Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Colbert

Be wary of the recent Colbert Show encouraging viewers to modify Republican politician wikipedia pages to indicate that they are Mitt Romney's VP pick. Tim Pawlenty's page was already fully protected for this reason. --Theelectricchild (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that (I don't watch TV) but I had already requested temporary semi page protection which was granted. ViriiK (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOP ticket in 2016

So far this seems to be rather week tea for a BLP. Can we drop the chatter on this until Marco says something himself? Hcobb (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quick trip to Iowa speaks pretty loudly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Note that being prominently talked about as a presidential nominee greatly strengthens his political position in the Senate today and thus is very important in 2012 whether or not he actually gets a nomination at some future date. The fact of the speculation by politicians is a reality Wiki should report. Rjensen (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It remains speculation, and thus is improper as Wikipedia is not a place for crystal-ball gazing. Collect (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And we should not elide the "others" mentioned in the same cites as used for Rubio - in fact, they are mainly about those "others." Collect (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And so Collect added the others, only to be reverted because the "others" didn't belong in the Rubio article. This all points up the worthlessness of adding the material in the first place. As Hcobb correctly stated, this is pretty weak stuff, and I might add that it's fairly standard stuff and is probably going to be mentioned in the press a lot. Are we going to include it each time? There's nothing noteworthy here, and I've restored the article back to before the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the political commentators from all perspectives say that he is under consideration for 2016 among the top 5 or 20 names in the GOP. That is very important for readers to know. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can not pick a tiny piece from a source and ignore the rest of the source. The sources are about multiple people, and not about just one - as the claim implies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjensen, you added the material. You were reverted. At this point, you should not re-add the material unless you have a clear consensus for doing so (WP:BRD). Stop insisting.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young Earth creationism

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]

talkingpoints memo is an opinion source

TPM (talkingpointsmemo.com) is an "opinion source". Columns written for it are "opinion columns." Opinions made by it must be cited as the opinions of those holding them, and not made as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Where that opinion is contentious, it is covered by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this addressed to me? I have not visited a website called talkingpointsmemo, ever. What are you on about? And why are you so interested in keeping this material off the page? If Rubio wants to position himself as an ally to creationists, who are you to say it's inappropriate for our article to note this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have a few problems here. First, you haven't proved that the article is from TPM. Just as importantly, you haven't proven this is an opinion piece. TPM is a journalistic endeavor that is no biased to the left than Fox is to the right. The author of the piece is a journalist, not a columnist, so good luck proving your point. -Rrius (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the matter asserted in the text is supported by a quote from Rubio himself, so even if it were an opinion piece, that wouldn't matter. For that matter, the TPM pulls its information from an article in the Florida Baptist Witness.[1] -Rrius (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source attribtutes it to talkingpointsmemo! Did you fail to see the "TPM" at the by-line? And the "quote" does not support linking him to "supporting" creationists, much less to being a creationist. As for saying that an opinion puiece is not "biased" is irrelevant to the general rule that opinions are attributed to the person holding them. And as for the absurd claim that a quote which does not link Rubio to creationism is somehow usable for saying he supports creationists -- that way lies madness. Wikipedia does not allow sources for anything more than the factual claims in them for assertions of fact. Contentious claims must be removed without strong sourcing per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, you are being completely obtuse. I have never even heard of "talkingpointsmemo" and had no idea what TPM is meant to stand for. And frankly even after knowing I really don't care. There is nothing in the headline, the headers, the url or anything else that conveys the notion that this is an opinion piece. Yahoo News has it under a "Politics" tab. The only one who seems to think it's an opinion piece is you. Not only that -- I'm not drawing anything at all from Rubio's own quote. I wrote my sentence ("As House Speaker Rubio took the side of creationists in debates in the Florida Board of Education over what role evolution was to have in the state's public school curriculum") mainly on the basis of the following passage from the source: "Then-state House Speaker Rubio was on the side of creationists." The sentence I added is, then, verified by the source I provided. Lastly: do take note of WP:3RR as you are currently at the limit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well -- now you know what it is, right? And that it is clearly marked. I would also point out the discussion at BLP/N appears to conform with my position, and WP:BLP is not a negotiable policy. TPM is not a reliable source per Widely recognized as the pioneer of iterative journalism, which draws on readers’ knowledge to break stories instead of using reporters. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing some pretty impressive spinning here. Yahoo News has published an article by Pema Levy who appears to be associated with Talkpointsmemo. So what? I am not citing Talkingpointsmemo, I am citing a news story in the Politics section of Yahoo News. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, count your own edits as well -- you hit 3RR before I did here. And also note [2] which makes absolutely clear that TPM is, indeed, the source of the opinion column. Yahoo is not the source of the copyrighted column. Copyright TPM Media, LLC. Collect (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not know what a revert is? The first time one adds material to a page is not a revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read the discussion about implying Rubio is a "creationist" from earlier on this page? Adding material on the same topic is absolutely a "revert" under the Wikipedia usage. It is not required that it be the same words, and I suggest you know it. Meanwhile, do you elieve Rubio is a "creationist"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any idea whether Rubio is a creationist, nor would my opinion on the issue matter here -- which is why I did not write any content asserting that he is a creationist, which is why what I added was not a revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the source attributes it to the Florida Baptist Witness, so you need not throw up exclamation marks at me. If you want to cite to that source instead, you are welcome to, but your objections to TPM are both groundless and pointless. TPM is a liberal-leaning news source, just as Fox News is a right-leaning one. The piece is clearly an article, not an opinion piece. That covers groundlessness, but the fact that the information is attributed to another news source, namely the one to which the comments were made, makes your argument pointless as well. What's more, an opinion piece that features a direct quotation can be used as a source for that direct quotation. What you cannot use an opinion piece to prove is that some conclusion or assertion made by the writer of the piece is true. -Rrius (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck trying to make changes to this page, Collect, despite your long and broad history of respected work in improving biographies at wikipedia (including in contentious contexts). A review of the article, edit history, and archives seems to suggest that a trio of contributors—Nomoskedasticity, Rrius, and Bbb23—controls the content, through their particular application of wikipedia rules. The fact that the pillars state that "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited" and that the "principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles..." seems to apply to those outside, but not inside this trio. It may be that "politics" are required for change to this article on a politician—that you and others must create the consensus that you need, through communications to other editors outside this trio. (This could be a misperception; someone could do the statistics regarding how many edits have appeared that did not come from or have the approval of these three. But this is how it seems to me, as a regular reader.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.206.67 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archving

This talk page is getting rather long. Does anyone object to using a bot to archive threads older than a month? -Rrius (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without objection, so ordered. -Rrius (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. So ordered.

How does one get to archived talk?

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]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marco_Rubio&oldid=530177550

Leave a Reply