Template:BLP noticeboard

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Cuba C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Cuba task list: Task list New article announcements: Requests: Ambrosio Cave, Calero Cave, Centella Cave, Cuba and the United Nations, Cuban Liberation Army, Cuevas de Punta del Este, Cura Cave, Patana Cave, Pluma Cave Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba) Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista Update: Nochebuena NPOV: Armando Valladares, Delfín Fernández, History of Cuba Copyedit: Armando Peraza, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Fabio Grobart, Julio Antonio Mella Cleanup: Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, Antonio Maceo Grajales, Bay of Pigs Invasion, History of Cuba, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, War against the Bandits Style: Fidel Castro Expand: Cuba–Soviet Union relations, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba–Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven Florida C‑class Mid‑importance Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Miami C‑class Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. University of Florida C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Florida, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject University of FloridaTemplate:WikiProject University of FloridaUniversity of Florida articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Conservatism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/11/19/florida_senator_marco_rubio_the_age_of_the_earth_is_a_great_mystery.html

Mark him down as a Young Earth creationism supporter? Hcobb (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. And that column does not make that claim. And the false umbrage taken at his valid point - that the actual age of the Earth is not necessarily relevant to economic decisions etc. is absurd. Collect (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hcobb, I'd suggest drawing on the GQ interview itself. And perhaps there are other sources that have discussed/analyzed that interview. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about not speculating at all? Rubio made no claim of any sort. Arzel (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He might have... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.186.102.179 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far no reliable source has averred him to be a "young earth creationist." None. Collect (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the archive index in the heading that indicates automatic archiving appears to be dead/broken. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.206.67 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both links (1 and 2) work fine for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "1" and "2" work fine. The broken link is the word "here", at the end of this header text:

"This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.206.67 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "broken" because the archive index page was never created. Rrius, next time remember to create the archive index page and place the comment <!-- Legobot can blank this --> on it, since HBC Archive Indexerbot/Legobot doesn't create it for you. Additional instructions are on the bot's page. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you had a reason for calling me out personally instead of making a generalized contribution regarding what the problem was and that you had fixed it. If you truly thought it necessary to let me know I had made a mistake, making the personal comment on my page instead of making it here (addressed specifically to me) and giving me a {{talkback}} would normally be considered the more polite way to handle it. But again, I'm sure you had some reason. -Rrius (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be addressed to anyone who sees it as well, so they know about the procedure too. Then again, maybe I was just a bit lazy, so I'm sorry if it didn't seem polite. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that it should have been addressed to anyone who would see it; instead, it was addressed to me, which is why it was rude. -Rrius (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the correspondence of these pages for a while. It's rather amazing that any regular contributor would level an accusation of incivility to a stray editor. In general, anyone questioning the content of/suggesting changes to this article seems guaranteed eventual incivility, by the wiki good faith standard. To see examples of why I say this, search the words "rude" and "war" in the talk archives. Then read around the appearances of those words. All in all, this seems a generally unhappy place to try to contribute. And that the pot in this case may be calling the kettle black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On your last point, one of us was provoked, one of us was not. Also the characterization of me as a regular contributor here is baseless. I edited here for something like three weeks, and the main part of it dealt with a series of edits by a particular editor that simply did not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines, including its most basic ones, and about which he or she edit warred mercilessly, ultimately finding himself blocked (and by an editor not involved in the discussion). As for guaranteed incivility, that doesn't track with what is actually written in the discussions above. As a matter of fact, the only incivility I see in them is from an IP editor accusing me and others of trying to "control" content through "application of wikipedia rules". (I'd note that my inclusion in that list is hilarious not only because of my limited participation here, but because my participation in that discussion was limited to pointing out that the quote at issue was supported by a source other than the one being complained of.) Finally, as for the invitation to search the archives for "war" and "rude", there weren't too terribly many examples of the former (and many had to do with the actions of the particular editor I previously referred to) and there were zero for the latter. I doubt your barely veiled accusations were of any value to the two of us—you because you got to make some veiled, yet still unpleasant, accusations that seem based in a grudge about something or other without having to actually defend a real position, and me because I got to respond to your insults and the nasty accusations by IP 70.... So thank you. -Rrius (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security is not running short of money; indeed, it has so much money the federal government is borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund (more than from China) and any fix needed in a few decades is easy to fix. Right now individuals pay Social Security tax on a small portion of their earned income. Simply raising the limit on share of income to be subject to S.S. tax to say $200,000 would fix the system for decades to come. The real problem is Medicare because medical costs in general are so high and increasing, though ObamaCare will fix that to some degree. In fact, Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance. The overhead for private insurance ranges between 15-20% because of advertisements and high pay for executives. The overhead for Medicare is only 3 or 4 percent, so the cost of insurance would be lower if everyone had Medicare. As an historian (American History) with an emphasis on American economic history, that error should be fixed. The other problem with the cost of medical care is that private insurance companies negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for the lowest cost of medications as does the VA, Congressional health insurance and Medicaid. However, when George Bush and the GOP passed the Drug Benefit they refused to allow Medicare to negotiate lower costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.176.244 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a forum for discussing politics. Try the Daily Kos or Reddit. This is about making sure the article on Marco Rubio is biographical and adequately summarizes the reliable sources that have profiled him. If you have a specific change you want to make to the article, point out which sentences are wrong and give us the sources (specific to Rubio) that offer more reliable information. Or if the statements are not reflected in sources about Rubio, go ahead and remove them and leave an edit summary explaining the change. —Designate (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In areas of wikipedia that I am familiar with, people make changes routinely. This is true both of stray edits brought to an article by the occasional visiting editor, and of edits made by a small group of dedicated editors working as a community around the particular article. Here I want to comment on what seems to be a difficulty of such visiting "outsiders" making the occasional stray edits. Judging by the history of responses, proposals for changes almost always seem to go against the views of the dedicated editors. As a result, little outsider-proposed change seems to make it into the article.

The point I want to make here is that we are directed to view changes brought to articles, to be in good faith. The words "If you have a specific change you want to make to the article, point out which sentences are wrong and give us the sources" (in Talk) seem to create a special standard for this article, imposed by the "us". It makes it appear that all editing must be pre-approved. Is this correct? If it is true, isn't this a tacit assumption of visiting editor bad faith, and so a violation of wikipedia philosophy? I am not arguing that Designate's words are not accurate to the way this article is controlled, only asking if it's wikipedia's desire that it should be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things to point out. The first is that while it is important for all content on Wikipedia to be verified by a reliable source, it is vital that information at a biography of a living person be sourced. With living people, there are higher stakes (including libel laws) to contend with. Finding a source is crucial. Using scrupulously neutral language is crucial. Sometimes that takes a group effort. The other thing I need to point out is that this is an article that, because of Rubio's high profile, attracts a great deal of disingenuous edits that are really just ways to score political points. That makes logged-in editors with this page on their watchlists to be a little quicker to revert, especially when there is no source. Because of a rash of unsourced and other poor edits, this page has been restricted to autoconfirmed editors for a week (ending 20 February at 3:53 UTC). Incidentally, by simply creating an account and making 10 edits, you too can be autoconfirmed.

That said, I can't even tell from the other IP editor, the one who made the initial contribution in this section, what the intended change is. If the desire is to discuss Medicare and health care reform generally, this isn't the place. If it is to note some particular proposal Rubio has made or reaction to or analysis of particular proposal, the editor needs to write what he or she wants included in the article along with a source and where to put it. -Rrius (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I don't feel edits need to be pre approved, just that the talk page is here for that purpose. The original poster listed his opinions about Social Security but didn't relate it back to the article. I'm just suggesting that it would be more constructive on this talk page to focus on the article, and propose changes, than to say the article is wrong. There's no need to propose changes before making them; it's just an option. Designate (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref in controversies doesn't make sense (On the Issues). Use Tampa Bay Times: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article1075692.ece instead. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of this article has expired. Subject to the policies on consensus, verifiability, and neutral point-of-view, you should be able to make this edit yourself now, unless the article becomes protected again. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When he delivered the official response to the 2013 State of the Union address, Rubio blamed government actions for being the main cause of the housing crisis, but did not indicate if he thought this was because of lending to traditionally underserved markets or by the reduction of regulation.

Agreeable? Hcobb (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"But did not indicate" is a clear presentation of "argument" rather than "fact." We can surely state what he said, but stating what he did not say runs against Wikipedeia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we put in a timeline then?

In delivering the official response to Obama's 2013 State of the Union address, Rubio blamed government actions during the Bush administration for being the main cause of the housing crisis.

Clear enough? Hcobb (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Republican response to the 2013 State of the Union Address, Rubio said government actions in the past were a cause of the housing crisis.

It is not our place to present arguments not made by Rubio into his mouth - and I suggest his complaint was about the government in general and not specific to the "Bush administration" at all. Collect (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then at least call it the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis. Hcobb (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that our resident POV pushers are intent on using a Blog Opinion piece to attack Rubio. This kind of crap is really tiring. Don't you have anything better to do than to come to WP and push Liberal talking points on a daily basis? Since when are the WaPo opinion blogs considered a "First rate source" on anything? Arzel (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson: “The good thing about Economic facts is that they're true whether or not you believe in it.” ShroudedSciuridae (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why 3/4 of the opening paragraph on his 'early life, education, and early political career' is about his grandfather. I find the information irrelevant and it appears to be pejorative. Also, if US immigration declined or ultimately decided NOT to deport him, is he really here illegally?

"Rubio's maternal grandfather immigrated to the U.S. in 1962 without a visa and was detained by immigration authorities. An immigration judge ordered Rubio's grandfather deported,[7] but ultimately U.S. immigration authorities used their discretion to allow him to remain in the U.S. without a visa.[8] The Associated Press reported that "no other immigration records exist for Garcia from 1962 until he applied for residency four years later" and concluded that he likely remained in the U.S. illegally during the intervening period.[7]"72.51.81.78 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The surmise that a person was "illegally" in the US is not something which holds water in Wikipedia at all. After 1962, the interest in deporting a person to a country with which the US did not have normal diplomatic relations (i.e. Cuba) would have been unsuaul in and of itself. In fact, I would love to see figures on how many Cubans were deported from the US mainland after 1962 to Cuba. If that number is found to be substantial, that would be of interest. If that number were at or near zero, I rather think it was a deliberate decision of the US government at the time not to deport such refugees. Collect (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States' policy has been to treat all Cuban illegals as refugees. Deportation to Cuba was suspended in 1960 when the trade embargo went up. Now the exception to this was after 1996, people who were convicted of aggravated felonies should be deported back to Cuba so there is around 30,000 people on the deportation list out of the millions of Cubans refugees here in the US mostly in Miami. So an immigration judge which is at the very lowest level of the totem pole does not decide policy. It just simply passes the sentence on what is the law on paper but as far as what INS (ICE) did back then was following a different policy. The policy in the United States regarding refugees is that they can earn green cards which eventually leads to US Citizenship. So that would apply to Rubio's grandfather as well which based on the quote above, he did get US Citizenship through his refugee status. ViriiK (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make the apparently radical suggestion that we actually report what reliable independent sources have to say on the subject. The material in question is properly sourced and attributed, so I fail to see any substance to Collect's objection. The Associated Press reported that Rubio's grandfather "likely remained illegally" in the U.S. We convey that reliably sourced information, with clear attribution. That's Wikipedia 101. And the Washington Post article ([1]) very clearly outlines Rubio's grandfather's encounters with the U.S. immigration system:

"In the eyes of the United States government, he is not a political exile. He is a man who has broken immigration laws... Pedro Victor is officially an undocumented immigrant, a man standing on American soil without permission to be there. Then comes the crushing blow. Milich orders 'that the applicant be excluded and deported from the United States.' How could a Cuban be deported under those conditions in that era? A little more than a year and a half after the Bay of Pigs invasion? After Castro’s declaration that he was a Marxist­ Leninist? It turns out that in those days a small number of Cubans were still being sent back to the island for violating visa requirements."

I'm not sure I understand why we're arguing or speculating about matters which are already clearly outlined in the cited reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's convincing enough. It appears from the source that the grandfather was at a key stage an undocumented immigrant issued with a deportation order (which he did not obey). Subsequently he was able to regularize his status. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US recognized a large number of such aliens as being refugees after Castro showed his intentions to the US - thus this is not of any great relevance to the BLP at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask one more time that you leave behind your personally preferred framing of this issue and simply respect the available reliable sources. The Washington Post article I mentioned above makes it clear that it was unusual for Cubans to be deported, but that Rubio's grandfather was in fact one of the relatively small number who was ordered to be deported. I think your reasoning is completely backward - the fact that it was unusual makes it more noteworthy, not less - but since reliable sources amply cover all aspects of the situation I don't see a role for your personal opinion, or mine, at all here. MastCell ^Talk 04:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My issue ois the surmise of "illegally" being a contentious claim based soely on AP surmise, and not on any judicial finding or actions. Lacking such, it is a "contentious claim." Suppose we had an article on George Gnarph, and we wrote "The AP surmised that he committed seventen murders, even no juscial actions were taken about any of them.? Would you not find that to be a BLP violation? Or suppose we had "George Gnarph alleged that the members of the 'Fooism Research group' altered their emails" Would you find that to be a BLP violation? The principles of BLP are that "contentious claims" require solid factual sourcing. No matter on which article whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The couple of sentences on Rubio's grandfather are among the best-sourced in the article. I don't get the sense you've looked at the actual sources you're disputing. There was a judicial finding, of course - Rubio's grandfather was ordered to be deported by an immigration judge. That's in the sources. Your analogy, in which you compare an undocumented immigrant to a serial murderer, is so far removed from relevance that I don't see much point in engaging it. I notice that others are telling you pretty much the same thing at the BLP noticeboard, where you've taken your concern. MastCell ^Talk 04:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit reverted several edits I made on February 14. Most of my edits had comments explaining the reason why the edits were made. Besides bad sourcing, some information was just clearly wrong, like he was married in 1997. If anyone would like to challenge these edits, please take them up in this section to get community consensus. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rubio has occasionally attended Catholic services, but is not a member of a Catholic parish. The quote from the recently added NYT article states:

He retains ties to the Catholic Church, too. "On the final Sunday of the campaign, for example, he attended Mass at Christ the King Catholic Church in Tampa,” according to an e-mail from Alex Burgos, his spokesman. “On the morning of the election, he attended Mass in Coral Gables.”

The quote put in the citation previously was a third party view at the end of the article that was rebutted by another third party a paragraph later.Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I first read this article after the SOTU rebuttal and was surprised to see many sources used incorrectly, dead links, partisan biographies as sources, private non-news websites used for sourcing vote totals, and other issues with this article. For an important and relevant political figure, this article is disappointing. I started making edits yesterday and will continue to do so. Here are couple of issues for discussion right off the bat:

1. The way Speakers are chosen in the FL House needs to be better explained. Since the FL House has term limits of four terms (8 years), the potential Speaker is chosen for their party and class before their final fourth term arrives. Rubio was chosen as future Speaker for Republicans for the 2007-2008 term in 2003. This selection was very important to the rest of his career. More detailed info is needed.
2. I propose deleting the FL House of Reps Committee assignments section. It doesn't seem relevant enough to provide a list of every one. If there were notable events that happened in those committees, then it can be stated and referenced in the text.
3. The U.S. Senate section can be beefed up.
4. I'm still not happy with the Personal life section, it's choppy and could include more information.
5. The serial use of OurCampaigns.com could be changed to official vote totals.
6. Rubio's FL House of Reps official bio doesn't need to be a major source. RS are available for that information.
7. Better sourcing than OnTheIssues.org is also possible.

I welcome input and collaboration in improving this page. Thanks. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Immigration section is a copy and paste from the source. There is also an issue with relying on the Miami Herald, which is admittedly very necessary. The Herald quickly changes the "slug" in the URL of articles so that links become dead very soon. Long-term, the articles are pay-only archives. One solution is to find text from the article and search it in quotes on Google. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnnlaxer -- While you're right about cut-and-parting being a copyvio, the material itself is good, as is the source, so it would be a lot better to paraphrase it. I'll do that in a moment, but in the future please consider paraphrasing rather than deleting, since that's the best way to improve the article. Obviously you're not required to do that, so mentioning it here and in the ES is the next best thing. Thanks! --Middle 8 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your first point. It is obviously important that he was elected speaker, but I'm having trouble following your description of the process or why it is important to explain the process in this article. It sounds like we would just be giving more detail than necessary, but if I'm missing something, please explain. I agree about committee assignments, so I've deleted them. Do you want to take a swing at Personal life and U.S. Senate? If you rely on others to do it, it might not get done. The issues of source quality sound legitimate, but I'm guessing you mentioned them (rather than fixing them) because you aren't anymore motivated than I am to do so. I've deleted the Immigration section because we cannot allow copyright violations. -Rrius (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going slow, working from the bottom up. Help is always a good thing. The current speaker election text is misleading. He was chosen by his caucus and class to be speaker in their fourth and final term. Chosen in 2003, he served as speaker in 2007 and 2008. As far as relevance, Rubio got a much higher-paying job in a large law firm that did millions in dollars of work for the FL House in 2003. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Water bottle incident section seems to hold little (i.e zero) encyclopedic weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Less than a half-litre, to be sure. Last I looked, most people giving speeches have water at hand. Collect (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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? MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Arzel (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Designate (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Collect (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, it's not under "Elections" but under "Florida House of Representatives → Tenure" which is the most logical spot for it. —Designate (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right - my mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I'm the IP you mention. Just for my own information, what facts were wrong in those sentences as I left them? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2] 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. Collect (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Designate (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Collect (talk)

I have made the same claim in a paraphrased form to prevent it being deleted yet again 193.60.182.93 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]