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, User:Neutrality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is to balance out the description from the Politico headline as a "House of Horrors," right? If we eliminate the in-text reference to a "House of Horrors," would you be OK with eliminating Kurtz?
Frankly, I think we can safely eliminate both the "House of Horrors" descriptor and the the Kurtz quote. Neutralitytalk 03:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not addressing the issue. After the "House of Horrors" descriptor is removed, that still leaves a massive set of detail that you have inserted and the massive insinuation that Rubio was involved in some kind of scandal or misconduct. Kurtz represents a different point of view.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of friendly editing, I've added back the Kurtz quote, plus an additional quote (also favorable to Rubio), pending discussion: [1].
Also: I am not sure what "massive insinuation" you refer to. If anything, the current language is more favorable to Rubio than before (in large part because I got rid of unsourced material that was there before, such as the bit about him being "questioned" as part of the federal investigation, which was not supported by the sources).
I'm willing to discuss, but I would like you to be specific about what changes you want to see. Neutralitytalk 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adds/edits

FYI - I've been adding/expanding this page (there are some sourcing issues that I've been trying to rectify, plus garden-variety expansion). I understand (obviously) that politicians' pages can get contentious, although I think 90% of what I've added should be unobjectionable to anyone. I am happy to engage here on any points. Neutralitytalk 03:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are making huge changes without any prior discussion. It's fine being bold, but one runs the risk of being reverted that way, especially when many of your edits have removed or altered longstanding material in this BLP. I disagree with some of your edits, and agree with others. Just focusing on Kurtz, we have yet to make any progress. I'm calling it a night. Take care.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am being bold, as is encouraged. If anyone objects, they are free to take issue, and then I'll discuss. But most of these "huge changes" are (1) garden-variety expansion and (2) removal of weakly-sourced material and addition of stronger-sourced material (removing low-quality sources and replacing them with better ones). I anticipate about 95%+ of my changes are uncontroversial. The remaining 5% can be worked out here.
If you have specific issues, let me know and we'll talk it out. Neutralitytalk 03:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material

Eeyoresdream is deleting a substantial amount of content without any discussions. I have restored a few of these deletions, as these are properly sourced and required for NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objections have been raised about the reliability of the source used for the claims regarding Rubio's involvement with spending and regarding the undue nature of the content regarding Rubio's use of a GOP credit card. I agree that that's an excessive amount of content for an issue that was investigated and resolved without blame assigned.CFredkin (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

During his time as Speaker of the Florida House, Rubio shared a residence with another Florida State Representative, David Rivera, which the two men co-owned in Tallahassee. The house later fell into foreclosure. This issue was raised in June 2010, during Rubio's run for the US Senate, but was considered resolved according to Rubio's spokesman

Doh. Of course his spokesman will consider that resolved, but omitting the commentary about that issue as reported in reliable sources is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm ok with removing the last sentence above and just including the bit about it later being sold.CFredkin (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not enough... The sentence does not give any context on why this is relevant to his bio, without the deleted material. This was the original:

During his time as speaker of the Florida House, Rubio co-owned and shared a Tallahassee home with David Rivera, a fellow Republican Florida state representative and "old friend" of Rubio's.[42] (Rivera and Rubio, both "rising stars" in Tallahassee at the time, later briefly lived together in a rented home in Washington after they won seats in Congress.)[42] The home was purchased in March 2005 for $135,000; in 2010, during Rubio's run for the U.S. Senate, the property fell into foreclosure after five months of missed mortgage payments.[42][43] In June 2015, the troubled home was finally sold for $117,000, $8,000 less than the asking price and $18,000 less than the two men paid for ten years previously.[44][45]

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply