{{Talk header}}

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

{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|activepol=yes|class=b|politician-priority=Mid|listas=Rubio, Marco|politician-work-group=yes}}

{{discretionary sanctions|topic=ap|style=long}}

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

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

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

| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes

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

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

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

{{WikiProject Miami|importance=high|class=b|listas=Rubio, Marco}}

{{WikiProject United States|class=b|importance=high|HLA=yes|HLA-importance=high}}

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

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

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 1

|minthreadstoarchive = 2

=="Crown Prince"==

The introduction to the "political positions" section currently says: "According to an opinion piece by James M. Lindsay in Newsweek, Rubio was 'Once crown prince of the Tea Party' but has since become a 'hawk and favors immigration reform'.[82]" That is a lot better than citing some vague news report saying that some unidentified people have called him "crown prince" of the tea party. But still, I would delete all this "crown prince" opinion stuff. There are plenty of objective, non-sarcastic analyses of Rubio's overall political stances, including not just the ACU, but also the Almanac of American Politics and National Journal. And in any event, Lindsay says that he isn't the "crown prince" anymore, so that stuff is less significant in the preface to his political positions.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 14:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

:I would object to removing this, and I also think the addition of "opinion piece" is awkward and unnecessary, bordering on [[WP:WEASEL]]. There was a discussion about this several months ago concerning Senator Rubio being categorized as associated with the Tea Party. I will see if I can find it, because I think it would be helpful.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 19:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

::I think it's a complete contortion of [[WP:Weasel]] to suggest that we should not characterize an opinion piece as such, if we are going to use it. Of course, there would be nothing wrong with this article saying that Rubio used to be more closely aligned with the Tea Party, citing reliable sources, but the idea that he is currently known by ''some'' people as the "crown prince" of the tea party violates [[WP:Weasel]] and is incorrect according to the Newsweek opinion piece.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 19:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm fine with removing the quote as long as we capture that he was a prominent Tea Party favorite, or something similar. That would represent the widespread view without needing attribution. Here is the previous discussion thread that I was referring to: [[Talk:Marco Rubio/Archive 2#Tea Party association]].- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 19:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

::::It would need attribution in a footnote at least. His more recent stances about military and immigration matters have apparently put some distance between himself and the Tea Party, which we could say as well with attribution in a footnote. In the mean time, I don't think this "crown prince" stuff is useful, and certainly should not be attributed to ''some people'', which would be the antithesis of [[WP:Weasel]].[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

==RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph==

[[Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraph]][[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 15:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

:Why would we discuss on this talk page an RfC about Rick Perry? [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 15:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

== Speaker term? ==

Wasn't Rubio [[Speaker_of_the_Florida_House_of_Representatives|Speaker of the FL House]] for only two years (beginning of 2007-end of 2008)? Right now the infobox for this article says "Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives - In office - September 13, 2005 – January 3, 2009". [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

:[http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-speaker-20150710 This source], from ''[[The National Journal]]'', is currently used in the body of the article to support 2005 as the starting date, but it does look like [[Ray Sansom]] assumed SotH in mid-November 2008, (source used on that article: [http://www.nwfsc.edu/news/newsDetail.cfm?ID=115]) so that should be fixed. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 05:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

:[http://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/OFFICES/SECRETARY/SENSESS.pdf this Florida Senate document] says that he was not speaker during the organizational session held November 18, which combined with [[Erik Fresen]] seems like plenty of reason to make the change. I suppose he could've been provisional speaker or something, but November 18 is consistent with other articles, so that is what I put. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 05:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

::From what I've read, they apparently vote on who should be Speaker of the [[Florida House of Representatives|FL House]] well before that designee actually takes the office of Speaker. All these quotes are from the first citation in your original above post:

::*"On September 13, 2005, Marco Rubio, then a 34-year-old state legislator from Miami, was officially designated the next speaker of the Florida House of Representatives."

::*"Rubio has been talking a lot about his leadership experiences in Tallahassee. Obama, he told Fox News in March, 'was a backbencher in the state Legislature in Illinois, and I was in leadership all nine years that I served there, including two as speaker of the House.'"

::*"It would be another three years before Rubio would officially be sworn in as speaker" (that was from around late 2003)

::*"During his two years as speaker of the Florida House"

::*"FOR EIGHT YEARS, Jeb Bush—who left office in January 2007, as Rubio was beginning his speakership" [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 05:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

::::From that above pdf document, it looks like Rubio's Speaker term started on November 21, 2006 and ended around November 18, 2008. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 05:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::Okay. Hmm... My understanding is that most office holders are dated until their successor is sworn in, unless they specifically resign or such, but I'm not certain about that. Regardless, this should be consistent with 'neighboring' article like those on Sansom and Fresen (which they were not previously). The current starting date overlaps with [[Allan Bense]], so it should be changed. Being selected over a year before taking the position is a surprisingly long time to me, but so be it. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 06:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

=="Destroy" the economy==

Objectively, the quotes around destroy are unnecessary. This section is stating the candidate's position, not the objective truth.[[User:Seansmccullough|Seansmccullough]] ([[User talk:Seansmccullough|talk]]) 09:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

== Climate Skepticism ==

In response to reversion by [[User:MrX]]:

I take issue with the text that reads "Rubio has stated that he does not believe that human activity is causing global warming..."

This quote seems to contradict the first source, which states that Rubio "won't answer [the question of whether or not man-made activities are causing the changes in the climate] with a yes or no." Your best evidence to back up your stance is the quote in the LA Times, which reads “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” Context is important here. The part that was left out in your edit summary (character limits, I know) is awfully important to understanding the message Rubio is trying to convey. The phrase "the way these scientists are portraying it" suggests that Rubio is challenging the scope or nature of the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change, and not necessarily denying it outright. He is perhaps suggesting that humans play a large role in climate change, but not as large a role as "these scientists are portraying it." In this way, I think it is misleading and factually inaccurate to suggest Rubio has stated that he thinks humans aren't responsible for climate change. [[User:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq|Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq]] ([[User talk:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq|talk]]) 05:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

:The fact is, that Rubio is on record as claiming that climate change is not due to human activity:

:{{talkquote|"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. The question is, what percentage of that … is due to human activity? If we do the things they want us to do, cap-and-trade, you name it, how much will that change the pace of climate change versus how much will that cost to our economy? Scientists can’t tell us what impact it would have on reversing these changes, but I can tell you with certainty, it would have a devastating impact on our economy."|source=Marco Rubio - ''Face the Nation'' reported by ''[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/04/19/rubios-intellectually-hollow-position-on-climate-change/ Washington Post]''}}

:{{talkquote|"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." "|source=''[http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html Los Angeles Times]''}}

:{{talkquote|"I don’t agree with 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. Our climate is always changing. And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer term trend that is directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity … I do not agree with that. I don’t know of any era in world history where the climate has been stable. Climate is always evolving and natural disasters have always existed … I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. That’s what I do not, and I don’t think the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy."|source=''[https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/07/31/where-gop-candidates-stand-global-warming/lG5u058XWrHw5NX7pDUcoK/story.html Boston Globe]'''}}

:His quotes and the third party analysis support the current wording. It's not even skepticism; it's denial. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 13:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

::This question has been discussed quite a bit (see the talkpage archives). Numerous reliable third-party sources clearly state that Rubio denies any significant contribution of human activity to climate change. For example, [[PolitiFact]] found that [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/14/has-marco-rubio-backtracked-climate-change/ "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it."] According to the ''Los Angeles Times'', Rubio [http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html "does not believe human activity is causing climate change"]. And so on. Several sources note that Rubio tends to hedge or resort to vague statements on the subject (presumably because it is necessary to deny climate change absolutely in order to have a shot at the Republican nomination, but such an absolute-denialist stance needs to be walked back a bit in the general election). But I don't think there are any grounds to ignore reliable sources or to play along with that political gamesmanship. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 16:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

:::My problem is that the article in its current form suggests that Rubio has stated that humans have no impact whatsoever on climate change. None of the sources suggest Rubio has ever stated this. He has instead suggested on numerous occasions that he thinks humans do not have the type and extent of impact that scientists and others suggest, and that efforts to curb climate change will not be effective. Please show me a quote where Rubio directly states that humans do not have any impact on climate change, without some sort of qualifier such as "in the way these scientists are portraying it" [[User:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq|Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq]] ([[User talk:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq|talk]]) 01:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

:::Why not just include a full quote on the matter, with context, instead of trying to summarize his words in a way that inherently creates bias? [[User:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq|Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq]] ([[User talk:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq|talk]]) 01:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

::::That's fine, but I'd keep the quote down to a sentence; any information after that really should be paraphrased. See suggestions in [[WP:QUOTEFARM]]. [[User:Prhartcom|Prhartcom]] ([[User talk:Prhartcom|talk]]) 01:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::The thing about using a quote is that Rubio has given various, and sometimes conflicting, answers to questions about climate change. By picking a single quote, we would likely omit relevant aspects of other quotes. In this situation, I think it's more useful to cite reliable, third-party sources which give an overview of Rubio's responses to questions about climate change, rather than picking a specific quote. Does that make sense? '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 18:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

::::: A single quote will not capture Rubio's position. A summary of the coverage of the subject by reliable sources would do a much better job, and will be compliant with NPOV. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::I suggest we say: "Rubio has given various, and sometimes conflicting, answers to questions about climate change." And tag on a bunch of footnotes, with quotes in the footnotes.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 18:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::No, that's not the right direction for us to take. There is very solid sourcing for the current approach to this topic. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 21:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::::Do you think that language I quoted is incorrect?[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 21:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm strongly opposed to language that hides the fact that Rubio is a climate change denialist. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 21:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::That would be something that I strongly oppose too.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::And yet your proposed sentence did exactly that. Anyway, since we agree, let's call it a day. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 22:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I don't agree with ''that''. If he's a climate change denialist then you can say that before the sentence I suggested, or after, or both. With proper sourcing, of course.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

{{od|13}}I've shown several sources above, as has MastCell, to support the current wording. Could you please provide a couple of convincing sources that say that Rubio has made conflicting statements about climate change? A couple of example quotes would be helpful as well, but obviously we can't use those to form our own conclusion. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 22:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

::I'd be glad to try collecting some Rubio quotes, but have some other things to do right now. I hope to get back to your request later today or tomorrow, X. Incidentally, please note that the quote I suggested merely quotes the other editor to whom you refer.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 22:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

===Conflicting news reports===

On May 11, 2014 the ''LA Times'' published a report titled "[http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change]". On the very same day, the ''Miami Herald'' published a report titled "[http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2014/05/no-marco-rubio-didnt-quite-deny-climate-change-at-least-not-yet.html No, Marco Rubio didn't quite deny climate-change. At least not yet]". In a case like this, I don't think we should side with one source over the other. But we do now. This Wikipedia article says:

{{cquote|Rubio has stated that he does not believe that human activity is causing [[global warming]], and argues that proposals to address it would not work, but would instead destroy the economy.}}

The cited sources are the ''LA Times'' article of May 11, plus a ''Miami Herald'' [http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2014/05/marco-rubio-explains-his-climate-change-skepticism.html article a few days later] on May 15. Similar to the May 11 ''Miami Herald'' piece, the May 15 piece says: "'I’ve never denied that there is a climate change,' Rubio said. 'The question is: Is man-made activity causing the changes in the climate?' Rubio, however, won’t answer that with a yes or no." So, our description does not reflect the two sources that we are citing, but rather sides with the ''LA Times''. Moreover, I do not see where Rubio suggests ''no'' proposals could work to address climate changes, only that the proposals suggested thus far would not work.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

:I think all of this is nicely summarized as follows, in the words of [[PolitiFact]]: [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/14/has-marco-rubio-backtracked-climate-change/ "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it."] You can find quotes where he dodges the question, or hedges, and you can find quotes where he outright denies that climate change is largely man-made. What you ''won't'' find is any instance where his position coincides with that of actual climate scientists. I'm flexible about the wording, but like MrX, I feel pretty strongly that our compact of basic honesty with the reader compels us to note the huge gulf between Rubio's position on climate change (however he chooses to phrase it on a given week) and that of the scientific community. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

::It would be much better to say he waffles, hems, and haws than to do what we presently do which is to flatly say he does not believe that human activity is causing global warming. <small>Hopefully [[Skunk Works]] will harness nuclear fusion before the election and all of this will become moot.</small>[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

:::<small>Yeah, hopefully.</small> The goal here should not be to help the subject hedge his bets. I particularly object to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=678144226&oldid=678143172 this edit] by {{U|CFredkin}}. This seems rather cherry picked to me. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 17:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

::::If reliable sources say that the subject is hedging his bets by being ambiguous, or by being a skeptic instead of a denier or believer, then we ought to say so instead of lying to readers by saying he's a denier.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 17:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::Being a denier and being someone who hedges are not mutually exclusive. I don't think we are lying to our readers at all. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 17:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Why is it fine for us to brand him as a denier when reliable sources like the ''Miami Herald'' say: "No, Marco Rubio didn't quite deny climate-change. At least not yet".?[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 18:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::::We shouldn't brand him as a denier. We should say that he has denied anthropogenic climate change. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::Maybe I have missed something, but it seems to me that "denial" is value-laden word. It was brought to this discussion (global warming/climate change) discussion from discussions about the Holocaust. It was brought to the discussion for the specific purpose to isolate and disparage people that did not believe a certain way on the topic. It has a certain connotation to it. There is no (excuse the intended pun) denying that. There are tons of the other words in the English language that do not have the extremely negative connotation that the word "denier" or "denial" have on them (once again, an outgrowth of the extremely dubious debate about the Holocaust). Just asking questions, just being skeptical of the science of global warming should not get you branded a "denier"--especially since Rubio has obviously went out of his way not to get pinned down definitively.--[[User:MaverickLittle|ML]] ([[User talk:MaverickLittle|talk]]) 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't think anyone is advocating calling him a denier, or even using the word denial. The quote at the top of this thread is succinct, neutral and factual. Rubio has said that humans are not the cause of climate change; that actions taken today won't have an impact on climate change; that he disagrees with the scientific consensus; and that the climate is always changing. We can let readers decide whether he's a denier, skeptic, or just playing to his Tea Party base. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

:::: My edit is intended to better reflect the LA Times source provided (and also quoted above). The previous statement did not accurately reflect the sources. [[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

::::: I don't see any mention of "dramatic" in that source? How is that more accurate? - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 18:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

:{{talkquote|"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." "|source=''[http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html Los Angeles Times]''}}

{{unsigned|MaverickLittle}}

The source [http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2014/05/marco-rubio-explains-his-climate-change-skepticism.html]:

* ''“I’ve never denied that there is a climate change,” Rubio said. “The question is: Is man-made activity causing the changes in the climate?”''.

My edit:

* ''Rubio has stated that he has never denied that there [[global warming|climate]] change, but that he does not believe that [[Human impact on the environment|human activity]] is causing these changes''

{{u|CFredkin}} care to explain your edit summary {{tq|not supported by sources provided)}}? - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 20:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)