Cannabis Ruderalis


Is he eligible?

Yes, his parents eventually achieved US citizenship, but he was born to illegal immigrants. He's an anchor baby. Flight Risk (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn, anyone? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Header

@SovanDara:Regarding this revert (unaccompanied by any edit summary), the header originally said "Early life, education, and political career". I changed it to "early life, education, and entry into politics". The reason I changed it is because the word "early" obviously does not apply to the word "education", and readers might therefore think the word "early" likewise does not apply to the word "political career". This section does not cover much of his political career at all, and this should be indicated in the header. So, I will revert to "early life, education, and entry into politics". This is simply a matter of clarity.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. Template:BLP noticeboard Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes and spending

The article mentions that "Rubio supports an initiative to limit federal spending growth to the per capita inflation rate." What is a per capita inflation rate? The rate at which the population inflates? 2A01:79D:7370:99CC:8172:77E2:71EE:3437 (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've updated the article based on the source.CFredkin (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration section

This is probably one of the few accomplishments of Rubio as a legislator, and deserves more coverage in the article. Please help expand. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is also discussed in the Tenure section.CFredkin (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not enough. A single sentence on his only legislative accomplishment is most definitively not enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes and spending section

That section is unbalanced and not NPOV. His tax plans have been criticized by both the left and the right, and currently we only have content published by the Tax Foundation. If we want to include their opinion, we have to include other views as well for NPOV. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd prefer to keep the projections out entirely. The results inevitably vary widely depending on who's doing the projecting. And the section will become undue indeed if we include all the projections that have been published.CFredkin (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cwobeel that we need more to balance this out. I disagree with CFredkin that we should exclude projections entirely. Even if we were to include all available projections would not overwhelm the article in any way, namely because only a small number of think tanks/institutes release such projections. (I can think of just three off the top of my head: the Tax Foundation (center-right), the Tax Policy Center (centrist), and Citizens for Tax Justice (center-left) + CBO if a plan has been scored, but most haven't). In any case, if we are going to recite a candidate's tax plan, we would be remiss to not include, in brief, what the expected outcome would be... Neutralitytalk 03:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then as a minimum bar for notability, I think we should include content cited by reliable secondary sources.CFredkin (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we describe Rubio's tax plan at all, then it is obviously notable and relevant to include its projected impact according to reputable sources. Right now, the Tax Foundation (generally viewed as right-leaning) is the only such group to have produced a detailed analysis, as far as I'm aware, and I've restored it with attribution. The Tax Foundation analysis has been cited by numerous secondary sources; I included one, to satisfy CFredkin's concern. If some of the other groups listed by User:Neutrality above produce analyses of Rubio's tax plan, then they can be added as well, to give a more balanced overview. MastCell Talk 17:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtz

I object to this edit that removed the analysis by media critic Howard Kurtz. This eliminates a key perspective, namely the perspective that this is a tempest in a teapot. By eliminating that perspective, and expanding details of the matter ad nauseum we create the impression that this was a major scandal involving misconduct by Rubio. Please adhere to WP:NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply