{{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)

==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)

== Nothing on Rubio's war on poverty? ==

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

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

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

In 2014, Rubio called for replacing the minimum wage mandate on private employers with taxpayer funded wage subsidies for the working poor.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/08/rubio-war-on-poverty-has-been-lost/ |title=Rubio: War on Poverty has been lost |last1=Kucinich |first1=Jackie |date=8 January 2014 |website=www.washingtonpost.com |publisher=The Washington Post |accessdate=17 January 2014}}</ref>

[[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 02:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

== Section on presidential aspirations ==

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

* http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/04/14/marco-rubio-shakes-up-staff-and-stirs-2016-presidential-rumors/

* http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375161/marco-rubios-jeb-problem-eliana-johnson

* http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/marco-rubio-jeb-bush-2016-105490.html

[[User:Cwobeel|Cwobeel]] ([[User talk:Cwobeel|talk]]) 03:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

== Awards Section ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== This is disruptive ==

{{ping|CFredkin}} Why this deletion? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=604949274&oldid=604941315]. First you removed it because you argued that the sources were not valid. I then added sources as requested. Then you delete it again because you think it does not belong to a section. Are you doing this in purpose to disrupt? [[User:Cwobeel|Cwobeel]] ([[User talk:Cwobeel|talk]]) 00:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

== Rubio chief of staff ==

{{ping|CFredkin}} First you delete this content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=604927406&oldid=604891285] requesting additional sources, which I added. After I add sources, you remove it again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=604949274&oldid=604941315] with an edit summary of "Not relevant to tenure in House". I then move it to a more appropriate section, and you follow with a 3rd revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=604950802&oldid=604950228] with this edit summary: "Rm content per article Talk", when there is nos such discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

== Where is good faith presupposition? ==

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

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

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

:Saying that Rubio has a history of drug abuse, without reliable sourcing, (as you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=609241836&oldid=608928604 here]) is defamatory.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 18:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/marco-rubio-stonewalls-on-his-pot-smokin

"Marco Rubio Stonewalls on His Pot Smoking—for the Children"

[[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 19:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's just about exactly the same text:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/marco-rubio-marijuana-pot-no-answer-florida-2016-106829.html

Rubio claims that his decision to stay silent on his own marijuana use spurred from the publishing of his recent memoir “American Son,” where he admitted that he “wasn’t a very good high school student” and received only at 2.1 GPA.

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

== Removal of sourced content ==

Twice now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612527806&oldid=612520924][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612528670&oldid=612528503] the statement "''The [[National Climate Assessment]] released by the White House in 2014 found that Florida, Rubio's home state, is one of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.''" has been removed alleging [[WP:OR]] and/or [[WP:SYN]] The sentence is backed up entirely by the [http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html source in place], so I'm not sure what {{u|Collect}} and {{u|Cwobeel}} are referring to. Please explain. Regards. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] ^{<font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font>} 18:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

== Removal of main article link from ''Climate change'' sub-section ==

{{u|CFredkin}} removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612529156&oldid=612528670] the limh <nowiki>''{{main|Climate change}}''</nowiki> claiming it to be a "superfluous link". I disagree that this is superfluous given that the sub-section is ''precisely about'' climate change. Is there policy-based rationale for this? Regards. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] ^{<font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font>} 18:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)