{{Talk header}}

{{Round In Circles|search=yes}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|collapsed=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Biography

|living=yes

|activepol=yes

|class=start

|politician-priority=Mid

|listas=Rubio, Marco

|politician-work-group=yes

}}

{{WikiProject Cuba|importance=Mid|class=start|listas=Rubio, Marco}}

{{WikiProject Florida|importance=Mid|class=start|listas=Rubio, Marco

| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no

| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = no

| b3 <!--Structure --> = no

| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = no

| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = no}}

{{WikiProject Miami|importance=Top|class=c|listas=Rubio, Marco}}

{{WikiProject University of Florida|class=start|importance=Mid|listas=Rubio, Marco}}

{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=Start|auto=Inherit|importance=mid}}

==Blanking==

Entire sections were blanked with no explanation, despite their being sourced. Let's not start editing out parts of articles without reason. Whether you like a politician or not, if it is sourced, I say we should leave it in.

Gonzo808 09:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ddb1965|Ddb1965]] ([[User talk:Ddb1965|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ddb1965|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Article is totally cluster****ed ==

Looks like major edit warring has left this article a total cluster****. May be time for an extended semi-protect to try to get this article back into some decent shape. [[User:Safiel|Safiel]] ([[User talk:Safiel|talk]]) 03:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

== RE: Blanking ==

The blanking was done by a Wikipedia moderator; those were my posts. Here is Wiki's opinion on the matter:

In that statement of Wikipedia policy, it states: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. "

My point of view is that just because the information I posted was "titilating" doesn't mean it was MEANT to be, or was an attempt to hurt Mr. Rubio. Especially the part about different companies I posted that he worked for as a Lobbyist. How could that be construed as "tabloid" fodder? Basically Wikipedia told me that even if a fact is true, they can't post it because it might be harmful to the person. This guy is a political figure running for office, I think the world deserves to know the truths about him.

Here is an excerpt of the removed material (with sources):

:

Leon County court records show the Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was foreclosing on a home owned by Marco Rubio and state Representative David Rivera, who is running for Congress. Records show the two failed to make payments since January of 2010. The home is currently for sale, listed at $136,500, but court documents show that the balance of the mortgage on June 18th was $134,795. Leon County is the home to the capital city of Florida.

Rubio has a net worth of negative -$103,000.

http://www.wctv.tv/APNews/headlines/96686674.html

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1484-Bent-Willow-Drive_Tallahassee_FL_32311_1117874273

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/files/documents.pdf

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/marco-rubios-lavish-rise-to-the-top/1079473

Marco Rubio served as a Lobbyist in Miami from 1997 to 2005, according to court records in Miami-Dade county. Rubio registered as a Lobbyist seven times; three times in 1997, on mundane zoning and code enforcement efforts; twice in 1998 on behalf of a real estate effort and something called the American Sales & Management Org.; and once each in 2001 and 2002 as agent for companies listed as the Main Line Corp., a computer equipment company, and Pan American, a developer. Rubio filed a form closing out his record as a Lobbyist on May 31, 2005.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/mar/22/charlie-crist/crist-and-democrats-say-rubio-miami-lobbyist/

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EDIT THIS INFO SO IT IS NOT 'TITILATING' AND PERCEIVED AS A DANGER TO MR. RUBIO????

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Peterdaveloose|Peterdaveloose]] ([[User talk:Peterdaveloose|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Peterdaveloose|contribs]]) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Best known? ==

The article includes ''He is best known for his book 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future.'' I think that he is best known for his 2010 U.S. Senate campaign. Is some actual source for that "best known" claim? --[[User:Dezidor|Dezidor]] ([[User talk:Dezidor|talk]]) 11:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

:Made neutral. Removed claim. --[[User:Manway|Manway]] ([[User talk:Manway|talk]]) 13:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

== Hearsay ==

"In spite of the fact that Harry Reid said that he is suprised that anyone of Hispanic origin can be a Republican, Marco is one.[1]"

Regardless of whether or not this is hearsay (note source), many people of Hispanic origin are Republican— it's relatively common. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.221.9.139|173.221.9.139]] ([[User talk:173.221.9.139|talk]]) 13:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Needs an editorial sweep... BAD! ==

Lots of grammar and punctuation issues. Also, "GOP" is a little informal for an encyclopedia entry, don't you think? This isn't supposed to be a newspaper aggregate--it's supposed to be a reference document. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.153.0.80|69.153.0.80]] ([[User talk:69.153.0.80|talk]]) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Winner ==

Marco Rubio has won the seat! - [[Special:Contributions/99.150.203.11|99.150.203.11]] ([[User talk:99.150.203.11|talk]]) 02:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

== Personal Life ==

It might be fun to mention that [http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/11/marco_rubio_loves_gangsta_rap.php he's reportedly a fan of gangsta rap] and that he was listening to "[[Sexy Bitch]]" while preparing for a debate with [[Charlie Crist]] and [[Kendrick Meek]].--[[User:Heinleinscat|Heinleinscat]] ([[User talk:Heinleinscat|talk]]) 00:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

== Religion ==

Just yesterday, there was a statement correctly informing that Rubio attends the Christ Fellowship Church. To remove this statement, and only identify him as Catholic, is misleading. It is more complete to include this information. However, if there is no agreement on this, it is best to remove his religion on the box at the right, and leave it in the text, until he clarifies his religious denomination. {{desertann}}

"but has apparently converted to Evangelical Protestantism, as he attends the Christ Fellowship Church in West Kendall, Florida." This line is both unfounded, as Rubio claims to be true to the Catholic faith of his parents, and judgmental. The diction is both condescending and unprofessional. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/129.2.129.227|129.2.129.227]] ([[User talk:129.2.129.227|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->

:Yeah, and there's no source. It said Catholic just yesterday. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.196.239.161|74.196.239.161]] ([[User talk:74.196.239.161|talk]]) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The article is locked, but I strongly suggest that the references to Rubio being a Southern Baptist and former Catholic be removed. As far as I know Rubio identifies himself as a Catholic. In addition, there is only one news report I was able to identify that says he attends a nondenominational Protestant Church (many subsequent sources cite to this). If necessary we could simply write "Rubio identifies himself as a Catholic but according to one report, he has attended the Christ Fellowship Church for the past six years" or something like that.

In addition, it is especially misleading to write that he is a "Southern Baptist" in the bio box. Again, he identifies himself as a Catholic as far as I can tell. In addition, the Protestant church he attends defines itself as nondenominational and is only loosely, if at all, affiliated with Southern Baptism.

I hope someone will make these changes.

[[User:Acp39|Lepanto]] ([[User talk:Acp39|talk]]) 23:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I have taken it upon myself to police this article with regard to Rubio's religion. I want to re-iterate that every indication from Rubio is that he considers himself Catholic. There is only one source that suggests otherwise (and I cited to it in the article, thus I'm not seeking to hide the controversy). In addition, Rubio's staff re-iterated today that he is Catholic. I will endeavor to make sure the Wikipedia continues to recognize Rubio's consistent self-identification as Catholic in the absence of any clear and verifiable evidence to the contrary.

[[User:Acp39|Lepanto]] ([[User talk:Acp39|talk]]) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

:Rubio attends the non-denominational [[Christ Fellowship]] church. It's clearly [[WP:UNDUE]] to present one newspaper blog's claim that this church's beliefs are incompatible with Catholicism. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 11:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

:Agreed. The best path is to go by his own self-identification. Besides that reference to the Evangelical church can be traced back to only one news report and there is no evidence that he attends that church to the exclusion of the Catholic Church. Hopefully the self-appointed inquisitors will stop constantly trying to edit Rubio's profile to say he's not Catholic.[[Special:Contributions/24.193.115.37|24.193.115.37]] ([[User talk:24.193.115.37|talk]]) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it's wrong to point out that for the last six years Mr. Rubio has attended Christ Fellowship Church, West Kendall, Fla. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/01/what-is-marco-rubios-religion/ This is fact, not commentary. Let people know the facts and draw their own conclusions. Otherwise, shame on Wikipedia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.48.82.228|84.48.82.228]] ([[User talk:84.48.82.228|talk]]) 22:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Catholics try to hold on to anyone who doesn't condemn or damn them publicly. This guy is doing this to appeal to both sides of the Hispanic vote, the old Catholics and the new Evangelicals. It's all about public image. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.72.161.113|72.72.161.113]] ([[User talk:72.72.161.113|talk]]) 23:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== High speed rail ==

Where does Senator Rubio stand on Govenor Scott's decision to sabotage the high speed rail system by refusing, without basis, the federal grant to Florida for financing most of the project.

One, this is not a forum. Two, your question is completely loaded. Three, your motivation seems to be to make the senator look bad. It is people with this mentality that cause wikipedia to be accused of having a liberal bias. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.206.170.21|71.206.170.21]] ([[User talk:71.206.170.21|talk]]) 02:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "WaPo reveals" ==

I changed the wording in this blp slightly from the Post's ''revelation'' to its ''argument,'' per [[wp:NPOV]]. Also, in view of a [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exile broader definition] of ''exile,'' l removed this biography's implication that Wikipedia believes it false to term Rubio's parents exiles--which in my opinion should be at least be toned down to something like "...so and so believes Rubio's parents cannot be considered exiles" if it is to be reinstated.--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|talk]]) 18:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

:I disagree with both changes, but for the moment I have reverted the one I consider particularly objectionable. Rubio has been perfectly clear in his own use of the word exile what that word means in his own view: his parents were forced out by Castro in 1959. In any event, we can use the word itself because it is the word Rubio uses, and I don't think we should get into [[WP:OR]] about its meaning in some sort of "broader sense". As for WashPo "revelations" -- I don't see the problem here either: the WashPo revealed what had not been widely known before, that Rubio's parents had arrived in the US in 1956, not 1959. That's not an "argument". [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 18:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is of course a blp.<blockquote>Whether they left Cuba before or after Mr. Castro’s takeover, he said, the point was that they felt they could not return. “That is an undisputed fact and to suggest otherwise is outrageous,” he said. Sen. Rubio’s argument, essentially, is that his parents are still “exiles,” as opposed to non-political “immigrants,” because after Mr. Castro took over they felt they could not move back to Cuba.---[http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/opinionzone/2011/10/27/are-you-satisfied-with-rubios-explanation/ PALM BEACH POST]</blockquote>Please provide RSes before reinsertion of this controversial assertion by the Washington Post.--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|talk]]) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

:What a puzzling statement. If you have concerns about whether the Washington Post itself meets [[WP:RS]], then I suggest a visit to [[WP:RSN]]. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 18:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

::<sighs> Pls re-read my initial comment above. The assertion can be inserted in the encyclopedia in the form "according to the Washington Post," followed by "Rubio agues" or some such; it simply is inappropriate for Wikipedia to endorse an allegation deemed controversial per a substantial portion of reliable sources giving the matter coverage.--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|talk]]) 19:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that the WaPo article presents opinions, [[WP:BLP]] essentially requires that they be so identified. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 20:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

===Latest wrinkle===

:[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66958_Page2.html#ixzz1cTt0K4Vo Politico]: "Rubio had often suggested in interviews and on his official Senate website that his parents fled the Castro regime. The Post said Rubio had “embellished” his family history to ingratiate himself with the politically powerful exile community in Florida, an accusation Rubio has forcefully denied. ¶ The senator has conceded he may have gotten some dates wrong, but he has continued to insist he’s the “son of Cuban exiles” because his parents never could return to their native country after 1961, when they realized their country had taken a turn for the worse under Castro. However, new discrepancies in Rubio’s story surfaced this week based on his parents’ 1956 immigration application, which shows they never intended to return to Cuba. ¶ '''“Permanently,” Rubio’s father answered when asked how long they intended to stay in the U.S.''' ¶ Yet inside Little Havana cafes and on Cuban exile radio stations, people are standing by Rubio. So are members of the Cuban-American delegation on Capitol Hill."

:--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|talk]]) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

::Interesting -- though I'm not sure our article here needs to cover every wrinkle. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 18:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Don't know what others think, but I don't believe this warrants a separate section in the article.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

::::I originally wrote it in the "Early life" section because it has to do with his family background. I think that frame is more relevant than the fact that there have been recent newspaper stories about it in the course of recent political campaigns. -- [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 07:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC).

:::::It is a notable controversy within Rubio's current career, per the RSes. If it is not notable enough to be covered there, I dare say it is not notable enough to cover in his blp at all. (Eg - and not to argue [[wp:OTHERSTUFF]] but - apparently [[Aqua Buddha]] is not considered a notable part of Sen. Paul's ''early life,'' either. In fact, it doesn't even get a mention in his campaign section--although, IMO, if it were to be included anywhere, it would be there, per the incident's becoming notable within that context. Also, sexual assault allegations wrt Herman Cain are not in his restaurant assoc. section but in his pres. campaign section....<small>And apparently a blp is a higher hurdle for such details than even a separate article. [[Barack Obama]] and [[Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama]] make no mention of Ayers or Wright, albeit articles exist for each um quote controversy end quote.</small>)--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|talk]]) 15:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::I would put the material in the 2010 election section without a separate header. I don't care about other articles.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Its relevance goes beyond the most recent election, though. I agree it doesn't need a separate header, but it isn't clear to me where it goes if not in "early life". [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::The campaign is a better place for it than Early life. The relevance is clearly to him supposedly using the story as a way of getting votes. Putting it in Early life makes it sounds like someone who just misremembers his own history, which isn't even close to the way it's being represented in the media, or even as responded to by him. Its endurance as a story beyond the campaign doesn't mean it can't go in that section.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::Okay -- good enough for me. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

== "Unsupported media-driven [veep] speculation" ==

Seems maybe a bit redundant--? ''Speculation'' is ''speculation.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=458505781&oldid=458505327 Rmv'd compound adjectival], making it just "speculation."--[[User:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden|talk]]) 19:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

== Present religious status ==

This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=478770576&oldid=478738131 DIFF] removed sourcing for the blp subject's ''present'' status as a praticing Catholic/as an attendee at the Baptist church, substituting wording which misleadingly references the subject as ''having been'' Catholic and ''having attended'' in the past the Baptist Church. Some of the deleted sourcing has been [[wp:PRESERVE|restored]], with the pertinent pgrf reworded [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=prev&oldid=479709230 DIFF] to correct the inaccuracy.--[[User:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden]] ([[User talk:Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden|talk]]) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

== Why no mention of his credit card spending scandal? ==

This one? http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article1075692.ece

Why is this white washed? [[Special:Contributions/76.121.23.59|76.121.23.59]] ([[User talk:76.121.23.59|talk]]) 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

== Multiple citations are lacking ==

* '''Note''' There are multiple claims in the article that are not backed up by ANY sources, much less reliable ones. I have tagged the article as its lacks sources, and has issues concerning references. Where the info in not controversial I have simply tagged the passage, instead of removing the content. Thanks. [[User:Ism schism|Ism schism]] ([[User talk:Ism schism|talk]]) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

== Recent edits ==

An IP has now thrice attempted to alter the article in ways that are non-neutral. First, they removed an image from the article with no explanation. Second, they removed an assertion that was fact-tagged only last month (this particular change doesn't bother me that much, but it's unexplained). Finally, they changed some language about Rubio's amendment. The pre-existing version said:

<blockquote>Rubio's amendment, co-sponsored by [[Joe Manchin]] (D - WV), to allow employers to restrict health coverage for contraception based on religious or moral grounds did not pass the Senate.</blockquote>

The IP's version said:

<blockquote>Rubio's amendment, co-sponsored by [[Joe Manchin]] (D - WV), to allow employers exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for religious or moral reasons, failed to pass the Senate.</blockquote>

Just the use of the term Obamacare should be enough to reject the change, but the pre-existing language also more faithfully tracks the [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/obama-contraception-rule-marco-rubio-bill_n_1274291.html cited source].

I've now reverted 3x and warned the IP about edit-warring (the IP has been blocked for edit-warring recently).--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

== Baptized as a Mormon ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&curid=5502549&diff=493333332&oldid=493332594 Collect sez] that the talk page previously discussed and rejected inclusion of the fact that Rubio not only attended a Mormon church but was also ''baptized'' into that church ([http://news.yahoo.com/rubios-past-includes-political-vulnerabilities-082112082.html source]). I see no such discussion on the talk page. Never mind -- even assuming Collect's edit summary is false, we can form consensus in the usual way. (Even so, given that it's false the reversion should not have been conducted on that basis.) [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 12:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

:Try [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive146#Marco_Rubio] '''where you participated.''' The stuff about Rubio really being a Mormon was deemed by others to not belong in the BLP. Your addition has been out for nearly three months (enough that I rather assumed that you agreed to it per your edit summary ''approving'' the edits I made) - if you wish to add it in, get a [[WP:CONSENSUS]] ''first'', please. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=478770576&oldid=478738131] was 25 Feb. Not added since. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

::If you mean BLPN, then say BLPN. You'll note that I retracted my favorable comment about your edit. I propose to restore the six words that I added earlier and hope to find that others participating here support doing so. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

:::And I surmise otherwise - it is trivia of the first water, making a big claim about a child being baptized into the LDS church while his family attended that church for a few years. It, in fact, says absolutely nothing about his religious beliefs or practices at all. Cheers - and remember this is still a [[WP:BLP]] with specific rules about categorising people by religious or sexual beliefs. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

== No such thing as "the Obama White House" ==

I don't know who is going through all the political pages on wikipedia and using this term to attack the President everywhere they can, but I'm getting sick of it. I can barely find any useable information on these pages anymore because I have to read a bunch rubbish about "the Obama White House did this" or "the Obama White House did that" (and it's always based on opinion and the articles cited say nothing of the sort). If you don't know WHO specifically acted to do whatever it was you're claiming was done, you simply don't know what you're talking about and should refrain from editing wikipedia. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/98.203.17.49|98.203.17.49]] ([[User talk:98.203.17.49|talk]]) 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)