Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin


"Crown Prince"

The introduction to the "political positions" section currently says: "According to an opinion piece by James M. Lindsay in Newsweek, Rubio was 'Once crown prince of the Tea Party' but has since become a 'hawk and favors immigration reform'.[82]" That is a lot better than citing some vague news report saying that some unidentified people have called him "crown prince" of the tea party. But still, I would delete all this "crown prince" opinion stuff. There are plenty of objective, non-sarcastic analyses of Rubio's overall political stances, including not just the ACU, but also the Almanac of American Politics and National Journal. And in any event, Lindsay says that he isn't the "crown prince" anymore, so that stuff is less significant in the preface to his political positions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to removing this, and I also think the addition of "opinion piece" is awkward and unnecessary, bordering on WP:WEASEL. There was a discussion about this several months ago concerning Senator Rubio being categorized as associated with the Tea Party. I will see if I can find it, because I think it would be helpful.- MrX 19:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a complete contortion of WP:Weasel to suggest that we should not characterize an opinion piece as such, if we are going to use it. Of course, there would be nothing wrong with this article saying that Rubio used to be more closely aligned with the Tea Party, citing reliable sources, but the idea that he is currently known by some people as the "crown prince" of the tea party violates WP:Weasel and is incorrect according to the Newsweek opinion piece.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with removing the quote as long as we capture that he was a prominent Tea Party favorite, or something similar. That would represent the widespread view without needing attribution. Here is the previous discussion thread that I was referring to: Talk:Marco Rubio/Archive 2#Tea Party association.- MrX 19:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would need attribution in a footnote at least. His more recent stances about military and immigration matters have apparently put some distance between himself and the Tea Party, which we could say as well with attribution in a footnote. In the mean time, I don't think this "crown prince" stuff is useful, and certainly should not be attributed to some people, which would be the antithesis of WP:Weasel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we discuss on this talk page an RfC about Rick Perry? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker term?

Wasn't Rubio Speaker of the FL House for only two years (beginning of 2007-end of 2008)? Right now the infobox for this article says "Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives - In office - September 13, 2005 – January 3, 2009". Guy1890 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source, from The National Journal, is currently used in the body of the article to support 2005 as the starting date, but it does look like Ray Sansom assumed SotH in mid-November 2008, (source used on that article: [1]) so that should be fixed. Grayfell (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this Florida Senate document says that he was not speaker during the organizational session held November 18, which combined with Erik Fresen seems like plenty of reason to make the change. I suppose he could've been provisional speaker or something, but November 18 is consistent with other articles, so that is what I put. Grayfell (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, they apparently vote on who should be Speaker of the FL House well before that designee actually takes the office of Speaker. All these quotes are from the first citation in your original above post:
  • "On September 13, 2005, Marco Rubio, then a 34-year-old state legislator from Miami, was officially designated the next speaker of the Florida House of Representatives."
  • "Rubio has been talking a lot about his leadership experiences in Tallahassee. Obama, he told Fox News in March, 'was a backbencher in the state Legislature in Illinois, and I was in leadership all nine years that I served there, including two as speaker of the House.'"
  • "It would be another three years before Rubio would officially be sworn in as speaker" (that was from around late 2003)
  • "During his two years as speaker of the Florida House"
  • "FOR EIGHT YEARS, Jeb Bush—who left office in January 2007, as Rubio was beginning his speakership" Guy1890 (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From that above pdf document, it looks like Rubio's Speaker term started on November 21, 2006 and ended around November 18, 2008. Guy1890 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Hmm... My understanding is that most office holders are dated until their successor is sworn in, unless they specifically resign or such, but I'm not certain about that. Regardless, this should be consistent with 'neighboring' article like those on Sansom and Fresen (which they were not previously). The current starting date overlaps with Allan Bense, so it should be changed. Being selected over a year before taking the position is a surprisingly long time to me, but so be it. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Destroy" the economy

Objectively, the quotes around destroy are unnecessary. This section is stating the candidate's position, not the objective truth.Seansmccullough (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Skepticism

In response to reversion by User:MrX:

I take issue with the text that reads "Rubio has stated that he does not believe that human activity is causing global warming..." This quote seems to contradict the first source, which states that Rubio "won't answer [the question of whether or not man-made activities are causing the changes in the climate] with a yes or no." Your best evidence to back up your stance is the quote in the LA Times, which reads “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” Context is important here. The part that was left out in your edit summary (character limits, I know) is awfully important to understanding the message Rubio is trying to convey. The phrase "the way these scientists are portraying it" suggests that Rubio is challenging the scope or nature of the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change, and not necessarily denying it outright. He is perhaps suggesting that humans play a large role in climate change, but not as large a role as "these scientists are portraying it." In this way, I think it is misleading and factually inaccurate to suggest Rubio has stated that he thinks humans aren't responsible for climate change. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, that Rubio is on record as claiming that climate change is not due to human activity:

"Humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe, for the following reason: I believe the climate is changing because there’s never been a moment where the climate is not changing. The question is, what percentage of that … is due to human activity? If we do the things they want us to do, cap-and-trade, you name it, how much will that change the pace of climate change versus how much will that cost to our economy? Scientists can’t tell us what impact it would have on reversing these changes, but I can tell you with certainty, it would have a devastating impact on our economy."
— Marco Rubio - Face the Nation reported by Washington Post

"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." "
— Los Angeles Times

"I don’t agree with 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. Our climate is always changing. And what they 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 is directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity … I do not agree with that. I don’t know of any era in world history where the climate has been stable. Climate is always evolving and natural disasters have always existed … I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. That’s what I do not, and I don’t think the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy."
— Boston Globe'

His quotes and the third party analysis support the current wording. It's not even skepticism; it's denial. - MrX 13:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marco_Rubio&oldid=677619683

Leave a Reply