{{BLP noticeboard}}

{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|collapsed=no|1=

{{WikiProject Biography

|living=yes

|activepol=yes

|class=c

|politician-priority=Mid

|listas=Rubio, Marco

|politician-work-group=yes

}}

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

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

| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes

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

| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes

| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes

| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes}}

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

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

{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=c|importance=mid}}}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 5

|minthreadstoarchive = 3

|algo = old(90d)

== Water bottle ==

The Water bottle incident section seems to hold little (i.e zero) encyclopedic weight. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk: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? '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk: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. [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk: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. —[[User:Designate|Designate]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk: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. —[[User:Designate|Designate]] ([[User talk:Designate|talk]]) 15:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

::::You're absolutely right - my mistake.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk: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? --[[Special:Contributions/108.45.72.196|108.45.72.196]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk: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. --[[Special:Contributions/108.45.72.196|108.45.72.196]] ([[User talk:108.45.72.196|talk]]) 20:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

== Youtube video as source ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&curid=5502549&diff=544215682&oldid=544211462] 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. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk: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. —[[User:Designate|Designate]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]])

:::I have made the same claim in a paraphrased form to prevent it being deleted yet again [[Special:Contributions/193.60.182.93|193.60.182.93]] ([[User talk: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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.18.214.75|108.18.214.75]] ([[User talk:108.18.214.75|talk]]) 05:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:BLP puts a high bar on the watering hole. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=566529244&oldid=565115155] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=567418610&oldid=567365905]. Nor is there any reason to delete the [http://www.ontheissues.org/News_Privacy.htm source] that I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=567365905&oldid=566890440 added] giving Rubio's exact quote.

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

{{Quotation|Rubio identifies as pro-life.[http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Marco_Rubio.htm 31] He strongly opposes Roe v. Wade,[http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Marco_Rubio.htm 31][http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/rubio-america-cannot-truly-fulfill-its-destiny-unless-it-ends-abortion/ 62] '''does not believe in the right to privacy that the Supreme Court cited in Roe,[http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Marco_Rubio.htm 31][http://www.ontheissues.org/News_Privacy.htm 63]''' and has stated that the "right to life is a fundamental one that trumps virtually any other right I can imagine".[http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/rubio-america-cannot-truly-fulfill-its-destiny-unless-it-ends-abortion/ 62]}}

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

*CF's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=566529244&oldid=565115155 first ES] said that the material was "unsubstantiated", while at the same time deleting the [http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Marco_Rubio.htm source] for it (!!?!).

*CF's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=567418610&oldid=567365905 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, [[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 16:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

::If anything, ''[[On The Issues]]'' is considered superior on WP since it's a [[WP:SOURCES|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, [[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25788.html op-ed by Rubio with the exact quote]. Perfect as a source. regards, [[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25788.html 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, [[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8|talk]]) 05:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

==Patriot Act reauthorization of roving wiretaps==

Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=567565931&oldid=567505715 this edit], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=567648709&oldid=567639885 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 [http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Marco_Rubio.htm 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, [[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] ([[User talk:Middle 8|talk]]) 08:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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