Template:BLP noticeboard

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Cuba C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-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 C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Miami C‑class Top‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. University of Florida C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Conservatism C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Water bottle incident section seems to hold little (i.e zero) encyclopedic weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Less than a half-litre, to be sure. Last I looked, most people giving speeches have water at hand. Collect (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's absurd, and about as non-encyclopedic as things get. This isn't a political trivia site. Sure it was covered in some mews media (and even Rubio himself tweeted about it), but even then it barely warrants mention, unless it turns into some kind of meme that sticks around for awhile. For now best to delete IMO, but at a minimum it should be reduced to a brief sentence, at most. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would suggest creating a standalone article on Marco Rubio's water bottle... or, alternately, Marco Rubio creepily excessive thirst incident (2013). After all, the water bottle has been amply covered in numerous reliable sources, and thus its notability cannot be in any serious doubt. Let it join the illustrious ranks of other Wikipedia articles such as Mitt Romney dog incident and you didn't build that, which our fellow Wikipedians in their wisdom have fought so hard to keep from deletion. I mean, yes, having a standalone article on every political meme du jour does make us look utterly ridiculous, but why stop now? MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree, but the real controversy regarding this incident is the left media's obsession with the issue and how they were taken to task for the absurd. Additionally, Rubio used the issue as a fundraising incident. If included it should be from that perspective, which is the only perspective to have any long lasting impact. Arzel (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giving the SOTU response is definitely biographical and worth a mention, and logically the popular reception of the response could be part of that mention, but the whole thing should be no more than two sentences. It definitely should not be its own section, nor should it go into some long back-and-forth with sparring quotations. —Designate (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the so-called Controversies section after I saw an IP edit it before me. The change made by the IP, on the surface, didn't make sense. When I dug deeper, it made more sense, but some of the facts were wrong, so I edited it myself to try to make it make sense and added a tertiary source in addition to the secondary OnTheIssues source (which I'm not crazy about). Collect felt it was misleading and "clarified" it. I don't believe Collect's edit was necessary, but it's unimportant as it did no harm other than to make the sentence mildly ungrammatical.

That's all background, but I have a more important question. Why is this material mentioned at all? It is barely a blip in Rubio's career or personal life, and yet it has its own section absurdly titled "Controversies" (to the extent it's a controversy, it's ony one), which is almost always a red flag as a section header anyway.

Either we should remove it, or we should at least place it somewhere else in the article without its own section.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree -- doesn't seem terribly significant. Has there been some sort of larger episode involving more people, akin to the Parliamentary expenses kerfuffle in the UK? If not, I'd say kill it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage involved is trivial, and is not of major real importance except for "Silly Season" purposes <g>. It is im[ortant, moreover, not to make it seem bigger than it properly is. Collect (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussion, another editor moved it from Controversies to Elections. I don't see how it belongs there, but it's better than where it was, although I still think it's less than noteworthy. I've fixed the sentence to be more accurate about the amounts of money (one article says "over $100,000", and the other says $160,000 (quite a difference, actually), and the $16,000 is approximate). I also fixed the punctuation/grammar issue I vaguely alluded to earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, it's not under "Elections" but under "Florida House of Representatives → Tenure" which is the most logical spot for it. —Designate (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right - my mistake.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I'm the IP you mention. Just for my own information, what facts were wrong in those sentences as I left them? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was with that issues source, which, in turn, led to other sources. The error, which I thought was understandable based on the source, was with the dates. It wasn't in June 2012 that Rubio was "accused"; nor was it in July 2012 that he reimbursed the Party. It was all much earlier. However, you didn't put in the dates; they were there before you edited it. I thought your edits were an improvement over the previous version.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, old man! You are correct—I should have paid more attention to the June and July dates (as you say, they were wrong). The OnTheIssues source is a mess and difficult to negotiate. Shouldn't we delete it from the IRS investigation item since we're solidly sourced to the Tampa Bay Times? I was also wondering if the TBT did a follow-up story mentioning that the IRS "primary" investigation of Rubio's credit card use was closed without developing into a criminal investigation (if that's what in fact happened)—but I'm not holding my breath. And finally, I thought the $160,000 figure covered Feb. 2005 through Nov. 2008 (per Rubio) and the $100,000 related to most of the two years he was Speaker. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] shows repeated desires to use youtube as a source in a BLP. IIRC, claims made in such a video are not regarded as well-sourced. Collect (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just a clip of him talking, it is a valid source for uncontroversial information about his opinions (like citing his campaign website). It's not the best, though, and an independent source would be better. —Designate (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor then changed it to a BBC source which also was not a source for the claim as made - he has now retrreated to the actual rational claim - that Rubio thinks each state should be able to deal with same-sex marriage as it wishes. Collect (talk)

I have made the same claim in a paraphrased form to prevent it being deleted yet again 193.60.182.93 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was covre by the associated press so it should be on the wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.214.75 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP puts a high bar on the watering hole. Hcobb (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a lot of people accusing him of this, but not sure of their notability on the subject.

• http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/24/palin-calls-rubio-an-amnesty-supporter/
• http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/marco-rubio-amnesty-sparks-radio-static-90307.html
• https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/347189/rubio-amnesty

etc. Hcobb (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Senator Rubio is clearly pro-life and has explained why, and his explanations are documented.
• 2. The source On The Issues, which the article cites for a number of Rubio's positions, has an excellent reputation and is one of the better sources we have for political articles and BLP's of politicians.
• 3. Therefore, there is no good reason to delete a phrase from the article stating one of his reasons for opposing Roe, as User:CFredkin has twice done [2] [3]. Nor is there any reason to delete the source that I added giving Rubio's exact quote.

The relevant passage reads as follows; the material that CF deleted (including good sources) is bolded:

Rubio identifies as pro-life.31 He strongly opposes Roe v. Wade,3162 does not believe in the right to privacy that the Supreme Court cited in Roe,3163 and has stated that the "right to life is a fundamental one that trumps virtually any other right I can imagine".62

CF has given changing and dubious reasons for deleting this material.

• CF's first ES said that the material was "unsubstantiated", while at the same time deleting the source for it (!!?!).
• CF's second ES incorrectly said that the two On The Issues pages reference each other (they don't; they reference Rubio's words, and the "privacy" page gives the exact wording he used).
• CF is also unable to find the quote on Rubio's own site. I looked too, and it's evidently no longer there; Rubio has updated his site since he was elected in 2010 (remember, he was saying why he opposed Sotomayor, who was confirmed in 2009). Big shocker there -- a politician updating his website after a campaign (/sarcasm). Sites like On The Issues exist to document and archive politicians' statements, and that site in particular is a good one. There is no reason to doubt its reliability, nor to believe that Rubio has changed his views on abortion (and it would be big news if he did; the GOP base is strongly pro-life).

So there's no good reason, at all, to remove the material in question. The only reason I can think of is a bad one: that Rubio denying a "right to privacy" makes him sound like a bad guy, or something. But that's in the eye of the beholder, and of course such editorial preferences don't dictate content here. I'll restore it now. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the claim is sourced to OnTheIssues, which itself is referencing a page which doesn't exist, it's not valid.CFredkin (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]