those topics. These do not fit the generally used Political Position criteria. Lipsquid (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The ratings are based upon political positions, and they characterize political positions. It's therefore fairly standard at Wikipedia to include such ratings in a "political positions" section. I am not aware of any criteria that say otherwise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Ratings on political positions are not political positions. The most noteworthy comparisons for this election would be Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, both of whom's political positions sections are laid out as issue - then position. This article is the outlier. Also, where these comments are located could be a sign of undue weight and original research. What sources do we have to say that these groups are important enough, or unbiased for that matter, to judge a candidates political positions? If you have to start expanding on sources to back up sources within the political positions header, you can see this is probably in the wrong section. Why not just move it to a part of the article that is a better fit? I have no issue with the content, I just believe it is in the wrong section. Lipsquid (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Ratings are typically calculated using legislative votes, and Trump was not a legislator. In contrast, see John_McCain#Political_positions and Hillary_Clinton#Political_positions. Both include ratings, and they are both featured articles, which is the gold standard at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant Thank you for the courteous feedback, maybe the Cruz article needs to be changed. This section can be closed as far as i am concerned. Thank you again! Lipsquid (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marco_Rubio/Archive_4&oldid=1199201868"