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.

This was covre by the associated press so it should be on the wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.214.75 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP puts a high bar on the watering hole. Hcobb (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a lot of people accusing him of this, but not sure of their notability on the subject.

• http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/24/palin-calls-rubio-an-amnesty-supporter/
• http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/marco-rubio-amnesty-sparks-radio-static-90307.html
• https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/347189/rubio-amnesty

etc. Hcobb (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Senator Rubio is clearly pro-life and has explained why, and his explanations are documented.
• 2. The source On The Issues, which the article cites for a number of Rubio's positions, has an excellent reputation and is one of the better sources we have for political articles and BLP's of politicians.
• 3. Therefore, there is no good reason to delete a phrase from the article stating one of his reasons for opposing Roe, as User:CFredkin has twice done [1] [2]. Nor is there any reason to delete the source that I added giving Rubio's exact quote.

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

Rubio identifies as pro-life.31 He strongly opposes Roe v. Wade,3162 does not believe in the right to privacy that the Supreme Court cited in Roe,3163 and has stated that the "right to life is a fundamental one that trumps virtually any other right I can imagine".62

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

• CF's first ES said that the material was "unsubstantiated", while at the same time deleting the source for it (!!?!).
• CF's second ES incorrectly said that the two On The Issues pages reference each other (they don't; they reference Rubio's words, and the "privacy" page gives the exact wording he used).
• CF is also unable to find the quote on Rubio's own site. I looked too, and it's evidently no longer there; Rubio has updated his site since he was elected in 2010 (remember, he was saying why he opposed Sotomayor, who was confirmed in 2009). Big shocker there -- a politician updating his website after a campaign (/sarcasm). Sites like On The Issues exist to document and archive politicians' statements, and that site in particular is a good one. There is no reason to doubt its reliability, nor to believe that Rubio has changed his views on abortion (and it would be big news if he did; the GOP base is strongly pro-life).

So there's no good reason, at all, to remove the material in question. The only reason I can think of is a bad one: that Rubio denying a "right to privacy" makes him sound like a bad guy, or something. But that's in the eye of the beholder, and of course such editorial preferences don't dictate content here. I'll restore it now. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the claim is sourced to OnTheIssues, which itself is referencing a page which doesn't exist, it's not valid.CFredkin (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, On The Issues is considered superior on WP since it's a secondary source. The original quote on Rubio's website is a primary source; another example of a primary source would be video of Rubio making a statement. While primary sources can be OK on Wikipedia (and in the case of a politician's website, they are), secondary sources are strongly preferred for reasons explained at WP:RS. OnTheIssues is a reliable source and therefore suffices for documenting a politician's quote even if the primary source is now gone. It's no different from using a good newspaper to reference a statement by a politician when the original recording no longer exists. WP would be in bad shape indeed if we required intact primary sources for everything. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the validity of reliable secondary sources. I'm questioning whether everything on OnTheIssues can be assumed to be reliable. Content on pubs like NYT, WP and WSJ is generally signed. With signed content, the author is responsible for its accuracy. OnTheIssues is published by a group of volunteers who essentially publish anonymously. Their claim to accuracy is that they provide the quotes/sources for their claims. My point is that if their sources for a claim don't exist, the accuracy of the content can be questioned. CFredkin (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any particular reason to doubt it since there are many excellent secondary sources that aren't signed, and this isn't an extraordinary claim (see Sotomayor nomination for what other GOP senators said). Anyway, we agree (for now) re your suggestion below. BTW, a Google search on his quote gives plenty of hits, so we can be very confident .... ah, check it out, here's an op-ed by Rubio with the exact quote. Perfect as a source. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page based on a proposed compromise which keeps the claim but includes the full statement. Please take a look.CFredkin (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine; the context for Sotomayor is fine and more information on his other views is certainly good... I'm just tweaking it to put in Rubio's Politico op-ed as the source, add wikilinks, and putting quotation marks around his quote (for NPOV and copyright reasons). One caveat: as the article grows, there may be subsections for each topic, e.g. abortion, guns, and so on. Should that happen, the full quote would have to be broken up; would you object to that? Just curious, why is using the full quote important to you? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, and my partial revert and attempt to improve it... first off, CFredkin, I'm not meaning to wikistalk you; I just noticed this in the same paragraph as the one we were just discussing above re Roe. Your edit removed the term "roving wiretaps" despite the fact that this was the provision of the Patriot Act that that the sentence and source were talking about. (Once again, the source is the OnTheIssues page for Rubio; it simply says "Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)".) Anyway, I assume the omission was an error and restored.

Re your added explanation about what the Patriot Act is for: we need to be careful with this kind of thing; too much can sound like apologetics. Wiretaps sound bad, but catching terrorists sounds good. This can introduce a subtle spin, contrary to NPOV. If we must have it, it needs to be brief and accurate. We can't say that the roving wiretaps provision applies only to suspects outside the US or that a warrant isn't needed; it's not at all clear to me that either is true. Better to leave it vague and general. In the spirit of compromise I kept some explanation but simplified the wording and put in a pipelink that should help readers.

P.S. If you put in a colon right before your reply, it will indent, which helps make the thread more readable. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

In 2014, Rubio called for replacing the minimum wage mandate on private employers with taxpayer funded wage subsidies for the working poor.^[1]

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