This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Cuba B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Cuba task list: Task list New article announcements: Requests: Ambrosio Cave, Calero Cave, Centella Cave, Cuba and the United Nations, Cuban Liberation Army, Cuevas de Punta del Este, Cura Cave, Patana Cave, Pluma Cave Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba) Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista Update: Nochebuena NPOV: Armando Valladares, Delfín Fernández, History of Cuba Copyedit: Armando Peraza, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Fabio Grobart, Julio Antonio Mella Cleanup: Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, Antonio Maceo Grajales, Bay of Pigs Invasion, History of Cuba, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, War against the Bandits Style: Fidel Castro Expand: Cuba–Soviet Union relations, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba–Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven Florida B‑class Mid‑importance Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Miami B‑class High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Hispanic and Latino B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hispanic and Latino Americans task force (assessed as High-importance). University of Florida B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Florida, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject University of FloridaTemplate:WikiProject University of FloridaUniversity of Florida articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Conservatism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s).

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]

@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]

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

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]

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]

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... Neutrality^talk 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]

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. Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Neutrality^talk 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. Neutrality^talk 03:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Many issues in a politician's live are resolved "without blame assigned", and yet these are relevant issues in a bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But whether this issue should be mentioned is not in dispute. What's in dispute is how much content should be included on that subject. The argument is that, based on how the issue was resolved, the amount of content you're adding is excessive.CFredkin (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive? See for example Tony_Rezko#Real_estate_dealings. And Rezko is not running for president. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great analogy. But I think the more important question is how much of the Rezko material appears in Obama's bio? The answer is one sentence: "The purchase of an adjacent lot—and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer, campaign donor and friend Tony Rezko—attracted media attention because of Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama."CFredkin (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC) There's no discussion about the fact that Obama was able to buy the lot for a below-market price, etc.CFredkin (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

???? How is that relevant? The house mortgage issue or the credit card issue in his article can't be presented in any other article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point...CFredkin (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if the Rezko land deal only merits one sentence in Obama's bio (and doesn't even mention the salient issue of the purchase price of the land), how do you justify including 8 sentences on Rubio's credit card situation (when there's currently 3)?CFredkin (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section tagged as not NPOV. The material is not UNDUE, for a politician running for President. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page section does not identify any particular material. Which material is of most concern? The credit card stuff?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald analysis
2. The credit cards issue
3. The foreclosure of the house in Tallahassee due to missed mortgage payments
4. The eminent domain legislation paragraphs

This is the diff [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professor JR POV tags are there for a reason. Please join in the discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cwobeel. I would add that the wholesale deletions here totally lack any legitimate policy-based reasons. I'll take the paragraphs in order.

1. 1 - This is based on a Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald budget analysis from 2000 to 2008 (Rubio's years in the Legislature). It is highly relevant to understanding a long stretch of his political career. The supposed objection to the "source" of the material is frivolous. Nevertheless, as a compromise, I propose: restoring the material, with an additional mention that the source of the documents was the Florida Office of Policy and Budget.
2. 2 - The credit card material - a big improvement over the very weak, and in some cases inaccurate, summary before. The weak earlier version is terrible includes "questioned" is terrible because there was no evidence that Rubio was questioned. The older version also gives no sense at all of timeline (i.e., when Rubio had the card). It also relies entirely on 2010 and 2012 articles, while the improved version relies on high-quality articles that are more recent (2015). The old version refers generically to a "Republican Party" card, while the new version specifies that it is a Republican Party of Florida card. Most disturbingly, the old version omits the fact Rubio was cleared, but was faulted by an investigator for a level of negligence. In sum, the new version was far superior, and explains - more precisely and using high-quality sources - a major event in Rubio's political life.
3. 3 - The foreclosure material, likewise, was perfectly fine, and a huge improvement over the frankly bad summary given before. The truncated version is devoid of all context whatsoever. It does not explain that Rubio and Riviera were friends. It totally lacks any sense of timeline (such as when they bought the house and when the missed payments). The improved version adds this context and perspective on an important incident that got substantial coverage in 2010 through the present. It complete, if brief, explanation of what happened. No editor has put forth any explanation of why such material is "undue" or improper. Only ipse dixit assertions have been made. Simply not acceptable. The objectors need to explain what specific details they would omit, and why.
4. 4 - The eminent domain paragraphs - unquestionably, my edits to this were a significant improvement. No editor has ever explained the basis for their objections, and I can't think of a single one. The truncated version was inaccurate: it called the committee a "special committee" when it fact it was a select committee. The truncated version omitted the date (2005), the name of the person who appointed Rubio (Allan Bense), the official name of the committee. The new version adds all these details, while adding high-quality sources. (The truncated version also cited only to the National Review). The reflexive reversion back is totally unjustifiable. It boggles the mind, and I am pretty sure any fair-minded, third-party editor would agree.

Neutrality^talk 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

There's now a POV tag atop the section on his tenure as state legislator. Could we please have a brief explanation here at the talk page precisely why the tag is there? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See section above. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "original" version re. the foreclosed house is kind of weird, because the quoted material is not really "original" (e.g. it omits the Kurtz quote that was there for many days, while including new material that IMO gives the matter undue weight).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with Cwobell, above. The "considered it resolved" section is absurd. It manages, ridiculously, to be both obvious and vague. The improved version is far better, as I explain in the section above. Neutrality^talk 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]