The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The material is sourced to Michael Mishak's article In the National Journal;: What Kind of Leader Is Marco Rubio? An Investigation

1. 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.

   .

2. 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.

   .

3. 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 the very extensive notes at the end of each sentence that provide full attribution and support, and also omitted even footnote numbers that point to that 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No - 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 in-text attribution. Michael Mishak's opinions of Bush and Rubio, may be notable for inclusion, but attribution is a requirement in this case. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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! —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks, fixed it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.- MrX 15:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the policy: "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, 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.- MrX 23:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No - Unless these are widely-held views (i.e., repeatedly mentioned in other sources). Neutrality^talk 20:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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...".CFredkin (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. AIRcorn (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No Pretty much per everyone else and all the arguments for attribution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. RFS member Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Clockchime (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1] 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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to shout. The RFC is very clear in its presentation, please respect WP:DR and let the RFC run its course. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is deliberately misleading, and I have requested that the RFC be cancelled.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being deliberately misleading, the RFC is now also moot because inline attribution is now provided, against my better judgment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]