{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProjectBanners|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=

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

{{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}}

{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=B|subject=person}}

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

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 3

|minthreadsleft = 1

|minthreadstoarchive = 2

==BLP noticeboard==

<s>Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once.</s> This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 17:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

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

{{Rfc top| 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. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 20:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)|rfcid=9900F51}}

The material is sourced to Michael Mishak's article In the ''National Journal;'': ''[http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/24397/what-kind-leader-is-marco-rubio-investigation What Kind of Leader Is Marco Rubio? An Investigation]''

# {{talkquote|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.}}.

# {{talkquote|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.}} .

#{{talkquote|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 <s>the very extensive notes at the end of each sentence that provide full attribution and support, and also omitted even</s> footnote numbers that point to <s>that</s> 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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

* '''No''' - [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV|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 [[WP:INTEXT|in-text attribution]]. Michael Mishak's opinions of Bush and Rubio, may be notable for inclusion, but attribution is a requirement in this case. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 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! [[User:Wikimandia|<font color="#0066cc">—'''''Мандичка'''''</font>]]^{[[User talk:Wikimandia|<font color="#6600cc">'''''YO'''''</font>]]} 😜 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

::I think you maybe meant to vote "no"? I prefer "yes" but whatever....[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 04:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

:::Thanks, fixed it. [[User:Wikimandia|<font color="#0066cc">—'''''Мандичка'''''</font>]]^{[[User talk:Wikimandia|<font color="#6600cc">'''''YO'''''</font>]]} 😜 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]].- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 16:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

:::From the policy: "Pay attention to headers, <u>footnotes</u>, 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.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Comatmebro|<font color="green"><b>Comatmebro</b></font>]] [[User talk:Comatmebro]] 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

*'''No''' - Unless these are widely-held views (i.e., repeatedly mentioned in other sources). [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 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?[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 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...".[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Aircorn|AIR<font color="green">'''''corn'''''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 06:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

*'''No''' Pretty much per everyone else and all the arguments for attribution.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 23:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::No. RFS member [[User:Zppix|Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ]] ([[User talk:Zppix|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. [[User:Clockchime|Clockchime]] ([[User talk: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:

{{cquote|[1]According to Mishak's report in the National Journal, the job of majority whip "typically requires sharp elbows and arm-twisting. But Rubio took a different approach." Mishak’s conclusion about Rubio’s interactions with fellow Republican legislators is supported by recollections of Rubio’s fellow Republicans, including Dudley Goodlette who described Rubio as a “friendly enforcer”, and Nelson Diaz who said “Marco always used honey rather than vinegar….He could convince you on a policy basis.… It wasn’t your typical you-have-to-fall-in-line kind of threat.” Rubio’s emphasis on persuading fellow Republicans as majority whip is also supported by recollections of Lindsay Harrington (when Rubio spoke “it was a rallying call on an issue”). None of the sources quoted by Mishak contend that Rubio was as coercive toward fellow Republican legislators, as previous majority whips.[[http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/24397/what-kind-leader-is-marco-rubio-investigation 17]]}}<p>

{{cquote|[2] According to a report by Michael Mishak in the ''National Journal'', there existed in the year 2000 "a strong set of incentives for freshmen to move quickly upon arriving in the House. Which was exactly what Rubio did. Because he had won a special election—about 10 months before the regular elections—he was already in office when other future members of his freshman class were still running.” Mishak’s conclusion about Rubio using his early arrival to join the GOP leadership is supported, for example, by recollections of Republican House candidate Jeff Kottkamp who Mishak quotes as saying that, “He had a little bit of a head start….I didn’t know it at the time, but that’s what he was doing.” No one whom Mishak quotes undermines or contradicts this assertion by Kottkamp.[[http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/24397/what-kind-leader-is-marco-rubio-investigation 17]]}}<p>

{{cquote|[3]According to Mishak’s report in the National Journal, Jeb Bush “had taken a domineering approach to managing affairs in Tallahassee. Rubio’s style of leading turned out to be quite different.” Mishak supports the latter conclusion by citing Rubio’s decision to give Democratic leader Dan Gelber various new prerogatives (i.e. control over offices and parking spaces, making appointments to committees, and a right to voice opposition). As to Rubio inviting former rivals into his inner circle, Mishak writes that Rubio, “recruited several of his former challengers into his inner circle .... later, he would arrange for historian Doris Kearns Goodwin to speak to the GOP caucus about her book Team of Rivals.” As to Rubio delegating power, Mishak writes that, “the new speaker’s general style [was] a tendency to delegate many of the toughest parts of politics.” 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.[[http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/24397/what-kind-leader-is-marco-rubio-investigation 17]]}}<p>

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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=689499486&oldid=689498309] 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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

::It is deliberately misleading, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FRequests_for_closure&type=revision&diff=689662726&oldid=689549771 I have requested] that the RFC be cancelled.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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?'''[[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 23:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Rfc bottom|rfcid=D891EEB}}

== Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio ==

{{archive top|Note: Formal RFC is at [[Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio#RfC: Is Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio notable to have a separate article in Wikipedia?]] - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 04:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)}}

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. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

* '''Support''', as nom - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

:: I agree. // [[User:Psemmler|Psemmler]] ([[User talk:Psemmler|talk]]) 18:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - Clearly this individual has notability on her own merits. --[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk: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? - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 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.--[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 04:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - There are enough sources that discuss her exclusively that provide vindication of her notability. - [[User:Informant16|Informant16]] 9 January 2016

{{archive bottom}}

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

{{BLP noticeboard|date=January 2016}}

This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=700145877&oldid=700139307] 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]].[[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] ([[User talk: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.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 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. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk: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? [[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] ([[User talk: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:

{{hat|Sample of available reliable sources}}

:::* {{cite news | publisher = [[NBC News]] | url = http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rubio-human-activity-isnt-causing-climate-change-n103061 | title = Rubio: Human Activity Isn't Causing Climate Change | first = Carrie | last = Dann | date = May 12, 2014}} 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.'"

* {{cite web | work= [[The Atlantic]] | title = Is Marco Rubio a Scientist or Not, Man? | url = http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/is-marco-rubio-a-scientist-or-not-man/272903/ | date = February 6, 2013 | first = David | last = Graham | quote = With global warming...&nbsp;Rubio rejects both environmental policy solutions and the scientific consensus.}}

* {{cite news | publisher = [[CBS News]] | url = http://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-the-2016-republican-candidates-stand-on-climate-change/ | title = Where the 2016 Republican candidates stand on climate change | date = September 1, 2015 | first1 = Rebecca | last1 = Kaplan | first2 = Ellen | last2 = Uchimiya}} In Rubio's own words: "...&nbsp;what they [scientists] 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's directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity. I do not agree with that."

* {{cite web | publisher = [[PolitiFact]] | url = http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/14/has-marco-rubio-backtracked-climate-change/ | title = Has Marco Rubio backtracked on climate change? | first = Julie | last =Kliegman | date = May 14, 2014 | quote=Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it.}}

* {{cite news | work = Christian Science Monitor | title = Can Florida prepare for climate change without saying the words? | first = Henry | last = Gass | date = March 9, 2015 | url = http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0309/Can-Florida-prepare-for-climate-change-without-saying-the-words-video}} Quotes Rubio as saying "that he doesn't 'believe human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate.'"

* {{cite news | work = [[Scientific American]] | url = http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/republican-candidates-questioned-on-climate-change/ | title = Republican Candidates Questioned on Climate Change | date = September 17, 2015 | first = Evan | last =Lehmann | quote = Rubio has taken firm positions against blaming people for climbing temperatures as he appeals to conservative voters.}}

* {{cite news | work = [[Scientific American]] | publisher = Columbia University | first = Renee | last = Cho | url = http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/presidential-candidates-who-believes-in-climate-change/ | title = Presidential Candidates: Who Believes in Climate Change? | date = October 28, 2015 | quote = Rubio...&nbsp;believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man.}}

* {{cite news | work= [[Wall Street Journal]] | title = Republican Presidential Field Tilts Rightward on Climate Change |

url = http://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-presidential-field-tilts-rightward-on-climate-change-1452903142 | first1 = Amy | last1 = Harder | first2= Beth | last2=Reinhard | date = January 16, 2016}} Describes "a broad consensus among scientists that human activity is increasing the Earth’s temperature, and that action is needed to soften the consequences". In contrast, states that Rubio "questioned whether climate change is man-made, and opposed potential remedies like cap-and-trade".

{{hab}}

:::Let me know which ones you would like to use for the article, or feel free to do some looking yourself. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk: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. [[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] ([[User talk: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.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 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..."[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 12:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes, thank you. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 14:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

== RFC: Does the sourcing given support the statement "Rubio disputes the [[Scientific opinion on climate change|scientific understanding of climate change]]"? ==

{{rfc|sci|pol|rfcid=69F26CA}}

The article contains the following passage: <b>Rubio disputes the [[Scientific opinion on climate change|scientific understanding of climate change]], arguing that human activity does not play a major role in global warming . . . </b> The article points two two sources [http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2014/05/marco-rubio-explains-his-climate-change-skepticism.html][http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rubio-denies-climate-change-20140511-story.html]. A third source, not currently linked in the article, also discusses Rubio's remarks: [http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/sen-marco-rubio-believes-in-climate-change-but/]. Are the sources sufficient to support the statement in the article? [[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] ([[User talk: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.[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMarco_Rubio&type=revision&diff=700653801&oldid=700624404 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... '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk: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.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 23:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

* '''Yes''', in particular with the LA Times source. Also see the [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/presidential-candidates-who-believes-in-climate-change/ 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. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

::[[User:CometEncke|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? --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] ([[User talk: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"?[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] ([[User talk:CometEncke|talk]]) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Well, maybe you ought to figure out how you want to handle it.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:CometEncke|CometEncke]] ([[User talk:CometEncke|talk]]) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

::::::"[http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/FP12206 Blindingly] [http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014054/meta;jsessionid=ED9C748637D627556F5BB569563C6656.ip-10-40-2-75 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. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

* Yes, obviously. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 02:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

* '''Yes'''. The statement is unambiguously supported by now three (numbered 144, 145, 146) references. {{u|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. [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 08:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)